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 don’t really get the responses on this thread. It’s strange how the done thing is to be shocked at the very idea that only those who can afford their children should have them. That sounds right to me…? We stoped at two as we can’t afford 3 despite having 2 good jobs surely that’s just being responsible. If you can’t ever afford to feed your children without support then no you probably shouldn’t have more. That’s not a controversial statement.

I disagree.. and reporting my post won't get that changed.

By engaging with it, you're encouraging it and giving it credence and validation as something to discuss.

I don't think anyone should have more than two kids personally. It's just the responsible choice IMO. I think we should be encouraging it as a positive, responsible thing.

We have nearly a million NEETs aged 16 -24 so there's no shortage of labour - we need to make sure they're getting the support and opportunities they need to get into work. For me that means starting long before they're 16 to get them on the right path, so many kids are learning that they're no good failures from an early age in school. Functional skills and practical qualifications should be available to all kids from much earlier - nobody should have to be in school sitting GCSE's knowing they're going to fail most if not all of them.

I think a lot of you are deliberately misunderstanding the OP.

She is referring to families where no one works, has ever worked, who keep on having child after child with no thought for the other children. It really sickens me to see this. No hope for the children, parents saying they haven’t got time to help their children because there’s too many of them, no extra curricular, no extras, no ambition to work.

OP isn’t saying families with these circumstances can’t have children but more why keep having them.

I mean the OP could come back and explain what they meant.....

This sounds like a vote winner. It would be so simple, straight forward and time effective to judge on a case by case basis who should/should not be able to reproduce......

This demographic is so vanishingly small it barely makes a ripple. Studies have been done.

Exactly! We didn’t have more children due to not being able to provide well enough for more.

IMO the OP was referring largely to those who not only don’t work, but who rarely or never have, and don’t ever intend to if they can possibly avoid it.

I know it’s not popular to say so on MN, but they do exist.

In vanishingly small numbers.

You're a nasty piece of work.

https://workingclassstudies.wordpress.com/2015/05/11/the-power-of-stupid-ideas-three-generations-that-have-never-worked/

There's already a cap, so no need for the benefit bashing thread

I think there is already a cap. My mum is one of those people who kept having children, no job, no dads that stuck around, so all on benefits. Of course it’s irresponsible and god knows why she kept doing it (I suspect she thought it would mean she’d get the man to stay) but if you’d taken her benefits away my childhood would have been far worse than it already was.
Im of the opinion as a tax payer I’m all for my taxes going towards children that are living in poverty (sometimes because of their parents poor choices) We should invest more into these children and hopefully they’ll become adults who won’t repeat the pattern.
Everyone I know who was brought up similar to me are now the complete opposite to their parents.

How far would you go to stop them? Issue contraception? Place surgical contraception or full on sterilisation? That all sounds draconian to say the least? Who gets to decide?

I'm horrified by the concept of a world where rich people are so entitled to become parents that they're allowed to buy an egg off one woman and rent a uterus off another woman, but a poor woman "isn't allowed" any more of her own kids.

Anyway, you're behind the times. The more likely imminent dystopian scenario is govt incentives for out of work women to breed in order to stem our falling birthrate (or financial incentives for immigrants to come here would also work)

I don’t agree with the OP but this is a different situation as these are people who are working and contributing economically to society, and whose tax contributions almost certainly cover that childcare cost

How wonderful, a goady, kite flying post by an OP who never returns.

Can we sterilise the judgemental folks right alongside those benefit scroungers?

I’d love to see the studies. It might depend on where you live. I know many families like this unfortunately.
Sorry, see you have. They were trying to find families where generations of the families haven’t worked and it wasn’t an exact science the way they were going about it.

Parents mental health, me time, right to live their life how they want etc pushes the needs of some of these children further and further down the parents priority list. Why isn’t it ok to say if you don’t work don’t have too many children? It’s always about the parents and their feelings and not the children. Then there’s horrific stories in the news about children and the same people who think families should have as many children as they want are the ones saying ‘isn’t it awful what happened to that child. Where were the parents?’

There is a cap on UC.

id much rather see a better process for dealing with absent dads that procreate again when they are not supporting their previous children, now how is a different matter? Any ideas???

Just checking the boxes.

No previous posting history - tick
Goady thread - tick
Doesn't come back to thread - tick

You don't see this on MN much nowadays...

I haven’t done family law for about 20 years but this is absolutely the case and a conversation we should have. I don’t think OP is really talking about these situations but I couldn’t agree more with your post.

You have access to official figures, then? Assuming there actually are any official figures, of course.