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?

So do you think people should receive government assistance to help with the costs of raising a child or not, Custardo?

well perhaps the issues are confused.

what i am commenting on is the ability to look at ones circumstances as they presently are and plan a future family accordingly.

i am not sure what someone who had a family whilst flush then falls on hard times - fits in with the argument at all... unless whilst they were having hard times they planned more children?

yes i do tortoise wholeheartedly. I am not quite sure what this line of questioning has to do with anything.

and tbh if ever poor childless person in this country at the moment agreed not to have any children until they could "afford" them then we'd all be even more screwed in our old age than we're already going to be

(I've not quite got the "afford" thing - as how do you decide if someone can "afford" a child........is it food, clothes, warmth, or maybe they should be able to afford some of the other stuff that some people consider "essentials" to be able to afford for your children.........)

Because government assistance is part of being able to afford children.

We're planning for a second child. We're factoring in: paid maternity leave, public schooling, public health, tax benefits (they're different in Australia but most families get something) and subsidised child care into the equation.

Without those things, it would be a LOT more difficult to have another child.

So why is it unreasonable to factor in government housing? That's what this post is about, isn't it? How dare someone have a second child and expect the government to provide housing? The thing is, the government DOES provide housing in those circumstances, if it's thought necessary. Why is it irresponsible to act on that basis?

Seems to me that we all bash "poor people" but ignore the huge amount of middle class welfare we receive ourselves.

its clearly not just monatery that one has to look at. if your house is too small for instance ( as per example in op)

I'm with Custardo on this. I only had a child until we could support him, before it would have been irresponsible.

It is not about being poor, but about taking responsibility and... FWIW Third world countries DO advise on not having more children than you can afford, the slogan in mine, when I was a child was "having less children to give them more".

We couldn't bring ourselves to have a baby before we could support him, and we both were working. Now that I'm broke and living of JSA I can tell you EXACTLY the same. I have stopped breeding for the time being.

so you think that people should have govt assistance to raise a child, but someone who doesn't yet have a child shouldn't be able to have govt assistance

At the end of the day it makes sod all difference whether you are poor when you have your child, or become poor afterwards you still get govt assistance.

Have you tried to raise a child on £64.20 a week? Sorry but even feeding them properly at that rate is impossible.

So Mongolia, are you defining "can support him" as paying private school, private health care, everything out of your own pocket?

EVERYONE gets government assistance. I don't know how much louder I can say this.

Mongolia - yes many do advise that - but surely you must know - coming from a 3rd world country that if everyone were to follow that large chunks of the population would never have a child.

Mongolia - I don't quite understand you post about the £64.20 a week - do you mean that even just feeding a child on £64.20 a week is impossible???

not that we're bioically/genetically/emotionally/mentally and physcally programmed to reproduce or anything...

No, I'm suggesting giving him at least the same standard of living our parents provided for us.

You can shout as loud as you want, everyone gets something, but is that something enough to raise a child? yes, but perhaps not to his potential.

and Custard - if we're talking about house size - well that's often subjective isn't it? Should each child have their own bedroom? Some people could never consider anything else, yet others have a 3rd child in a 3 bedroom house without batting an eyelid, and of course any council will basically tell you that 1 child=1/2 a person - so if you have 4 children you only need a 3 bedroom house, 5 children you only need a 4 bedroom house...........

well even when both XH and I were working we couldn't afford to have the same standard of living as I had as a child.

Even now on benefits we have a better standard of living that XH had as a child........

And your point is?

I can't say I've ever aspired to re-create the same standard of living I had as a child - I want to create a standard of living that I am happy with (and it happens to be a lot lower than what my parent, and many other people aspire to). XH on the other hand...........

and actually XH - as one of 6 children in his family (3rd world country) had already reached closer to his full potential when I met him than I (brought up in the UK) am yet to achieve.

How does one get full potential out of a child - throw lots of money on them? No I don't believe so.

"Because government assistance is part of being able to afford children.

We're planning for a second child. We're factoring in: paid maternity leave, public schooling, public health, tax benefits (they're different in Australia but most families get something) and subsidised child care into the equation.

Without those things, it would be a LOT more difficult to have another child."

Great, i'm glad you have thought about this - and great that you can get the govt assistance, it is as it should be, but rather proves my point - that you need to sit down and work things out, which you clearly have done.

So why is it unreasonable to factor in government housing? That's what this post is about, isn't it? How dare someone have a second child and expect the government to provide housing? The thing is, the government DOES provide housing in those circumstances, if it's thought necessary. Why is it irresponsible to act on that basis?

Re: housing, i have seen some dire circumstances in my job (housing) and the expectation of entitlement to a bigger property regardless of how many children you keep on having isn't right considering the lack of social housing across the board.

Social housing is there for people in housing need. i don't consider 'i want' (another baby) to be need in most cases. People who are homeless need, people who are sleeping with their children on the floor of their sisters house need, people fleeing DV need. INFACT most poorer people do consider where they are at with their life and their circumstances before having another child ( like most people actually do)

not poor bashing. i think this is rather an unfair summation of my argument which is that one should assess ones present situation before having another child. Infact i think its an inverted insult to suggest that poor people don't do this.

Some government assistance is fine, we all pay our taxes (poor too - they pay proportionally more unfortunately) to pay for that.

But there's a world of difference between that and expecting to be able to have children without working to support them.

It's mad to think that just because we have a desire for something means that we can have it - that applies to children (and large cream cakes)

Liberalism to me also means personal responsibility.

It also might be different is Australia - it's a bigger place, more room

Here on this titchy island we can't have all the lovely rambling country and all have big houses to house all the extra children people might want.

I'm in contribution based JSA allowance at the moment, I get £64.20 a month for that (for which I am more GRATEFUL than you can ever imagine), I'm getting divorced, DS dad gives slightly more than that a week as child maintenance, which means I cannot get income support or income based JSA, and therefore I don't qualify for housing benefits.

Am I thinking of having another baby, FGS, NO, the only thought in my mind is getting another job, and my week revolves around application deadlines, fearing being made homeless in the next few months if I don't manage to pay for the mortgage, wondering how on earth I can pay gas, water and electricity, and that not even before contemplating the food.

Because you get 64.20 a week for everything (+20 Child benefit) but that is to cover for everything, not just the food.

But perhaps I got it all wrong and what I need to solve my problems is getting another child? Don't think so. Sorry, we will need to agree to disagree.

"so you think that people should have govt assistance to raise a child, but someone who doesn't yet have a child shouldn't be able to have govt assistance confused

At the end of the day it makes sod all difference whether you are poor when you have your child, or become poor afterwards you still get govt assistance"

i think this is the crux of the matter entirely.

i think it makes all the difference to plan your family and its future based on current circumstances.

the assistance is a safety net for thoe people who need it and rightly so.

sorry £64.20 a week

Right. So social housing is there for people in need, and is a finite quantity. But government money is a finite quantity too. In fact, doesn't Britain have a massive deficit? But it's okay for me to expect paid maternity leave, public health care, etc? Why, what's the difference?

I don't understand why it's okay to expect the massive government handouts that I get just for living in this country, and yet not okay to expect government housing? Why is that the line you're drawing?

Is it, possibly, that you like to feel entitled to all the stuff you get, but to criticise those who get something else?

Laurie, sure, Australia's bigger. But it's got a titchy population, which means less taxpayers, which means less money in the pot to pay for all this middle class welfare. And we have problems with urban sprawl/population density/etc as well. So no, that argument doesn't hold.