aibu in thinking that the couples on the news

[TheUsefulSuspect]

shouldn't have had a first child, let alone a second if they think there 1 Bedroom flat is insufficient.

Why do they think they deserve to be rehoused?

preachy this thread wasn't about you - no one is getting at people like you.

It's about people who choose to have more children, when in dire straights, and then expect to be rehoused. For me it's a sore point as I didn't have that 3rd child because we couldn't afford it. I have a deep seated fear of poverty and just wasn't prepared to risk it.

No one wants to see starving children etc. But there has to be some sort of limit.
Dare I mention Karen Matthews?

Karen matthews really was a one off wasn't she? For whom SSD should ahve acted far earlier IMO

We will get through this time becuase DH is retraining and I am studying so that if I ever can, I can work. ANd dh is working PT, just self employed so minimum wage is a distant dream LOL. people on ehre have told us dh shoudn;t be allwoed to study though becuase his degree isn;t academic enough (nope, mne was but his has yer acktewal qualifications) and because he should do a course he ahtes and get a minimum wage job: one that woil;dn;t support us without help ever. better 3 years of ahrdship and a lifetime of giving it back in taxes and maybe employing others.

I'm hoping she was but the journalists who visited the area at the time didn't paint a pretty picture. But then they would, of course.

Well my last but one paid job was in a similarish area visiting similarish people in part and I never yet met anyone like her so i think she's really rare tbh.

preachy, I wasn't getting at you either. In fact I honestly believe that families affected by sn need MORE help than they do currently.

Last night, I was hypothesing about how to deal with the issue in the OP, and about people who don't take any responsibility for their own lives. Luckily I am not a politician - well I'm sure you wouldn't vote for me if I was....

When I was a child, my mum got ill (and subsequently died). So when I was 4, my GPs 3 bed council house contained my GPs, my mum and dad, me and my sister, my two youngest Aunties, and my cousin. It was a squeeze obviously. But they got on with it. And every adult (apart from my mum obviously) had employment of some sort. The childcare was sort of shared out. It was not an ideal situation in lots of ways but they got on with it. It was a long time before I got my own room but I certainly did not have a deprived childhood. It was filled with love.

The expectations of assistance today are so much higher. Families no longer expect to look after their own, the govt has to sort it. Something has to give somewhere....

So can I take it that there is consensus that this proposal to limit benefits to two-or any number of- children, is completely unworkable?

Because, honestly, some of the attitudes on this thread make me far angrier than large families living on benefits.

A welfare state doesn't just cater for the most deserving. It's for everyone; even the people who make you angry.

And I'm proud of it for that.

So am I tethersend, but I still reserve the right to be angry. And say so.

Tis what we pay taxes for innit? Or something.

I can accept that there are too many exceptions to make such a thing workable. It would discriminate too much. What DO you do though?

at the risk of being flamed, i've thought up a way to rejig the system while reading this ENTIRE thread... please bear in mind this is only an idea, theres no need to crucify me if you disagree...

(nb, this only refers to people who aren't working and whose entire existance is paid for by the state)

anyone couple who need council housing gets a 2 bed flat, any single person a one bed flat. they then can get benefit payments for up to two children if they choose to have them. any extra children are closely monitored by SS to ensure they are provided for. no bigger house for more children, and no extra money. if the children appear to be neglected in any way, all of them will be taken into care, and all child benefits stopped. They will not get any additional money if they then decide to then have more children.

if a larger family needs social housing later in life, due to something going wrong, they get as big a house as needed, and possibly even more in child benefit, to try to encourage people that you get more back from the system if you pay something into it.

whay do you think??

nattiecake, I'm, as most, annoyed by the minority that does abuse the benefit system, but your suggestion is really bad imo. These children you want to take into care are people, they love their parent/s, they do not deserve to be punished. And anyway, even if you only look at the money (I'm not saying you are, but even if someone was), it will cost a lot more for SS to provide for these children you want taken away!

Sorry, you might mean well, but I'm really shocked at this suggestion.

I maintain better education to families that might be stuck in the benefit cycle for generations is the only solution.

"any extra children are closely monitored by SS to ensure they are provided for. no bigger house for more children, and no extra money. if the children appear to be neglected in any way, all of them will be taken into care, and all child benefits stopped."

This is hilarious.

This would cost the state more than the current system does.

Do you have any idea how much it would cost to pay for the thousands of extra social workers, care homes and foster parents to facilitate this? A bit more than child benefit and an extra bedroom.

"They will not get any additional money if they then decide to then have more children."

So... those children will starve? Remember, the parents don't care about being able to provide for them financially, so don't count on them not having any more, particularly if the children they had have been taken into care.

I suppose you could always take the new kids into care... which would cost the state even more, and ensure that a sizeable proportion of future generations grow up in a completely unstable environment due to the fact that their arguably good parents were too poor to feed and clothe them.

Do you really want to know what I think???

uh huh...

Nattie, I know I suggested trying to limit benefits, but not SS hovering over everyone!

MisSal, I'm really not sure that education works on its own though. You have to be able to offer realistic alternatives. If you live in say inner London now, come from a non-working family, go to a sink school, what ARE your choices?

Minium wage needs to be upped and extended, and tax levels need to be changed (back) to help lower earners. It should ALWAYS be more rewarding to work than not. I don't think that is the case anymore. And families who have worked x,y,z yearsm but got made redundant should be entitled to more help than someone who never worked.

Portofino, you're right, on it's own, no. But a start.

That and actually helping people who want to help themselves. Helping people get that first job, more internships, etc. I've worked in Finance for years, and I've seen (and have been guilty of when having to recruit a team member) how it was almost impossible for someone starting out to get a job.

I also agree completely that something is not quite right if you're not financially better off actually working. I know it's not all about the money, but surely it shouldn't be more difficult or break even after you've paid for childcare.

Hmm, on that topic - better and more affordable childcare for those who want to go back to work when their children are young would help too.

I realise lack of funds holds a lot of "good ideas" back, and there is no easy or quick solution.

By tethersend Thu 04-Mar-10 09:43:24

"And please don't repeat the same naive assertion that nobody would have further children without state support, because that is risible."

i haven't said it to begin with, so how can i repeat it.

i shall repeat:

you assess where you are at financially, emotionally, support wise. you make a decision as to whether its a good idea to bring a human being onto the face of the planet - and then assess whether you are fit enough in these areas to look after said child.

Any attempt to limit benefits to a certain number of children is unworkable because ultimately, the children did not ask to be born; it's not their fault they have feckless parents. They don't deserve to suffer.

However, the sense of entitlement displayed on this thread is rather concerning, mainly because the UK is almost bankrupt and whatever any party is promising, the post election budget is likely to come as rather a rude shock to those dependent on hand outs. The current welfare bill is more than the tax receipts of the country so clearly we can't afford to keep spending at this level. There will be cuts and these will happen whichever box you cross in May.

Therefore, it would help things if people didnt exacerbate their situations, so that what is available can be given to the genuinely needy.

Preachy I noted your argument ref contraception could you not have a diaphraghm and your dp use a condom, combined they would be pretty safe it has been safe for us for 3 years it is surely better than risking an unwanted pg.

Custardo, it's beginning to get a bit like Groundhog day...

"you assess where you are at financially, emotionally, support wise. you make a decision as to whether its a good idea to bring a human being onto the face of the planet - and then assess whether you are fit enough in these areas to look after said child."

Who do you think 'you' is? Everyone? Because not everyone thinks like you. Not everyone will do the mental assessment you outline above.

I just want to know what you would like to do with the children of those who don't follow the thought process above, and go on to have children which they cannot afford? Or indeed, the accidental parents? Are you really saying that it would be ok to cut financial support to the children because their parents shouldn't (in your opinion)have had them?

My sister used to be a council clerk woring in the housing department. She earned a modest salary, and bought herself a little 2-bedroomed house. It used to really annoy her that girls who had never worked a day in their lives used to come in demanding bigger flats and houses, be refused, state that they would have to be given a bigger house if they had more children, and then come back a few months later pregnant again demanding a bigger house. She left in the end because there was only so long that she felt she would be able to last without telling one of these girls to keep their knickers up.

Now don't get me wrong - the fact that in Britain everyone can access social security and free healthcare and education is what makes it one of the most civilised countries in the world. But there ARE people out there who think that because they would like more children they should be funded by the state if they have no way of funding them themselves.

My friend was in the army for years and did not have the opportunity to get on the property ladder. Once she and her husband left the army their relationship broke down and she was left with their 2 children. So I understand the fact that people find themselves in predicaments where they need state help. But I get the feeling that the kinds of couple the OP was talking about are the kind who want another child and go ahead and have one, when in the same financial situation a couple who were not living in a council house might think about waiting till they could afford another child before blundering in.

I live in a 3 bed house and have 2 dc's and desperately want anouther but it can't happen as we can't afford it which sometimes feels unfair so yanbu.

Why can't you in a 3bed? Or has that nothing to do with it?

Eduacation does work if you are exposed to people with a good work ethic, they don't need to be your family though. My parents worked always, at 65 Dad still has the sort of job they make progrmames about Briostosh people avoiding (he is Bristiosh, no jibes there!), Sausage factory, cleaning out the machine. He should be retired, his pensions went kaput (yep, 2 of ythem, not the big bang but a specific get out clause due to being bought out by a country that treats pensions as assets and had a big asbestos lawsuit hanging over them). So anyway he doesn't want to live off HB etc yet even though he knows he will have to one day as he isn;t that healthy, and does the job.

But we lived on a council estate that had a lot of people who didn't work, and a lot of kids who didn't give two hoots about school. None of our family were like that.

Years later I worked on a mentoring scheme (when I was at Uni) with fairly able kids whose aprents didn't work- area hit very badly by closures, most wanted but no jobs etc. The kids really seemed to benefit from that, all of them went on to Uni- one of my proudest moments finding something for a vcery hard working dyslexic girl with an amazing art talent whose dad had said only A Levels (there was no chance)- an art course that progressed to A level equivalent, then had an option of higher: she was accepted immediately on her portfolio.

Similar things happened when I was working for hoimestart, mentors getting people into the community, on courses, set up with childcare.

Both schemes had theoir funding pulled.

That is how to make real changes, it ddoes work and it has no penalising effect. And it actually saves money in the long run.

BTW care for kids without absolute desperation? I've tried to get soem truly, badly abused kids into care and failed. Tryst me SSD are not a useful service in any real sense unless there is a risk of death, whether childrens or SN depts, crisis and potential trouble is all that works. I am sure most SSD workers hate that as much as anyone else: nevertheless its the truth.

Oh and you know what would get me back ijnto work? 2 things:

1. childcare for sn kids, obviously.

1. if the Uni ofered part time courses that were funded, even if just for say single aprents / carers etc- a part time social work conversion locally adn i'd be kissing their hands to get a place.

(am peachy btw another thread kicked off so in semi camouflage LOL)

peachy hardly incognito if you reveal your alias so readily