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?

The spermicide that you use with the cap can give you terrible thrush.

Then there's all those not receiving any benefits like universal credit but who qualify for free childcare hours...which are a benefit.

Most families with 2 full-time working parents, I professional carers, struggle to afford childcare. Should they also not have children until they can comfortably afford childcare without claiming free hours from the government?

Is this going the way you hoped yet OP?

I'm sick to death of constant Daily Mail type inflammatory threads on here.

So forced castration or letting those children who did not ask to be here live in poverty? What does funding it mean? Not allowed to use any public services or just no child benefit or no UC and free childcare hours?

How much extra does a family get when they have a 3rd compared chold to having two?

Child Benefit stops at £80,000. So the OP’s master plan is mandatory sterilisation for everyone earning less than £80,000 per year.

There's already a cap. I get what you mean though, I do roll my eyes when I see someone say they're in a 1 bed flat with 3 kids and pregnant again asking how to get a bigger house. Contraception is free and there's so many options, no excuse.

I think the Op means benefits such as universal credit, and there is a two child cap for that and has been since 2017.

Isn’t it £60k?

Some people will never not need benefits, housing costs and taxes often outstrip full time minimum wages jobs.

Until we look at increasing social housing levels, and rent capping, benefits will firmly remain in place.

Not everyone is going to have the earning power to completely pay their own way, and we need people in service roles. Are they not meant to have children?

We are paying for Thatchers right to buy failed housing scheme. Fix housing, and make it affordable.

Agree, it's getting worse.

There’s a word for preventing people you consider socially undesirable from reproducing. It was pretty big in the 1930s and 40s.

You may not agree with it but we don’t get to decide if someone else has children based on arbitrary income limits decided by the government.

Oh come on OP. Say what you really think. That the 2 child benefit cap doesn’t go far enough and the poors should be sterilised as soon as they sign on. 🙄

But they can choose not to get pregnant?

Why are you suggesting something that is already in place?

Don't be daft there is no way to enforce that
Unless your thinking along the lines of China's one child policy,and look how that turned out .
You can't police people's sex lives ,you can't force women to have abortions
It's a none starter op ..not going to happen

As a Care Proceedings and Family Law solicitor who has acted for the same parent(s) more than once, resulting in the removal of a baby, yes baby - which brings its own generational trauma and issues further down the line (I have one client who is about to have her 3rd child removed), i can truly, truly say that sometimes, it is better for there not to be a pregnancy in the first place.

I know from a professional perspective that there are far, far too many people who will never better their lives, will keep on having children, will remain wholly funded by the state and Legal Aid for when they end up back in proceedings and will keep perpetuating the cycle of children being neglected, harmed and not being given a decent start in life due to choices made by their parent(s).

The human cost is colossal.

There is some merit to asking the question, how can we break the cycle?

Are all these threads real? There’s a benefit bashing thread a day on here.

For UC etc there is a two child limit apart from a few strict exemptions. Child benefit is based on income, no limit on number of children. Lots of people, like the working families you mentioned, get child benefit and qualify for 30 hours childcare and tax free childcare, should they not have had their children either? Where do you want to draw the line?

I think the UK is far too quick to give out benefits for a lot of things. The entire system needs serious reform so that it's easier to access for people who genuinely need it and much more difficult to abuse.

I get what you mean but at the same time, people that knowingly can't afford children yet keep having more have to take care of them somehow. The kids can't be punished for something they haven't done. It's also no secret that there are some people out there who genuinely think they will get "free housing" etc if they have more kids

Aside from the financial element, I do agree people who can't care for the children they have shouldn't have more. My husband works in youth criminal justice/mental health the young people he works with often come from very dysfunctional families and yes they do seem to keep having children when they can't care for those they have even with social care involvement etc. Not sure how to overcome that though, these are adults making repeated bad choices and they are well aware of the situation for their current children, have often had them removed albeit temporarily (sometimes permanently but that usually results in new babies also being removed very early), been on parenting courses etc, lots of agency input all round. The sad thing is it's a cycle, they were often raised in similar environments themselves and their children go on to replicate the pattern (not always some do break the cycle but not many)

But even if that’s your belief, you can’t have both. You can’t penalise a “feckless” parent/family without disadvantaging a child who has no choice in the matter. Unless you’re advocating forced adoption.

Explain please?

How exactly do people as a monolith choose not to get pregnant?

Immigrants, people of a different colour, people on benefits! I wonder who is next ?

.