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?

@sparrowhawkhere

Posted upthread. I always find it helpful to read all the posts.

https://www.jrf.org.uk/work/are-cultures-of-worklessness-passed-down-the-generations

Odd isn’t it 🙄 yet it’s still going to get 1000 posts. It’s like it was planned that way

The OP never returns on threads like these. Either they're a t**ll, a 'journalist' dropping a shit-bomb to get content, or they're too embarrassed at being schooled from the first few posts to come back and try to justify their stance.

Always surprised that people who can post on here find it so hard to Google.

Why are these people so disadvantaged? Op is talking about people who have never worked a day in their lives, the ones that are able to but just to lazy. They are poor because they don’t work. Why should they keep having babies when they can’t financially provide for them? If they are lonely maybe they should go to work for some company

I you have an income of £98k you each pay tax of £2219 per month. Each child is subsidised by £1200 per month for childcare. So effectively get that money back ... Per child. So I'm not sure how that makes them a 'net contributor' based on outgoing tax payments alone?

Back in the day we used to call this kind of behaviour 'bitch plopping' the old post and run...

They stink so much these days, maybe we ought to rename it Seagull Shitting.

The minimum wage is currently £12.21 per hour. What would you set it at to ensure that all workers and their families live a comfortable life?

Something commensurate with the ever rising cost of living perhaps?

Just wanted to come back and say 'until they're financially independent' is so socially and economically illiterate it's nauseating.

Goady thread where the OP posts an opinion then doesn’t return to engage in the debate.

And MNHQ are well aware of the goadiness of it and don't care
some of the sentiments expressed on this thread are revolting but keep that ad revenue and clicks going at all costs

Looking that way!

I was trying with the idea of starting a thread asking for the ideal attributes of preferred humans, but I won't because stupid idea really.

But I'm getting seriously concerned at the intolerance of almost everyone that isn't the person spouting very questionable rhetoric that it is possible to undermine very quickly if you look into it.

The received wisdom is to not engage, and hope the toddlers go off and do something else. Trouble is, things go quiet, you open your bathroom door, your kid's eating razor blades and your cat is bald.

Where did I say ‘net contributor’? These are economically active people and not the same situation as people who contribute very little tax wise but continue to have children and expect the state to pay for them, such as those the OP describes. You can think the entitlement to free hours is right or you can think it’s wrong but I genuinely cannot fathom why you think it’s the same thing as OP describes.

Of course. If someone wants a job they can just get one. 🙄

One of my neighbours is 24, she has 7 children, she doesn't speak much English, her husband does, she's going to die or become seriously ill, her front teeth are missing.
Every year she gives birth.

Her DM had 11.

Those 11 children mostly adults with children are supported by the government, through council housing and benefits.

None of them work. Except begging occasionally.

Yes they do exist, I'm surrounded by some. They are a minority and in the case of the three closest families, the children are in work because they aren't allowed not to be. So in as much as the Mother never worked, between them they've created five tax payers. Were we are doesn't have a surplus of jobs, so tbh, there's no harm done.

They definitely exist in my area too.
Professional claimants that know how to use the system for life.

How can people read things like this and hold views like this and think it makes the UK great and good? It's utterly fucking snide.

Not on this thread, but on another someone held the view that anyone on PIP should not be allowed kids too.

In any case, how do you stop someone having kids? You can't.

So you’re telling me someone who is physically able to work from age 16 to let’s say 65…. At no point in all those years they can’t get a job? Yeh it might not be just walk out one day and find one it might be hours of application forms, interviews and then offered a job but you’re telling me they can’t do that?

Yip this year so far we've had the unemployed,the disabled, immigrants and now unemployed parents... anyone else left to scapegoat this year?

Try getting a job after 55 ,it's no cake walk .I'm near 60 and I've applied for hundreds of jobs to no avail.
I now volunteer with NHS