If you're really fed up of all "your" money going to benefits ....

[Yesimmoaningaboutbenefits]

We really need to be campaigning for more council homes. One of the biggest payouts is housing benefit because of the extortionate private rent costs.

That single mum topping up with UC to bring her to over 100k? (supposedly) Wouldn't happen if her rent wasn't >£2000pcm for a 1 bed flat.

Build a 3 bed house for £300,000 (presumably less with large contracts). Charge £500 rent, they'd make the money back in 50 years even without increases. And houses last more than 50 years!

I know I've read several comments over the years from people saying this. RTB was the worst etc. So why hasn't it happened? Upfront cost. It would cost the government a hell of a lot upfront, despite the astronomical gain further down the line. But if they're not in power when the gains start to show, they get none of the glory. And that's what it boils down to. Elected governments only want something they can boast about within their term. Who cares if it benefits the country in the long run? If it doesn't benefit them short term, it doesn't matter.

Same with education. Better funding will result in more people in work, out of poverty and out of crime in 20 years time. It's the best use of money possible! But no.

SEN funding. Early intervention can prevent children getting to crisis point and keep the gap from widening so they have a chance of staying in school, getting qualifications and contributing to society in the future. Not funding SEN effectively is pretty much cutting off a section of society and forcing them to spend their lives on benefits. Funding could give them a chance. But no.

How many health conditions could be improved by early treatment so people don't end up out of work and incapacitated on benefits?

You've got to spend money to make money...

Indeed. It's the banks who win.

A lot of people wrongly think that they're also winning when their house goes up in value. This is false, because all property is going up in value; so if you were to ever sell your house, you would have to buy a different house at an increased price.

Emotive rhetoric doesn't help? That's right. But you're not complaining about the emotive rhetoric of those saying everyone on benefits is a scrounger or that if you can't afford kids you shouldn't have them.

And the 90% figure is wrong. It's much worse. Only 2.5% of housing is affordable for those on housing benefit.

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2025/apr/01/private-renting-england-affordable-housing-benefit-study

Why should I be a foster carer when these kids are being looked after by their parents? And could be looked after better with more money.

As it happens, I have an adult step child with SEN to care for. Not that my circumstances matter.

Ok let's talk basic facts. The right wingers on here won't give shit but whatever.

1. There is absolutely no evidence for any increase in fertility-based fecklessness in recent decades. Quite the opposite. The fertility rate has nearly halved in the last 50 years and teenage pregnancies are down something like 80%.
2. There is also no evidence of an increase in employment-related fecklessness. The proportion of adults out of work is almost identical to what it was 50 years ago. In fact, it's ever so slightly lower, around 24% versus 25%.
3. Migration cannot possibly explain house prices. Our population increased by less than 30% during a period in which house prices increased by 1000%. Even if we'd built zero homes in this time, migration could not possibly explain the housing crisis (for the record, the metres squared of house available per person is similar to 50 years ago, due largely to people extending and converting their properties).
4. GDP is much, much higher per capita than it was 50 years ago. We are richer than we ever were.

Any serious analysis of what is going on in our society always starts and ends with inequality. Inequality has pushed up asset prices and inflation and now everyone is suffering apart from the very richest. It starts with the poorest who are priced out of buying houses, and eventually even out of renting, and then begins to affect the middle classes who now have tax hikes to support the very poor with their rent (yes their own house value may have increased, but so what when it's just the one home that they're living in).

So yes most of us are feeling pretty skint. And yes, that includes even the middle classes, the slightly better off. But it's not because everyone's out of work, because they aren't, and it's not because we're a poor country, because we aren't, and it's not because people are now more feckless, because they aren't, and it's not because we don't have enough houses, because we do.

It's because the rich have pushed up asset prices, and if we don't do something about it, very urgently, we are all royally fucked.

I'd like universal basic income to be talked about more.
I don't know enough about it yet.

@ OP I believe Ireland are rolling it out for artists right now

@FlowerUser What about religions and cultures that advocate for many children or no contraception, like Catholicism?

You are misinformed.

The Catholic Church only forbids 'unnatural' methods of contraception.

In addition all couples considering marrying in a catholic Church need to attend a "Pre Cana " which is a pre-marriage course.
The format varies.
It can be between the engaged couple and the priest or it can be in the form of a discussion group with the priest present.
All potential issues are discussed.
Couples are asked about all manner of issues in the proposed marriage that they might have to navigate.

Such as - what would you do if your partner cheated, was using pornography, had a secret gambling habit, died, was made redundant, was in an RTA and ended up disabled, one of your children was born with a serious medical condition. etc

(Unless the priest has very serious concerns there is no reason to refuse to marry any couple.)

IMO if more people had these serious discussions before they had children then it would possible stop some problems later on.

@Isekaied please tell us more about the person (assumed single, non parent, not disabled for a fair comparison to the person paid 70k in wages) manages to receive benefits equivalent to a pre-tax income of 70k whether unemployed or working for low wages.

What makes you think that an individuals wages are topped up to 70k?

As a single person in my LA you have to earn less than around £23,000 PA to qualify to bid and it might take years before being housed dependant on urgency band.

Yes, something would be broken if state benefits were used to top up single people who were not earning almost double the average income but are you sure this is where we are?

Totally agree - We need to change the Lords to an elected house with a built in balance requirement or proportional representation and 10 year terms and then ensure that all Housing, education and health sufficiency planning all being controlled through them.

Ability to run for the Lords (or whatever we ended up calling it) and then serve on the relevant committees should also be based on experience and merit, not nepotism or plutocratic principles.

And the rhythm method and mucus methods are not reliable.

I was raised strict Catholic. Don't lecture me in catechism.

And you are happy to see these children go hungry

Not sure who is the feckless one here

There’s no such thing as “free childcare”… someone has to pay for it - ie the taxpayer.

@FlowerUser And the rhythm method and mucus methods are not reliable.

So alternative plans have to be engaged.

I was raised strict Catholic. Don't lecture me in catechism.

No need to be so rude.

Well maybe you should consider not lecturing people about Catholicism.

What are you talking about?

There is no reason for a couple to have more children than they can afford.

The children, are already here...

It happens, and you are happy to punish the children for it.

@happystar123No thank you. I’m in the northwest and we already have deprived areas and lack of services. We dont need more people to add to it

I'm not lecturing - I'm giving information, so i don't know why you are taking it personally

Some people do back out of a Catholic Wedding after attending the pre-Cana you know.

In reply:

1. agree - people are confusing population increase (cause by totally legal but possibly not well-controlled immigration to the tune of 10m in the last few decades; oh, and old people having the audacity to live longer) with birth rates which have absolutely plummeted due to many factors (women working, slight increase in fertility issues, cost of childcare, break down of the extended family to offer that childcare, and choice etc). Ironically, the drop in birthrate is one of the reasons immigration was allowed to increase as our younger working generation has contracted and we need healthy foreign workers in their place

2. not sure where the 24/25% unemployment figures come from but you cannot compare employment stats of 50 years ago with todays in any reliable way as the matrices by which they are measured have changed.

3. agree, nearly PML at that claim by an obvious Reform voter upthread. House prices increased due to increased demand, introduction of right to buy etc. A zillion cultural, societal and economic factors fed into this over a 20-30 year period including several global economic boom, freedom of movement across economic borders of both goods and persons, etc. yes, home owners/buyers got lucky (unless, of course, they were the ones caught in the 90’s negative equity fiasco that saw several of my friends declaring bancruptcy in order to be able to divorce and divest themselves of their homes… so not everyone has made money).

4. yes GDP has increased, but so have costs of goods and other variables that feed into this calculation. It a useful benchmark for comparing year on year progress, but rather a blunt instrument for comparing national ‘wealth’ over a 50year gap, I’d say? Not an economist, though.

Don't talk such nonsense.

It's the parents that are punishing the children by being irresponsible.

And your point is?

Because you lectured me on my comment that the Catholic church doesn't allow contraception. Your explanation that "alternative plans have to be engaged" doesn't contradict what I said.

No pills, coils, condoms, femidoms, implants etc. Just abstinence when a woman might be fertile. Which has been demonstrated not to prevent pregnancy when analyses of abstinence methods have been published. And is why I and my brothers exist.

Obviously you have an problem about this, so please don't push it onto me.

If you have an issue with what your parents did or didn't do in the bedroom maybe you should take it up with them ?

And you are happy to leave it like that.

Why else do you object to cancelling the cap?

I wouldn`t worry to much the state of the uk now, we will soon be in ww3.