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...

@OneThreeFiveSeven

"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)."

I don't think that's correct. The higher population (through immigration or any other means) will be the biggest driver of house prices. If the population increases by 30% it doesn't follow that prices should go up by just 30% - when there is scarcity and its something nearly everyone will stretch themselves to afford, prices will go up many times more than that 30%.

I merely stated that some people who follow a religion such as Catholicism are not able to limit their families to two children.

You replied by implying they should have more self control. As if.

Because this thread is really all about the lower classes doing what they want and getting rewarded for it by being able to be feckless and get benefits in the process.
Whereas all these saintly posters who didn't get to have the children they wanted are "paying" for these scroungers to do it. And betraying their utter heartlessness while doing so.

The politics of envy. It's not very pretty.

The parents weren't irresponsible. They had a third child when there was a government allowance for them. Then they took it way.

@Yesimmoaningaboutbenefits , the no 67 bus goes out from central to much more affordable areas. Often those who work in central do have their wages weighted. We must not be using scarce money to pay exorbitant rents.

Nothing rude about me calling out anyone begrudging children being pulled out of poverty.

THE POINT IS THAT THE CHILDREN ARE ALREADY HERE

SHOULD THEY REMAIN IN POVERTY?

I am not fed up because it's not really an advisable way to live is it?

Hopefully for many families who are struggling with large families the removal of the two child limit on UC will give them a bit of breathing space to put themselves in a better position to get more secure, better paid employment.

Benefits can be removed. Eligibility changes all the time.

If anyone but Labour get in again there will be a whole heap of benefits cut I would wager.

In the grand scheme of things, giving a small number of families more in benefits for three years isn't going to make that much difference here or there. It's not going to make any difference to us right now.

I think the next budget will tinker around the edges of eligibility.

It's precarious and we are in no way jealous, or fed up.

We have two children and you couldn't pay us enough benefits (although obviously everyone has a price eventually) to have another. Good lord not a chance.

So they were relying on the government to fund a third child?

Why couldn't they fund it themselves?

So why are they "in poverty"

Did these parents have kids thinking that the government would pay for them?

Where was their parental responsibility?

I think it was Hazel Blears who admitted in an interview that Labour had basically failed to act and housing wasn’t treated as important.

How do you feel about the US Tech giants who evaded up to 5bn in taxes last year?

Personally, I am less inclined to worry about families and their 3rd child over an obscene level of tax evasion.

What are your thoughts?

I really think you should take your issues and insults elsewhere, because you are not making a meaningful contribution to this discussion.

PP I'm not going to get into lower class social norms or the ethics of terminating a pregnancy

Yes, I agree that the issue of tax evasion should be addressed and also the issue of those working in the "gig economy" which i believe employees about 5 million people.

I think that saying that as a society that we should lift children out of poverty, is an extremely meaningful contribution.

Please don’t try and censor me just because you don't like my opinions.

Perhaps you could comment instead on why we shouldn't support families who have many children because they follow Catholicism strictly and end up with more than two children?

My Dh’s company builds housing and only gets planning if a certain percentage is affordable (council). True though, “not in my backyard or greenbelt!”

I'm not going to engage with you any more as you seem to have taken this to a personal level and become "offended".

Here are some reasons why children are living in poverty

https://cpag.org.uk/child-poverty/causes-poverty

What, some woman is getting £100k in benefits??!!

£2k rent per month is £24k. What does she need another £78k for?

Surely I’ve read this wrong.

Yes it is “my” money because I earned it.

And did you check what that actually implies in real terms?

The government themselves fund research on food insecurity. There are long standing large scale research projects with results that are easily accessible online.

I'll help you. 8% of households with children in the UK are now experiencing the lowest level possible of food security. That's nearly one in 12 kids in the general population. Obviously the figure will be much higher amongst families in relative poverty.

To be classified in that way you have to be actually going hungry. Skipping meals, skipping entire days, losing weight because of it. So yeah we absolutely are talking about hungry kids.

And the government allowance was enough to raise said child to adulthood? I don’t think so!

And you're now attacking me as a person rather than my opinions. What is called an ad hominem attack.

Perhaps you could address why we shouldn't support families in poverty rather than censor me or lecture me.

I honestly want to know why the posters on this thread are happy for child to live in poverty because they are in a family with more than one sibling.

It's very selfish.

☝🏼☝🏼☝🏼☝🏼☝🏼

This

What will change when all these small landlords everyone hates so much sell up beside Lloyds and Blackrock are buying up houses like crazy?

Guess what- they’ll hike up the rent, offer crappy service and still make a killing.

Don’t hate on the good landlords who have been providing homes for families for years -!councils are actually providing some of the worst housing out there! And the big corporations are only going to make it worse

I totally disagree, I think those of us on disability should get more, I am on PIP and ESA, my husbands works part time and gets carers allowance and we are running out month after month. We don't go out cos we can't afford it, we can't afford to go on holiday, we spend the bare minimum on our weekly food budget, we can't afford to save anything and if we ever did, if we had more than £6000 the benefits would stop, we don't have hobbies cos we can't afford them. Oh and Christmas is cancelled cos, guess what? We can't afford it!

I am so sick of people thinking we get money thrown and us and its easy to live on benefits, its not.