To think unversal credit is a disaster *trigger warning*

[jnfrrss]

This just popped up in my feed. Talking about someone that had an abortion as they wouldn't be able to afford the child without credits. It's not just an isolated issue, a charity says they've had a huge increase in women contacting about abortions as now they won't be able to afford to have any more children. I'm not sure what the answer is but this is very worrying

www.mirror.co.uk/money/it-wasnt-planned-very-wanted-12480380

Gosh, teacher you think we should just shut up? That we have no dignity? I work full time with 2 part time seasonal jobs on the side. One of those jobs is teaching, the other two,are tutoring and exam marking. I am still able to claim tax credits and am very proud to do so and very grateful they exist because they make a huge difference to our lives. I wo pn’t shut up because people like you think I should. I know that thousands of people out there aren’t as lucky as me. I understand circumstance and life chances are not an equal thing. But most of all I refuse to be invisible because I offend you -and others - because of my existence and what I do to get by makes you stop and think, even if just for a second, and then dismiss me as a liar or mentally ill because you can’t contemplate that benefit claimants don’t fit your stereotype.

Teacher, I've just read your post and I really hope you're not entrusted with educating our children. I can't believe you're that blinkered.

We don't all have ideal starts no. I didn't either. What I did realise quite early on though was that my starts, however 'not ideal' were better by far than a lot of other people. Shit happens and sometimes it sticks to people, drags their lives down a notch, then another and it spirals. A really insignificant thing to some can have untold consequences for somebody else.

Your post is horrible. So smug and condescending and the bit about 'should be grateful' made me wish there was such an idiotic thing as 'karma' and for it to say, "hold my beer a minute, someone needs a bit of a jolt". It's clear that there is no such thing though, just incredible luck for a few and the rest of us are on a giant 'snakes and ladders' game but some of us have crampons and some of us don't.

For me this isn't really about the 2-child cap; if that's what we have to have then so be it, BUT it really is about all the people already HERE. If they are in need of support they should have it, no ifs, buts or maybes - and not these soul-destroying hoops. I would love it if a 'Trading Places' scenario happened to some of the 'elite' politicians and they actually had a significant spell of real life need of this 'support', watching their families flounder and struggle. It would soon be changed, as all things are when those with power don't like something.

Unlike some of the very erudite and eloquent posters here, I haven't a clue of how we should change this or how best we can but I think at the very least we can stop be sneering and smug about how 'we've don't things right - and you haven't'. That's despicable.

Teacher22
I am ill. I was a lecturer. I have four children, whom I could afford when able to work. They are adults now so I don't get anything for them as they are either at work/uni. Your comments on shrill entitlement, along with Boxsets comments on being grateful are disgusting. We are not a feudal society required to be grateful to master and church for alms. Many of us are people who have contributed a significant amount to society, in the way of taxes, jobs, charity work etc. Many of us continue to do what we can despite severe disability and pain. How dare you suggest that we should doff our caps and be grateful for what little we receive. I have every intention of continue to use my shrill entitlement to ensure people with disabilities do not lose essential monies. I am not sorry that the offends you, although I suspect in cases such as yours and boxsets it's a fear. If you can't see it it doesn't exist and when people like me bring it home, it makes it real and something you have to acknowledge. I sincerely hope it doesn't ever happen to you, but if it does, be shrill because there are others like you who need to have the realities explained.

The Tories designed it to be a disaster, so that one day that they can get the backing of the public to get rid of the benefits system as far as I can see.

Also re commute past subsidised housing and your diatribe on that smeaton. It’s certainly true that pre cap you had to be on a really high income or get housing benefit to afford to rent in a lot of London. I have a family member who happily rented a million pound house on housing benefit in north London. When the cap came in she was horrified that she might have to move out to the same area as me. In the end she got a job in a shop to avoid the cap. She could never afford to live in that area if she had to pay for it herself. I am not sure of the benefits to society as a whole of paying for some people to live in an area that most working people could not afford.

There’s definitely a housing crisis in London (and maybe elsewhere). I would be in a favour of large scale social house building. But not everyone can have everything they want. We can’t all live in Westminster/Hampstead/ etc. We would get better value for money focusing social house building in commuter areas and I don’t see any problem with that.

A further one million children from working families in poverty

zsa. I find it unlikely that your friend rented a million pound property on housing benefit, but expand please? Was she sharing? Did she have a family? Was she renting alone? If so, how did she manage such a property on shop wages?
There has always been a limit on housing benefit.

If a person needed welfare as no other option they would be humbled and grateful for the safety net in times of need

I’ve been trying to work out what irritates me about views like yours and you’ve just summed it up neatly for me.

The need to make people feel like they should bow and scrape and be forever grateful to you and other taxpayers. It’s as if being on benefits gives you the right to belittle, sneer, look down upon and demand gratitude from them. As if they’re sub human. And that’s what irritates me.

Smeaton lots of people who work struggle too

Yes, they do. Because of the same government that have buckled the welfare system, because the system is set up to favour the elite and the mega rich. I can’t believe people are too stupid or self obsessed to see this. Good grief.

I am not sure of the benefits to society as a whole of paying for some people to live in an area that most working people could not afford.
There’s definitely a housing crisis in London (and maybe elsewhere). I would be in a favour of large scale social house building. But not everyone can have everything they want. We can’t all live in Westminster/Hampstead/ etc. We would get better value for money focusing social house building in commuter areas and I don’t see any problem with that.

But as I said upthread, how would that work? The wealthy people in Westminster want to have childcare, cleaners, coffee served to them etc. Even if you built social housing in the commuter areas, how would someone on a cleaner's salary afford the rail fares, even if they wanted to spend over an hour on a train just to clean someone else's house for the minimum wage?

And not just cleaners etc. There is currently a massive recruitment crisis for paramedics in London because paramedic wages don't cover London housing. Schools in some areas are struggling to get teachers. London as a cultural hub is dying - the art auctions are moving north. The city is suffering as a whole for the belief that only the rich should live there.

I struggled to make ends meet for a few years, counting my pennies, having to decide between food or electricity. I was working, not on benefits but it just didn't pay enough.
We now have two incomes, one reasonable, one good - and we cannot afford another child. We don't take holidays, we do have two cars but they are both ancient, we don't drink or smoke and I can't remember when I last bought clothes for me.
I'm not saying this to say "poor me", we're happy - we have our own home and our health etc - but I do feel a bit like well, it's not just those on benefits who have to make decisions about how many kids they can afford. We are capped by our income, we could have more kids but it would mean it would be a struggle rather than getting by.

This to me is a separate issue from UC. My work is mainly based with families on benefits and have seen first hand how it effects those most vulnerable. I think it's intention was to target those few who manipulate the system - the ones that channel 5 make documentaries about... They absolutely exist, are in the minority but take up the majority of the work load. They also are not affected by UC changes generally as guess what! They manipulate the system!

It is the rest who are negatively affected, the cuts to the services mean that they are not helped as we are too busy dealing with those few causing issues and it is generally failing all round.

Great Post wendycastle , we are ALL 'capped' in some way. Either by our own incomes or by the income supplied by the tax payer via welfare. If a working non benefit dependent couple can't afford a third child then why should someone who is dependent on benefit/uc ?

My questions around this issue though are these.

Why does contraception appear to 'fail' with such regularity to people on lower incomes/ benefit dependent. ? There is no difference in basic biology, - poorer people aren't in anyway more 'super fertile' The quality of the contraceptives are no different in socially more deprived areas of the country. Yet the ONS study of 2014 comparing family size by socio economic group shows a massive disparity in the percentage of mothers having three or more children in the under 30s age group. With poorer mothers far outstripping the wealthier mothers who can afford another child with independent means. That gap closes in the over 30s. (But still higher for the poorer mother) But this still leaves the observation that the richer ones can afford a child and the poorer ones can't. Yet the same decision is made.

This begs the question. Why do mothers without the financial means to bring up another child, opt for more children when mothers who can afford it without state help, choose not to. ?

I do not believe this story of 'contraceptive failure' being to blame. It simply doesn't add up. Of course there are going to be individual examples of contraception issues but ultimately, why does this affect poorer people more than richer ones ? The biology is no difference and the quality of contraception is no different. The only differing factor is choice. Given that 'accidents happen' why do poorer mothers 'choose' to continue a pregnancy in greater numbers than richer ones ? It has to be choice. And that choice is influenced by how they will pay for the child. Without a cap, that is a choice made easier by others paying for that choice.

There are other issues as well, that centre around education . These are not popular things to read but it doesn't make them any less true. Educational attainment is directly related to improved economic attainment. Better educated women understand that their families have far better opportunities if there is more money for each child. Therefore they decide to have fewer children until they can afford more. Again a choice but a choice made independent of reliance on no one but immediate family.

Benifits should primarily be for all the people who genuinely need it & not seen as a full time vocation or way of life for popping out a dozen kids (in some cases) & working harder at avoiding work, than actually working.

There is a class of person that we all know exists (male or female) that does not want to work & are basically lazy spongers who see it as a way of life & in some cases end up better off than those of us that work. That's plain wrong. Personally i think anyone who doesn't want to work at a proper job to help support themselves & their kids, should not be allowed to have anymore than 3 children, after that they should be forcefully sterilised if they have the mentality that they can spend a lifetime on benifits whilst the rest of us work our asses off!

Good post @font.

Tax credits for three children (before the cap obviously) were available to families earning up to £40K, so I hate the argument by politicians that 'unemployed families should have to make the same decisions about their families as workers' Makes no sense since a huge number of working families will be effected by the cap (often with both parents doing the maximum possible hours)

@font

Many women with hectic and unstable lives may have limited contact or trust with health professionals and struggle with many types of contraception. There needs to be more education and awareness about semi-permanent types of contraception, and these should be given on the spot, instead of needing two appointments as you often do to get a coil or implant. There should also be free morning after pills on demand at every pharmacy. These measures alone would prevent many unplanned pregnancies.

But there are obviously deeper problems as earlier posters have said, around education and opportunity. So if we allow womens' children to be brought up in poverty, the cycle is likely going to continue.

Tax credits brought 800,000 children out of poverty. Now all that progress undone, and its cost billions. It's tragic.

I got pregnant on the pill but it was my own fault - mental health was very bad and I woukd forget to take my pill for say 2 days, then double dose etc. Sometimes I would sleep all day and not take it until the evening.

Then... Pregnancy

Even the most impoverished have to pay 50% of their council tax bill.

Now this isn't true. Many private landlords play the system and set their rents at the LHA, ensuring their benefit tenants' rent is fully paid by HB.

I pay exactly £0 in CT.

Many women with hectic and unstable lives may have limited contact or trust with health professionals and struggle with many types of contraception. There needs to be more education and awareness about semi-permanent types of contraception, and these should be given on the spot, instead of needing two appointments as you often do to get a coil or implant. There should also be free morning after pills on demand at every pharmacy. These measures alone would prevent many unplanned pregnancies.

I worked for 2.5 years on the government sexual health and teen pregnancy strategy

One of the key pillars of this was promotion of LARCs in addition to condom usage

The issue with contraception is the gap between perfect and typical use

Combined and mini pill when used correctly are more than 99% effective. However typical use is around 91% because lots of women don't take it exactly when they should

Depot jab is more than 99% effective with perfect use. Typical use is around 91% because people don't always go back to get it redone when it's due

Other LARCs have minimal difference between perfect and typical use because there's limited margin for user error

IUD (copper) and IUS (mirena) are more than 99% effective.

The implant is more than 99% effective

Typical use is about the same because they last for so long

Condoms are 98% effective with perfect use but failure rate is actually very high - typical use is actually only 82% effective

The increasing use of the implant was a significant driver of the reduced teen pregnancy rate (amongst many other factors)

I'm sure there are poster who will pile in and say how they got pregnant on the coil / implant, but the fact is that at a population level, fewer than one woman in 100 will get pregnant on these forms of contraception. When doubled up with condom usage the chances are miniscule.

However failure rates do happen - and the system needs to acknowledge it. But it also needs to be acknowledged that many contraceptive failures are due to user error. Therefore I entirely agree that making LARCs and emergency contraception free and much more easily accessible is absolutely critical

Tax credits brought 800,000 children out of poverty. Now all that progress undone, and its cost billions

And how many of those were born exactly because of tax credits?

If we want to eradicate child poverty then the best thing to do is stop children being born into it in the first place not out a sticking plaster over the issue.

Tax credits solved nothing, they just created a generation who played the system for maximum gain for the least effort and it won't have had any impact on education, aspirations etc.