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

A friend got pregnant twice in spite of using condoms - incorrectly as they burst, and then the morning after pill.
Amongst the mothers I know, at least half had their first kid due to a contraceptive failure.

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

By putting the children who used to have just enough into a position where they don’t have anything like enough?

That’s almost reminiscent of a not so distant regime that wanted an Aryan race.

We are judged as a society by how we treat our most vulnerable members. And by that reckoning, we are failing. It’s abhorrent.

People who would see children suffer just so they can be “right” and feel morally superior make me sick. It’s highly ironic that they’re usually the ones taking the moral high ground, given that they have no morals, or empathy or even decency.

So all of you who are happily praising the merits of the Tory regime, I sincerely hope that one day you know how it feels to have jack shit and that nobody gives a shit. Because you are sickening.

HB and CTS are not the same thing.

Unless you are on support group WAS or similar, maximum CTS IS 91.5% of the council tax bill.

Even on JSA, people are expected to pay 8.5% of their council tax bill

A friend got pregnant twice in spite of using condoms - incorrectly as they burst, and then the morning after pill.
Amongst the mothers I know, at least half had their first kid due to a contraceptive failure.

Yes. That's the point about condoms - the gap between perfect use and typical use (due to condoms bursting etc) is pretty large

If your friends were all on LARCs then that is tremendously unlucky indeed.

Condoms plus a LARC even taking into account max failure rate, you're looking at statistically less than 0.001% of a pregnancy if using both

The stats are at a population level. I don't know a single person amongst my peers who had a contraceptive failure. So the plural of anecdotes isn't data

If you can't afford children you shouldn't have them. People shouldn't be allowed, whilst on benefits all their lives to just pump out one kid after another and expect the state to pay for them.

• yes accidents etc happen, I'm not taking about them. I'm talking about those that deliberately get pregnant because of the benefit system. I used to be a debt collector and loads of my 'clients' had several babies because of the money!

And by the state of their houses and the dc's the money wasn't being spent on either.

By putting the children who used to have just enough into a position where they don’t have anything like enough

You can't seem to get past the fact that if that happens it's the responsibility of the parents, no one else. I'd walk over hot coals for my children and would do anything necessary to feed and house them in bad times.

Not everyone who disagrees with child related benefits is rich but would just rather parents supported them rather than tax income which could be used to so much better effect than paying irresponsible parents who won't support their children. It would be far better to have universal free childcare for all workers then everyone is on an equal footing i.e. If they want a child then they support it be it one or five. Obviously it would have some caveats to catch people in bad times for future changes in health.

You can't seem to get past the fact that if that happens it's the responsibility of the parents, no one else

And if there are no jobs? High rents? Zero hour contracts which don’t offer job security?

You seem to think it’s as simple as working and thus having enough. You haven’t got a clue about reality.

And what I mean by that is that you have a ridiculously simplistic view of reality that just doesn’t match with actual reality.

If there was affordable housing, plentiful jobs (with security) and decent wages I’d be fully in agreement with all the benefit cuts (apart from pensions and disability benefits - they should be sacrosanct). But there isn’t, and the Tories have no intention let alone plans to change that, so all they’re doing is putting people into poverty and offering no means of them getting themselves out of it.

Because their own policies allow sky high rents, they don’t build social housing, they haven’t implemented a living wage, banned zero hour contracts or ensured that trade and industry (the biggest employers which when they went bust in the 80s left many areas devastasted in every way) is rising.

So you see, you can dress it up however you like. There aren’t the options there used to be, and until there is infrastructure in place to ensure people can support themselves (removed by the 80s Tories) then all they are doing is pandering to people like you who are so detached from reality they’ve convinced themselves it’s all ok.

It’s not about wanting children to suffer, and I hate this emotive tugging at the heartstrings which people resort to on these threads.

It’s a clear and interesting fact that the better educated women are, and the more aspirational, the fewer children they will have. Obviously that’s a generalisation... there are very high achieving women who choose to have large families, and support them without reliance on tax credits or benefits. But the pattern is, generally, educate women, provide them with aspirations beyond just breeding children, and they will choose to limit their family.

Oh @Smeddum, you do like to dramatise things. What rubbish to compare reducing the birth rate with Nazi idealogy.

@LifeBeginsAtGin really?

So assertions that only those who are deemed to be “appropriate” should be having children isn’t similar? Or that people in need shouldn’t be abandoned in their time of need? Or that they’re somehow worth less, or aren’t fit to be part of society?

I fail to see the difference.

It’s not about wanting children to suffer, and I hate this emotive tugging at the heartstrings which people resort to on these threads

It’s not emotive tugging at the heartstrings to say that there are many thousands of hungry children in the UK right now. It’s not tugging at heartstrings to say that poverty destroys lives and means that children are facing a hard life.

It’s fact. The fact you don’t like it is irrelevant. Do something about it then.

Some parents are disabled and cannot work. Should they get no benefits?

It’s not about wanting children to suffer

That too is irrelevant. They are. Because of views like yours.

Then the children of those parents need to step up. They created them, they need to support them and ensure they can provide the basics of food, heat and shelter.

Yes rents are high, zero hour contracts exist etc but the fact is people still choose to reproduce anyway without the slightest thought about finances or the effects it will have on those children. If the parents don't care enough them harsh measures are needed to force responsibility.

Children are a choice, regardless of the background of the adult they are a choice. We don't live in a country that demands people to reproduce. We are responsible for own own life choices. Nobody else.

@BoxsetsAndPopcorn do you have some kind of crystal ball? Can you predict the future?

Because none of us knows if we’ll always be financially secure, nobody can predict illness, disability, redundancy or other life changing circumstances. So your point is irrelevant.

Of course they cat but you can take precautions like insurance, have savings etc. It's also not hard to work out how many you could provide for if you lose a salary etc.

You'd have to be extremely naive to believe everyone claiming is now doing so because of disability or redundancy.. Poor parental choices will by far be the biggest factor.

There are many hungry children in the UK right now because their mother had a child without thinking about how THEY would finance them without state benefits.
There was a point, when they realised they COULD be pregnant.. or a point just before they got pregnant when they had choices. To stop having sex without adequate, correctly used contraception or just after when the MAP could be employed. But no, the decision to have a child is regarded THEIR right that WE have to pay for.

Poor parental choices will by far be the biggest factor

State your source? Because you haven’t thus far. Or responded to the facts posted by Smeaton.

There are many hungry children in the UK right now because their mother had a child without thinking about how THEY would finance them without state benefits

Misogynistic twaddle. Men and women make a child, so it’s not just women. There are children with working parents in poverty because of the same regime. So you’re just slavering shite based on propaganda. It’s a bit pathetic really, especially given actual facts carefully written upthread.

Today 13:49 Smeddum

‘It’s not about wanting children to suffer’

That too is irrelevant. They are. Because of views like yours.

I didn’t actually give any viewpoint.

I stated the FACT that when women are educated, supported to develop aspirations and gain access to better jobs, they tend to have fewer children.

The fact that you smeddum, instinctively make all sorts of assumptions about what I might think, speaks volumes about you.

To put it bluntly, calm the fuck down and start actually reading posts rather than bleating on about what you think the rest of us think.

@Momo27 dismissing facts as “emotive tugging on heartstrings” spoke volumes. You’re not as impartial or as unbiased as you’d like to think.

I think a lot of people on here making a lot of excuses.
The reality is, that the UC System is shite. But I don't think that it is designed to "harm" people / children. It's more about encouraging people to take responsibility for their own lives.
It's a big change, the way it's handed out, calculated and assessed. Let's face it, nobody likes change... especially if it hits their pockets.
I wish there were as many threads about inflation as there are about benefits, because that effects everyone big time!

So assertions that only those who are deemed to be “appropriate” should be having children isn’t similar? Or that people in need shouldn’t be abandoned in their time of need? Or that they’re somehow worth less, or aren’t fit to be part of society?

I've seen a great deal of discussion of how very bad it is when wealthy Westerners have large families because they carry much larger footprints (no room for disagreement there).

The tide is turning against bigger families in general. Please bear in mind this is a discussion about >2 children.

What are universal credits? I'm from the u.s. can you please explain what that is?