AIBU to think parents on benefits shouldn’t be allowed to have more children until they’re financially independent?

[Tellitasitisss]

I can’t help but wonder why people who are already on benefits are still choosing to have more children. Surely if you can’t afford to support the children you already have, it’s unfair (on the kids and taxpayers) to keep adding more into the mix?

I’m not talking about people who’ve fallen on hard times unexpectedly, or someone who loses their job. That can happen to anyone. I mean those who have never worked a day in their life, keep having baby after baby, and then expect everyone else to fund everything from housing to school meals.

Meanwhile, working households who are just scraping by get absolutely nothing, yet are footing the bill for those who keep expanding their families with no thought for the consequences.

AIBU to think there should be a cap — no more kids funded by benefits after the first two, unless you can afford them yourself? Or is that “punishing children” like people always say?

I’ve also said upthread to someone I would never judge anyone who genuinely needs benefits so I’m not focusing on the lazy ones. The point of my question to the poster was why can’t someone who is physically able to work, not work? Why can’t they get a job at any point between the age of 16-65? But you keep talking about things you can’t see or reasons that aren’t apparent to the outside world… I’m not talking about them yet you keep mentioning them. So considering I’m not talking about the same people you are no I’m not getting het up. The fact you keep derailing what I’m actually talking about suggests you’re possibly the one getting het up

OK then 😂😂😂

It seems reasonable for the minimum wage to provide a minimal standard of living to the wage earner. To set it to provide a comfortable standard of living for both the wage earner and their family (how ever many people that might be) is not at all realistic.

Well, there have been periods in recent history when it was realistic that wages would cover a family with one breadwinner, judging by the rise in home ownership in the 80s and 90s for example, alongside the expansion of the "middle classes".

Interesting that you're almost positing minimum wage as something punitive. Not everyone has the prospect of aspiring to greater things, this is a feature of our brand of capitalism, not a bug, and some people will be subsisting on minimum wage, doing the hard yet valuable jobs that underpin our infrastructure. Is it right and fair that they should have difficulty meeting basic living standards, and need government top ups, and be castigated for that when they are caught up in a system that has eroded social mobility and equality of opportunity, via such disastrous policies as"austerity" (aka routing as much money into the hands of the already well off and off-shoring corporations with the complicity of government).

I think I've heard it all now. Minimum wage should actually be a subsistence wage.

Not always.
Condoms are 98% effective. The pill is 99% effective if used perfectly, but people are imperfect, so in reality it is about 93% effective. So if 10,000 couples all use both methods to be extra-safe, you could still expect 14 pregnancies a year from that population. Possibly more, actually, as there might be significant overlap between the population who can't use a condom properly and the group who don't follow all the directions for the pill, which would increase the probability of unplanned pregnancy.

The problem is minimum wage isn’t enough. Those that are on it need top ups because minimum wage doesn’t cover the cost of living. I’m not talking about luxuries I just mean the basics like housing, bills and food. Surely minimum wage should be enough to cover these

If you work full time at minimum wage, you will earn £23,800 pa. This is enough to support a basic standard of living for an individual in any part of the country.

It isn't enough to support dependants (such as children or a non-earning partner) and nor should it be. It's simply the bare minimum to support a single individual in full time employment.

YANBU because it is crazy...the only families I know having 5+ kids are on benefits...I know someone with 6 kids who has been given a house that costs over 2m privately (I know because I am buying atm)

Enough to support a basic standard of living? Have you seen the cost of housing these days??

Basic accommodation (lodging, flatshare etc.) is still affordable on f/t minimum wage pay.

I think more than a few people don't realise that if they don't get work, and a work history, when they're young, and it's relatively easy to get a job (any job), it gets a lot harder, sooner rather than later, to get on the treadmill that is regular paid employment.

If an employer has a choice between a 23 year old that has a regular work history, the usual stuff, like tutoring, retail work, hospitality work, that shows they know how to work, how to deal with crappy jobs, co workers, and customers, that sort of thing, and a 23 year old that has absolutely zilch, because they have been supported throughout their life, doing what they want, when they want, who is an employer going to choose?

So, if you don't get that early work under your belt, yes, it gets harder to get work even just a little later in life, which can significantly impede your ability throughout that 16-65 year period.

Is that before or after tax?

So basically your saying that you need to earn a certain amount to be allowed to have a child. So if a lot less people were.having children, there would be a massive drop in the population and a country full of old people. Look at South Korea, with a birth rate of 0.7. Where will the money come from to fund pensions for the every increasing older population. Less young people = a lot less Tax.

I agree that people should not be having more children when on full benefits but if you stopped all those even getting smalll top ups, the population would tumble. Rents are like 2k a month in the south east.

I'm deeply sceptical that that's the case everywhere in the country. Do you have any figures to back that up?

There's been a cap on two children since 2017.
In the UK.
Unless you're posting from the USA?
Or Australia? Do they have benefits in Australia?

I kind of agree, but in a way that this isn't actually about the cost of benefits for me (drop in the ocean compared to tax evasion by the wealthy) but about the baby themselves.

In my job we constantly come across people bringing more and more children into completely chaotic or dangerous situations and it just depresses the hell out of me. That baby didn't ask to be born and most likely struggle for life due the crappy situation of their childhood.

Prob not what you mean but applies in a way to the "never ever" worked portion of benefit claimants - just stop having more kids and deal with the ones you have ffs!

Just go on spareroom and look for yourself. Or realise that millions of students, immigrants, and single workers with no dependants - none of whom have any access to any sort of top-ups - manage to make it work. After NI and income tax someone on f/t minimum wage takes home £1,600 pcm. That's obviously not a fortune, but it will cover very basic accommodation anywhere in the UK, while leaving enough for essentials.

But of course, the people that are required to perform the work that enables society to function, taxes to be paid, and profits to be made, are also wanted to create further people to continue to fulfill those roles. It isn't just a want of the individual, but a need for the society.

It’s easy to say these things but we can’t just go around castrating and sterilising poor people. Taking away the financial “incentive” may decrease the amount of poor people having children but they will still do so.

Exactly. We're gradually sliding back to a Victorian-style society imo (a mindset that the rich are to be looked up to, the poor must be humble and deserving etc etc) and it's really alarming.

If on benefits she’ll be entitled to 2 kids only on UC and you might find the house couldn’t sell so being rented and that’s capped too by the councils in all areas

the only thing not curtailed is child benefit