Funding everyone to have multiple children???

[MyLimeGuide]

Hello all, this issue seriously gets me down, as someone who has worked solidly since forever (im 45) always wanted 2 children. I have 1, realised I cant afford 2, seeing what labour have done, lifting the 2 child cap for benefits MADDENS me to the core! Not because of my own circumstances, im more than happy with one and I can give him everything.
Im a teacher, currently working in a SEN school, the majority of the cohort are from non working families with multiple siblings. Their biggest problem is neglect. Often these kids tell us their mum is pregnant again!!
i have seen this pattern with neglected children un every single school ive worked in. Unbelievable that Labour want to increase this!
It's not to help children, its the opposite.
Its unfair on hardworking people to be expected to fund it.
I believe EVERYONE is entitled to be a parent, regardless of circumstances, but NOT breed like its a hobby (a freeloading one with no care)

AIBU - Let everyone breed as much as they want regardless of circumstances its their god given right.

AINBU - This is unfair, children should be born into families that can afford to look after them fully and offer them the time and nurture they need to develop into humans with good mental health.

I agree also we should also not offer health care to smokers or drinkers the overweight and anyone injured in a car accident. They should pay.

You sound a bit ignorant. If you teach in a special school of course they are mostly going to need one parent at home... Your students are unlikely to be able to go to breakfast club/ after-school club, your school probably doesn't have one. There are not childminders available in numbers for disabled children.

You sound judgy.

Why can't you afford a second child if you are a teacher? If it's that important to you move to a cheaper house, cheaper car etc. we all have choices.

If you really, genuinely think those on benefits are better off, leave your job and crack on (you'll have a nasty surprise though).

Some people need to walk a mile in the shoes of the parent of a disabled child before commenting.

Totally get how frustrating it is to see people reproducing irresponsibly. However such people will do so regardless of the budget. The feckless types will not be studying the budget and plan accordingly to maximise their financial means. They will do whatever they like cap or no cap!
For kids in genuine need I’m happy to be taxed a bit more. Hopefully they will become more successful than their parents and break the cycle.

Yeah, until you've lived it, you just don't know. I don't say those things (in that manner) about my autistic children but I do wish school staff (even special school staff) truly understood what it is like to parent these children.

It's also not all non-verbal = real autistic /,deserving poor, verbal = not real autistic / undeserving poor. My non verbal child has nappy wearing, smearing and other extremely challenging behaviours, but my verbal child (although does have massive speech delay) can sometimes be more challenging. My verbal child is highly neurotic with extremely unusual OCD rituals which destroy his quality of life, he also bites himself a lot. It's difficult to think that if he'd gone to an SEMH school some of the staff might have been sat there thinking he is neglected and why can't I just work (well, because my youngest gets up at 2am and childcare doesn't exist for these children).

The problem op?

It didn't work. Capping it didn't change people's choices, they still had the kids anyway.

So all that happened:

• more children growing up in poverty (lifelong negative impacts)
• financial pressures lead people to mental health & other struggles, PIP claims rocket.

There is a (large) layer of people in society who want children who will not allow their financial position to be part of the choice of whether to have them (and won't ever choose termination etc).

Trying to force people's behaviour by removing money perceived as an incentive didn't work, there was no real reduction in births associated with the cap. All it did was create a big pool of children in poor families, and push benefit claimaints towards other forms of benefit.

You also have to think about what point this kind of discourse pushes into eugenics, forced sterilisation and other dystopian scenarios.

Pay in this country is not 'fair' someone earning over £100K in finance or tech is not contributing more to society than a HCP or social worker on £35K. We have a really skewed value system where the only contribution of 'value' is direct and literal £ for £ contribution. No thought to the savings to public funds an unpaid carer is contributing by caring for their family member/spouse for example.

The rhetoric of political parties has tricked the public into thinking only in 4 or 5 year cycles, with no planning for the future of the NHS and state pensions. Hence the carte blanche to demonise people bringing up children and grudging the cost of their schooling, as if today's children aren't worth the investment we received as children. They are not getting the investmentment we had as children and young people as it is.

It is so unimaginative, blinkered and depressing.

Should we "let everyone breed as much as they want" begs the question as to how you might stop them, never mind whether you should ... forced sterilisation? ... compulsory contraception?
Rants like the OP's are totally meaningless.

I think posts which refer to "breeding" are disgusting. Unfortunately MNHQ seem to think they're acceptable - on a parenting site.

I'm not even a parent and I'm disgusted by how dehumanising some of these posts are.

Mumsnet are funded by advertising, they aren't going to stop people posting such disgusting opinions as it gets the clicks and engagement.

Yes, I fear you're right there. It doesn't matter if people report dehumanising language - it's being allowed to stand.

Oh come on now. Breeding is literally a term for reproduction. Do you find reproducing to be so inflammatory?

Luckily you're not the speech police.

I find it interesting that reading this thread you would believe that there was a 50:50 split on opinion about whether the cap should be lifted but the poll tells the real truth. Those in favour of lifting the cap want an echo chamber. They will insult people that disagree and insist that anyone that doesn't agree with them is stupid/uneducated/evil. They will berate Mumsnet for not removing perfectly acceptable posts because it doesn't align with their rhetoric and moral view of the world. Yet the poll remains the same and in a democracy public opinion is king. The cap should be and will be reimplemented after the next election.

Referring to "serial breeders" is using the term breeding in a derogatory way. It can't be denied that references to breeding here aren't using the word in a factual, neutral sense

Breeding makes women sound like animals. I often see the phrase on child free forums.

Some people view parents that actively choose to bring more and more children into poverty negatively. They therefore will refer to them in negative terms. Shock horror!

They are factually serial breeders. They breed far more than average family and more than they can afford. Nothing seems to stop them. This seems to be a core argument on this thread, that these parents will keep reproducing no matter what anyone does and no matter how much of a terrible idea it is for the existing children and the children conceived. In this context, is serial breeders inaccurate?

I want the children that exist to receive direct intervention to deal with the consequences of poverty. Help with food, clothing, education etc

I want to disincentivise parents from bringing more children into poverty. I also think struggling families should be discouraged from having lots of children for more than just financial reasons. They rarely have the resources to meet the children's needs so lifting the cap would only have a limited impact anyway.

I don’t think anyone wants any child to live in poverty, they’re just aware that giving more money directly to those that put that child into poverty in the first place (whether through being reckless, feckless or through circumstances out with their control is another debate) potentially isn’t going to go directly to the children.

This and the ‘well it didn’t stop people having children!’ like it’s some kind of gotcha. Giving irresponsible parents more money isn’t going to suddenly make them more responsible. Clothing and food vouchers, assistance with childcare to encourage them back into work, education to stop this aeration reliance on benefits, time limits before the benefits start to decline as the buck needs to stop somewhere, all would surely be better for the children.

Also, different families have different needs - hence why the flexibility of money over vouchers is so much more effective. A family living in London is more likely to need extra money for adequate housing (above the rate set by Local Housing Allowance). A family in a rural area might need to have a car so that at least one parent can work and they can reasonably get around. One family with all boys might not need much money for clothes because they use hand me downs but a set of boy/girl twins will not be able to use hand me downs. Some people might live in food deserts and have really high food prices (so need more food vouchers) but low housing costs. Some families might require more money to top up childcare but others have grandma providing free childcare.

How can you possibly account for all this variation? What if, as a family, you have a really expensive month because your washing machine and car break but you only have a load of food and clothes vouchers?