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 think you need to develop some critical thinking and analytical skills before you start spouting off about other people.

There is absolutely evidence that pro-natalist policies do work. That is essentially what we are implementing by lifting the cap. We are financially incentivising some families to have more children. Look at Poland and France for evidence.

Family size statistics have been skewed by immigration of particular groups into the country that are associated with larger family sizes. We would ordinarily expect the number of larger families to increase for this reasons. The fact it hasn't grown is a sign that the cap has worked to suppress fertility in some groups.

Of course lifting the cap will lift children out of poverty because handing money to families will always do this. This is because we define poverty in a specific way related to household income and how it relates to the median income. If we take money from the middle class and give it to the poor then it will automatically game the poverty statistics. Does it mean these kids will be well fed, properly educated and have better outcomes? Absolutely not.

Finally how dare you suggest OP shouldn't be around children because she has to witness neglect and is angry about this. I am furious for those poor children. The parents need to take some bloody responsibility instead of blaming it yet again on everyone else not offering them enough support. We can't all expect everyone else to support our crap decisions. We have a responsibility to our children first and foremost, we are the parents not the state. Apologists like you are wrecking children's lives on the alter of protecting feckless parents that frankly shouldn't be having any children, let alone loads of them

I appreciate the cap hasn’t stopped people from having numerous children but I think it’s short sighted of the government.
If you can afford to have multiple children then fine, whatever. But if both parents aren’t working and are claiming benefits and yet still choose to have 3/4/5+ children, I don’t think the money should go directly to the parents because they haven’t made sound choices so far. Obviously there are exceptions.
The money should be spent on improving the lives of the children. Sure Start centres, extra interventions at school etc etc.

Personally I think if anything they should make it so people of all ages get the same universal credit did you know under 25s get a lot less? Even if they live alone and have kids of their own.

You could say the same about NMW. But then you will get all the same arguments about people being to lazy to better themselves because NMW is too high to make hard work worthwhile

So in your estimation, if an opinion is shared by many people, it must be right? Many people in South Africa supported apartheid. Many people in Nazi Germany supported Hitler. Your response, when you see many kicking a few, is that the few must deserve it? The pp is right; you really shouldn't be working with children.

As others have said, the overall cap on benefits per family still exists for benefit recipients who aren’t in work, so when they hit that cap that’s it. The worry is people will hear the news from yesterday, get pregnant and think they’ll get more money then it turns out they won’t.

I agree with the cap by the way, though I do think the impact of it on children is very unfair. But it’s also unfair on those of us who limit our families and then are expected to pay for other people’s.

You could have two. Spread them out so one was at school when the second is born or second hand clothes or equipment. I don't buy all these rich people can't afford more than one child.

My understanding of the data, persistent trends over time with large data sets, is that:

large family size correlates with lower household income (people with lower incomes have more children)

household income correlates with educational attainment (children from low income families attain less well)

family size correlates to educational attainment (children from large families attain less well)

Lots of factors to all of that obviously

I hate the phrase breed. It is dehumanising and nearly always aimed at the women and never the men.

National minimum wage peaks at 21 which yeah wasn’t ideal for me a few years ago when I was trying to run a household on what an 18 year apparently needs. But uc not peaking till 25 is ridiculous though I mean who thought up the idea a 25 year old needs more money than a 24 year old

"No its mental health."

Some disabled children attend SEMH schools.

No, I meant exactly what I wrote.

You aren't factoring in the cost of school fees and getting little Talulah a pony.

😂👍

Exactly, the two can often go hand in hand. I don't believe not a single disabled child attends the OP's school.

But then, there are a few red flags about her information. I am still waiting for her to come back and explain why she is allowed to claim benefits and others aren't.

Also higher income households correlate with higher age of parents at first birth (higher income parents have children later, on average)

having children when you are younger correlates with lower lifetime earnings for women (significant effect), and also men (lesser effect)

So on average, if you start having children when you are younger you have the potential to have more children, are more likely to have more children than average, more likely to be low income, your children are less likely to attain well, and you’re more likely to
experience breakdown in relationships (also in various data), and more likely to have children with multiple partners.

You are being unreasonable, and a bit ignorant. The OBR said yesterday the UK needs more children, both for general prosperity and to fund our pensions. Countries like South Korea are a demographic time bomb because of falling birth rates.

I think it's alarming that a teacher doesn't know basic grammar. Funny how you just happen to have Thursdays off too.

Being a Mum and bringing up my children has been the joy of my life. The most fulfilling thing I have ever done. I would have loved to have had more. When my first was born child benefit wasn’t means tested at all. It was just a recognition that children are expensive. Means testing it made it harder for middle income parents to afford children. I’m very much in favour of having a welfare state that prevents destitution, but it also needs to encourage self-sufficiency. I don’t think this budget does that.

People get trapped in a poverty cycle very easily by decisions when their brains aren’t fully developed. These are generational issues that won’t be fixed by a single budget or during a single parliamentary term. Creating pathways to education and employment for young people and keeping them on it should lead to more responsible decision making later.

But this budget is a slap in the face for people who have made responsible choices and are actively planning for their future.

(also I grew up in a very large family with a disabled parent who didn’t work outside the home and a parent who was a high earner due to multiple professional roles - we bucked the trend for education attainment and there was no reliance on benefits. My parents didn’t think anyone else should fund their religious choice not to use contraception)

But surely all the arguments people have for removing the two child cap apply to under 25s getting less uc I mean the “don’t punish the children because of their parents” stuff. I mean even though I was a bit of an idiot to have a child at 16 at least I knew it would be taking the piss to have any more before I could support myself. Why do parents over 25 get an easy pass they’ve been longer on this earth so should know better I know this one woman in her thirties with four kids by four men (and yes the men are responsible for this set up too I personally know dad number 4 and had to ask wtf he was thinking having a baby with a woman who already had three kids with three men)

I agree. Teachers SHOULD be more intelligent than this.

I'd expect a teacher to be able to see that the child benefit cap evidentially hasn't been the deterrent they believe should exist, if their classroom is full of kids with multiple siblings.

I'd expect a teacher to do some basic research before jumping to a conclusion that holds the families they support and serve in contempt. There is no evidence to support the assumption they have made, that this will incentivise people to have more children. There is, however, plenty of evidence that it won't. They're just gobbing off based on vibes and prejudice.

I'd also expect more people to do research into who low income families are and what they spend their benefits on. Multiple studies show that when benefits increase, the increase is spent on household essentials. The cap being lifted, evidentially will help the children living in the household, not go towards lip fillers and tattoos and all the other snide vile shit that's being spouted about across the boards today.

But I suppose if our teachers aren't intelligent enough do a tiny bit of research before jumping to wildly judgemental conclusions, it might be a bit much to expect anyone else to do anything else other than read the extremely outlying ragebait examples being bandied about, fail to see that one swallow does not a summer make, and get the pitchforks out.

Ah ok everyone - @888casino personally knows dad number 4. The rest of us are simply not in possession of the full facts and should stand down.

People presenting anecdote as data boils my piss.

Google is free! ChatGPT is free! The ONS publish all their data, for free! BBC Bitesize guidance on how to identify credible sources and properly analyse statistics - stuff like correlation and causation, why you can't focus on one piece of data and draw conclusions, you need to look at the whole dataset... It's all right there waiting for you.

There is literally no excuse for this. (Other than perhaps all of our teachers are as wilfully incurious as the OP and always have been, and it's not being taught in schools).

Is using your username to advertise online gambling allowed?