To think the level of state involvement many posters expect is bonkers?

[FaeryRing]

It seems like there is nothing the state shouldn’t be responsible for any more! Feeding your kids, getting them to school, hiring ‘behaviour specialists’ for every classroom because parents don’t want to discipline their own children, giving you money towards virtually anything you ask for because it’s not fair you have to pay for anything yourself.. I find it absolutely wild and don’t think it’s at all realistic or representative of what most adults believe?

But who decides who is genuine and who isn't? No one is having children to get benefits and housing I can assure you! My daughter is living on a bed setee in my 2bedroom house with my granddaughter in a cot in my bedroom, along with her brothers in the 2nd bedroom, she didn't choose this, she was abused in every way you can think of, then she found out when the police knocked the door tgat on tip of all her suffering he was a paedophile who is now thankfully in prison. He is allowed no contact with his children or anyone else's thank fuck. My point is she has been living with me for 14months despite being in the emergency housing bracket! Her and my granddaughter with cerebral palsy who has been denied disability payment, too young apparently, are living on £500 a month hardly milking the system is it?

Oh and to add insult to injury he was claiming carers allowance, he didn't declare it to uc, but the first my daughter knew about it was when they tried taking it out of her uc payments, apparently because they had a joint claim when they were together she is now liable for his debt despite her current uc claim only being for her and my granddaughter. She has suffered horrendously and is now paying for gis crime on top of it! It makes me sick! What also makes me sick are the people on this thread who thinks anyone claiming benefit are nothing but scroungers who need to just take responsibility for themselves!

Rant over. I'm off to get ready for work now, have a great day everyone.

I don't think the state should support people who have many many many children; if you want more than a few you need to be really quite rich, afaics. Bad luck, children are expensive in money and time. I don't think the state should pay for children deliberately conceived by singletons for the same reason. You shouldn't bring kids into the world on the basis that they are somebody else's business to provide for. It's shitty for the children as much as anybody else. Also why would you want your baby to be 50% irresponsible selfish man who doesn't want them?

It's a tricky problem because what society needs is men who want to be husbands and fathers and can earn enough money to provide while women do baby rearing, and as a society we don't succeed in encouraging that ambition or the decent living wage that would help achieve it, noticeably in the poorer sector of society.

The thing with DLA is that it goes off how the disability impacts you not what the disability is so it is often very difficult to claim for a very young child as they all needed high level of care
So to be successful in a claim you need to clearly evidence, what care your Granddaughter needs above and beyond that of a typical child of the same age
I obviously don't know how the cerebal palsy affects your Grandaughter ,but your daughter might find a claim is more successful as your Grandaughters needs become more apparent.

Thank you, she has been told this and I said when we were filling out the form that the question were stupid because all 2 year olds need that level of care. I don't want to go into details which is understandable.

@ChishiyaBat DLA is for extra costs associated with teh disability. If all 2 year olds need that level of care then there are no extra costs.
Your housing situation is terrible though.

‘No one is having children to get benefits and housing I can assure you’

Thats just not true. As an example, there will be many more, I know Of people who did just that. Ended up with 7 children as ‘had to backfill’ when one got too old for CB. Couldn’t do that now. Though when if Labour come on it’ll start again.

I’m not sure if it’s ’having kids to get a house and benefits’ or ‘knowing if they have kids they won’t have to worry about a house and benefits’. It may not be the actual aim but they know they won’t really have to take responsibility for the kids they produce, so the decision to have a baby is taken much much more lightly than it used to be

Yes I’m sure it’s that too, for sure.

The reality is most councils don't have spare houses to give out, nor is there a supply of private rent availability either, as LLs leave the sector or refuse benefit tenants.

So women with kids will either end up in a B&B or a hostel.

Plymouth Council allocates approx 150 3 bed houses per year, the waiting list is over 11500.

The costs of temp housing is so great that they are borrowing 10s of millions to buy private property as its cheaper.

Give women better economic prospects and they will chose not to have fewer children later.

If you are comparing you having to sleep on the sofa because you have kids and my DH having to sleep on the sofa due to his disabilities having kids is a choice. Disability isnt.

@XenoBitch

Anyone poor would not say such nonsense. If you are poor you know getting a council place is hard and you are more likely to be stuck in temporary accommodation that no one would choose to live in. Okay they are not on the streets, but they will not be in a good situation.

Where the hell did I mention your husband sleeping on the sofa? I was talking about myself. Didn't even know you had a disabled husband who slept on the sofa? Did you mention it in another comment? Because I was responding to your comment saying you rent from a housing association not the council. I haven't read every single comment you posted here.
I apologise if I offended you though

Sorry i didnt realise you hadnt seen it. It is on the thread

And where do you find several thousand spare civil servants to actually do that processing? It's not always about the money.

But this proves there ARE people who milk
the system - like this absolute arsehole!

you and your daughter aren’t part of that, clearly. But you know someone directly who is.

“Why shouldn't the wealthy pay more tax? unearned income attracts just 20%, yet the investor could be earning v large amounts of money”

they pay significantly more tax already. That’s fine. They shouldn’t pay more than they do, because they will leave and then people will really be fucked.

Easy, we're constantly being told that most of the asylum seekers are highly qualified/educated and want to work in the UK, so they can be given jobs to process others. Win win!

Sorry, but IMO your post is ill-informed. Thousands of people make the choice to have kids when they are not in stable relationships, because they know they won't have to take financial responsibility for them. It's shitty, because those children will likely be brought up in some level of poverty, and will find it hard to break the cycle - it is possible, but hard.

@Giraffesandbottoms

they pay significantly more tax already. That’s fine. They shouldn’t pay more than they do, because they will leave and then people will really be fucked.

Exactly. Look at the rumours re the multi millionaire Tyson Fury apparently relocating to the Isle of Man. So, do we think he's going there for the weather, the steam trains, the horse trams or maybe it's because the Island is our closest tax haven? Answers on a postcard!

You’re comparing two entirely different things. Just to give you an excuse to bash pensioners. Again. 🙄

Yup, that's evident when we see them arriving (literally) by the boatload - you look and think, "thank goodness, some lovely, gentle, mild-mannered, well-educated, stable men to integrate, work hard and save the country" 😂

Reeves has already said they’ll retain the two child cap.

I think the days of people thinking having DC will get them a council house are long gone but still, many people do have kids that they can't afford to support and do rely on the state to do so.

And we all know someone or many people who did just that.

I know several. One is a woman who had 3 kids before she was 21. The DP fucked off, she met a new bloke who relocated to move in with her after a few months of knowing each other. He has a DC from a previous relationship he doesn't see.

They went on to have 3 kids together and married. He does work full time but she doesn't as she said the UC money she lost meant she was only better off £200 a month when she worked part time so she'd rather be a SAHM. And they have a 4 bed housing association property.

All fine IMO. BUT she moans constantly about her house not being nice enough, about the NHS, benefit systems and the schools not meeting her wants when the demands she places on those services are extreme.

When she's barely contributed to 'the system' at all, her family costs 'the system' ££££ and all she does is complain about it.