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 think China's one child policy years ago has forever proven why it's not ethical to police women getting pregnant.

People with blue or purple hair maybe? 😁

wasn't there a charity or similar in the uk who offered support to single mothers, both money and help, provided they accepted long term contraception? I think public opinion closed it. Its a few years ago now.

How do you propose to enforce this?
Compulsory contraceptive injections/sterilisation /abortion?
It all sounds a bit CCP to me.

I earn £1800 after tax.
Rent is £1050
Nursery fees after free hours deducted for Spetember £926
Council tax £114
Water £50
Gas and electric £150
Car insurance and approx petrol for the month
£360

I won't be having a second child due to pnd with my first, but I don't think stopping benefits is the answer. If we don't have enough births who will look after us when we age?
In 20+ years we'd had a huge drop in the work force.

To quick to get what they are in fact entitled too or are we talking about another benefit mmm

No, a couple of years ago it was increased to 80k, but between 60-80k you will get reduced amount you pay back in a tax return. Reminds me I might do mine for last tax year whilst i’m on AL.

How about we make all pubescent boys have their tubes tied and once they earn a certain amount and pass a moral standards test (which includes paying an agreed amount for their kids as a basic) they can have them untied? Would be a cheaper option than many where the idea is to control female bodies...

Somewhat agree depending on the circumstances. Know a family who are on benefits, live in a small council flat, the husband just got out of JAIL(!!!) and therefore can't get a job (not that he would want to work anyway). They have 2 kids that they can barely afford (their words, not mine) and they are trying for a third. It baffles me.

I think the "no more children ever policy" is not the same as "no more children until your circumstances change"

Foolishly wading into a benefits thread……

I see two issues here, the first is that we don’t live in a properly functioning society at present, as over half of all employed people receive benefits. They’re gainfully employed, hardworking (sometimes two of them) and still can’t afford COL on the pitiful wages we pay - let alone if they’re paying childcare. These people should not be penalised further, are doing their best and are trapped through no fault of their own. Other solutions are required for them (like making a full time jobs cover COL, just a thought!)

On the other hand, and there are a couple of examples in my own family, there are very few (and it is few) that have no intention of ever working, that space out babies to ensure they don’t need to get a job and have children with no intention of even attempting to pay for anything themselves. Anyone who denies these people exist are very naive.

You can’t hurt one without hurting the other, and the cost of the ones taking the p*, while frustrating, would cost more to administer to address than they take, and pales in comparison to other easier to achieve cost saving/cutting exercises.

In summary, you can’t fix any of it, until you fix COL/wages - which we appear to have absolutely no political will to do 🤷‍♀️

A declining birth rate and ageing population is a far greater economic problem. It could be argued that people should have financial incentives from the state to have more children rather than more caps.

The majority of people on this planet aren't rich at all and still procreate. Benefit system issues has nothing to do with unprotected sex or an active sex planning more offspring. We all want to fill our tummies with food and will get that food for free if its given for free.

There is a cap. If you end up having twins as your second pregnancy you only get benefit for one of them . If you get raped you need to prove that, or you get no benefit for that child should you choose to continue with the pregnancy. If you are not allowed to access contraception by your abusive partner (or it fails) you get no benefit for that child should you choose to continue with the pregnancy. There is a cap and all the research shows it’s little to no deterrent from what is essentially a penalty on children. No doubt people may not always make the right choice but their children shouldn’t pay the price

So the poor and disadvantaged should also be poor, disadvantaged and lonely?
having children is a biological imperative and a fundamental human right.
For some, children are the only ‘riches’ they will ever have.

If you want to bring economics into it, demographic decline is a real issue facing the UK and other developed nations. We need people to have children.

Somewhere in these ops there is always a bit where the op says ‘us working families get nothing.’ (which isn’t accurate, because there are plenty of tax breaks for working families) So at the end of the days it’s resentment at a perceived lifestyle.

You want the state to give you more or equal to what you think the person on benefits is getting but it’s a contradiction, because if you were getting more support (and most people on benefits are in work btw) then you we could say to you ‘become financially independent before you have any more kids or own a pet.’

The low level of taxes on high earners could be argued to be support from the state. Have you considered getting a better paid job so that you can take advantage of this?

Well schools appearance rules are already one step towards that 😅

fertility after male sterilisation is not guaranteed. Are you saying that all the mothers in this situation are raped?

You could argue that people who aren’t prepared for job losses or falling on hard times shouldn’t get benefits either. So everyone who wants kids needs to have savings of 6 months. I don’t agree with that by the way. I don’t have a lot of hate towards single mums on benefits (coming from a child whose mum was that)

Yes you are being unreasonable.

bloody hell…
let’s do forced sterilisation then, might as well round up anyone on benefits or who doesn’t fit in with OP’s definition of being a worthy human being, and put them into concentration camps.

So forced abortions for women who get pregnant while on benefits?

Contraception. It works most of the time when you (general you) can be arsed to sort it and use it correctly.

Another factor in people on benefits having more children than they can afford is the apparent need to have a baby with each new partner, of which there is often a succession.

Animals do procreate actively each year without asking where their food is coming from. May be some people live this way too, believing life will just arrange itself and it usually does arrange itself. Also in my country we say: it is not stupid the one eating the free pastry but the one who gives it. Your judgement is not aimed at the correct recipient my dear ...go and tell your authorities to stop the free pastry, English way of saying it, the gravy train

Yes, absolutely OP. Couldn't agree more. It would just require a few tiny adjustments to society to ensure that it works, but worry not, I have formulated a foolproof plan:

1. All girls will be forced to have contraceptive injections from the day of their first period. Anyone who misses her appointment for this will be forced to have a hysterectomy.
2. When you want to have a baby it's like applying for a mortgage — you have to be earning over £50k a year and have £20k saved uop for setup costs. That earns you permission to come off the jabs.
3. After the baby is born you (of course!) go back on the jabs immediately. You can apply for permission to have a second child when your income has gone up by £15k.
4. Repeat step 3 for as many children as you can afford. If you are really rich, have 10. Remember, money is the true determinant of the worth of both you and your child.
5. If at any point you lose your job, your children will be taken away from you and put in foster care with people who can afford to shop at Waitrose. Unless they are ugly or unintelligent, of course, in which case they will be drowned in a sack so that they don't become a burden on society.

Of course, the woke champagne socialist lefty liberals will moan about "human rights", like they did when I revealed my brilliant plan to stop illegal immigrants by machine-gunning their boats in the English Channel, but the joke will be on them when Saint Nigel is PM and Tommy Robinson is Home Secretary.