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?

That's why we need an attitude shift. They rarely pay or take responsibility so they are the problem. We need to agree that is the only thing most countries haven't tried and we still have a problem...

Would be lovely wouldn't it? We all know that it's women most impacted by the 2 child cap, single mothers stuck on benefits because they are left with children after leaving abusive or useless men.

@Tellitasitisss really means women's reproductive rights should be halted if they can't afford children. Men too often walk away and don't pay, and aren't made to pay.

@BansheeOfTheSouth exactly. Women care and look after the kids, so it's men who are the problem and should be scrutinised in some way at least. Be it financially, educationally, medically - it would be so novel to see the world actually sorting the root problem by focusing on the men that cause it.

You are about 50 years too late OP.

Look at birth rates, the amount of families with more than 2 dc, the 2 child cap.

Why is this question never asked of previous generations?

You can see the responses you’ve got but the bottom line is that the welfare state was not designed to shore up the terminally feckless. People say these children don’t chose to be

Do you include pension credit in that?

True I suppose in some cases. But much less so on average.

I think men shouldn't be allowed to have more than one wife as is the law in this country and the two child cap should be on the man. After the two he has his pay deducted.

This depends on a number of things
-education around contraception. Mainly done via school so if you missed a lot of school it's not actually a stretch to miss this.

• access to contraception including the cost, plus some women (myself included) don't tolerate hormonal birth control well and we know other forms are far from infallible plus women in abusive relationships may be stopped from accessing it
• no contraception works 100% of the time. My sister has two kids once conceived while she had the bar and one while on the pill. Both used correctly and within the correct renewal dates of the bar.
• there are plenty of people on benefits who struggle with mental health/disabilities/addiction etc which may impact on their ability to source and correctly utilise contraception
• this doesn't take into consideration rape including a male removing a condom without consent or coercion.
• the accuracy of the effective rating is variable depending on weight and other health related reasons. As is the morning after pill.

It's really not as black and white as you'd like to think. There are many, many reasons why someone may find themselves unexpectedly pregnant while on benefits. Contraception on its own is not a good enough solution in that respect.

I worked when I had my children i didn't factor in divorce my ex turning into a bastard my kid turning out to be disabled

Where are the poor houses or mental hospitals i can ditch them off in so I can go back to work and stop claiming?

I'm a working household struggling to get by and don't really appreciate being used as a stick to beat people worse off then me. Especially not, ultimately, other women.

Isn't thats why the 2 child rule me in.

You cant stop people having children. The state doesnt have to support them to do it

This place has become an utter cess pit.
and yet another one post shit stirring thread to cause maximum froth
OP gets extra points for even getting people slagging off immigrants on a thread not directly about them
but hey it's all about the clicks MNHQ

There is already a 2 child benefit cap, and many children of families on benefits are already living in serious poverty, but I suppose nothing short of bringing back the workhouses will satisfy nasty little people like you. We also cannot force people to not have children unless you want us to go full Nazi Germany and start forcibly sterilizing people.

It's fucking grim isn't it.

If you cut benefits, do you really think the Govt would cut taxes or gift you money? The answer is a big fat no. The reason you are scraping by is not because of benefits.

Or do you just want to punish worse off people because it makes you feel superior?

The problem with this is, what happens when families become financially insecure down the line for whatever reason?

We never know what’s waiting around the corner.

For a second pregnancy multiple birth you get child benefit for both twins

It doesn’t seem to be working very well as from reports it has only had a very minimal reduction in fertility rates, it needs to be reviewed and made stricter

So how do you enforce this then?

Forced long term contraception?
Forced abortion?
Forced adoption?
Leave these unauthorised children with parents who can't feed them? Let them starve?

Yeah, let's cap the number of children people are allowed to have, whilst simultaniously living through a population decline and also complaining about immigration.
I am a two child higher rate tax payer and even I can see that if we don't support people to have the babies, we will have noone to do all the jobs we need to sustain an aging polulation.people can't afford kids because of the cost of living and have little support as it is. Not many people set out with intention to have loads of kids and stay on benefits. But those that do, their kids will contribute to thd system.
Is it fair on me personally, no. But my binman, hospital porter, road worker and many other jobs like that likely come from lower income families supported by benefits. Many people make it out of low income too, supported by the same systems we all pay into.
You could privitise everything, but I think we have tried that and we didnt really like a society where we had workhouses for the poor, only being able to see a dr if you can pay and mother and baby homes for teenage pregnancies so this was our solution.

They have more children because they aren't paying for it themselves. So they dont need to worry about finding a better job with more money. Nobody on benefits should be on more than the minimum wage.

It doesn't stop people having children, it just means those children have to grow up in poverty, the answer is to scrap it not to make it stricter . so many people have truly disgusting attitudes 🙄

What a surprise. @Tellitasitisss drops a goody, benefits bashing thread - they're only contribution to the site - and disappears.

This site is properly being intentionally shit stirred.

Did I ensure I could financially and mentally support my children before I made the choice to have them - Yes.
Do I think people who have more kids despite not being able to financially care well for the ones they have are irresponsible - Yes.

But I also judge those who have plenty of money but no love to give their kids or any sense of empathy to pass on to them...

And I hella judge anyone who thinks limiting the money or support to those kids who are born in less than optimal situations is the right thing to do. We need to be massively investing in a new sure start scheme providing more care to these kids from age of 0-4, because if you don't get to them and their parents with education and support in these early years they will remain behind at every level of education. which means they are less likely to have post school education, less likely to have fulfilling careers, more likely to end up on benefits themselves.

Instead of spending huge amounts of money on protecting the triple lock, or subsidising the crap wages that large companies get to pay through UC for working people, or paying billions in housing benefit to boomer landlords because we don't build enough houses, we should be massively investing in social housing and early years support to help families break the cycle that society has created

Perhaps employers should not be allowed to employ more workers until they can clearly demonstrate that they are paying ALL their workers, from the CEO to the janitor, a wage that allows them and their family to live a comfortable life with dignity and security?