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?

I hate the fact that any opinion on this that isn't along the lines of "oh have as many children as you want and raise them on love" is seen as poor bashing.

I agree with custardo that it comes down to personal responsibility, it's pretty insulting to suggest that poor people either can't or shouldn't have to think about that.

Ultimately having a child is not a right, and it is not unreasonable to suggest that anyone considering having children should consider their circumstances and consider whether it is pheasible to bring a child into those circumstances, be that financial/emotional etc. E.g. if someone posted that their relationship was in a bad place but they wanted another baby now most people would advise them against it. So why is being in a bad place financially any different?

And if we're talking about entitlement from the government to provide help to have as many children as you want, where should we draw the line? Should I for instance, who cannot have more children due to fertility problems, feel that I should be entitled to unlimited rounds of IVF in order to conceive a second and perhaps even subsequent children? And if not why not?

agree wannabe, largely -- this discussion can become polarised very quickly

T and F it's there again in your post somebody else's fault, society's fault.. see how it creeps in?

So you accept there is dependancy by choice -- but do you condone it? and if not, do you tolerate it? and if not, what would you think ought to be done?

lol - no it's not true - - but she believed me yes DS3 is a pretty easy child, and yes he goes off to nursery in September and I suppose to that women (who I have known for several years and has pssed me off before tellnig me that she* didn't need any pain relief for childbirth etc etc etc) it will look like I'm just lolling aorund for 1 1/2yrs..

There were many reasons I have actually chosen to claim IS for the time being (I could in theory have gone out and got a job....once I actually move out of her), far too complex some of them to explain on this thread if you don't know my background lol. But lets just say that while I believe that people should - if able - work to support themselves and their family, I believe that my reasons for making this choice now are that I'm using the system for what it was set up for - to support people while they get back on their feet (basically speaking) - much bigger chance of me getting back on my feet (and staying there) if I sort "stuff" out over the next year and a bit than if I try and throw myself into work now.

(it's a very long and complicated story)

"Ultimately having a child is not a right, "

yes - it is

"The right to marry and to start a family" (HR Act 1998)

and also relevant

"the right not to be discriminated against in respect of these rights and freedoms"

I think the decision to have children or more children has to be a well thought out one.

If you owned your own flat, you might not be able to simply trade up to something bigger. So you'd either take the decision to be a bit squashed ( not the end of the world) or not have another child. Simples.

I don't see why you should be afforded the luxury of more choice just because you are in social housing.

Poor people are not stupid.

I agree, wannaBe. I'm still nervous after my previous post, waiting for someone to come on and post that I disagree with or look down or think I'm better than benefits claimants etc, which is not true.

Some of the best parents I know are on benefits, because of circumstances beyond their control, but I know it's hard for them, and I know they are doing something to hopefully be able to come off it and have an easier life one day. The are spending considerably more time and effort with their children than I do, often under difficult circumstances (SN, for one). So it's not about benefits per se.

It is about taking responsibility.

The story of the Lewisham woman shocks me. That is ridiculous. Government should not have to fund 11 children.

Better education is often a solution, but there is a limited pot of funds. I wish people would accept that it's a game of moving blocks around - if you want to spend £40K pa on one family, you will have £40K less for, for example, improving NHS/education etc.

but what we do, and how we act is influenced by society and our own experienced, everything you or I do is influenced in some way or another by society and what we have experienced/learned through life.

You simply can't expect someone that has grown up in poverty, had poor schooling (not their fault if they have a shit school), and parents who also had the same life experience to have the same outlook on life as someone growing up in a "comfortable" life, with a good education, and educated parents behind them.

Life doesn't work that way,

True. That is, however, why one of the key solutions is better education. Which you need more money for. A bigger house is not going to solve anything if you're just going to have more children - that's a short term solution, and would, as you say, probably have the same problem in the next generation.

and

"Article 16.

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. "

of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948)

also

" (2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection."

(think that covers single parents yes?)

No, but neither can you absolve people of all responsibility for the same reasons.
I grew up in poverty, on benefits, on a council estate. Now I have my own home and had children only after I could afford them and provide for them. I wasn't destined for poverty.

but that is your personal life experience - surely you must acknowledge that someone else with teh same background isn't always going to be able to find a way out of it?

You can't just say "I grew up in poverty, and on benefits - but I did well for myself so that must be true of everyone" - but it isn't true for everyone.

T&F. I hear what you are saying and I accept that someone from a deprived background has less choice than someone who grew up in a middle class family and went to pony club, but we should still have to take personal responsibility and accept the consequences of our actions. I think to a certain extent society is allowing individuals to pass the buck because there will always be a welfare state to pay the bills.

I didn't grow up in a middle class family. I grew up on a council estate, in a single parent family with an alcoholic absent father. I can remember hiding with my mum behind the sofa to avoid the provident loan man. I went to a shitty little sink estate comprehensive and like my cousin left with mediocre GCSE results.

I then had a choice to make I could be predictable and choose teenage pregnancy (like most of my friends) get a council flat and live the same sort of life as my mum or I could choose a different life. I spent nearly a year doing very little as nobody wanted to employ me as I didn't really have anything going for me. I then convinced an organisation to allow me to work for free (before the days of minimum wage), they saw my potential and as a result of this I ended up doing quite well career wise.

I chose to take a career break when I had my son which is why we are in the position of not being able to afford a bigger house (my choice I accept that our family size is limited because of my actions). Yes it would be lovely to have a large family but it isn't going to happen so instead I plan to start a business with a friend. There is no point in dwelling on what you can't have, you have to focus on achievable goals.

My cousin has had exactly the same upbringing and education as me and yet she chose to have children and be supported by the state. The other day when we were discussing her housing situation, I asked her if she had thought anymore about training to be a nurse, it was always something that she had an interest in and she is a bright girl. She said no because she would rather have a 5th child. She cannot afford a 5th child but will probably have one because the welfare state allows her to. How can this be right? I don't want to live in a country like the US where the poor are demonised and the children of the poor suffer but equally I don't want to live in a society that allows individuals to "opt out". What is the answer?

I didn't say that at all. Of course it isn't true of everyone, anyone with eyes can see that,only a fool would imagine their own expericene is indicitive of all.

I was merely pointing out that we are not all automaticaaly condemned to the same fate. Perhaps thats the main reason I wasn't, because I was told that I was able for better from an early age. I was told to work hard and take responsibility for myself. I didn't have a parent that sat back and whined "can't someone else do it, gimme gimme gimmee".

I just find it insulting to suggest that if you are poor, on benefits and/or in council housing, you have no responsibility and other people should sort it out for you. Its just about the worst message you could give.

I agree runnybottom.

but something in your life experience told you that you could achieve more, not everyone has that. Some people don't see that "choice" ahead of them, and have no-one to tell them about it, some people may well see the choice, and try to take it but find they are unlucky (I had a decent education, but in never managed to convince anyone to take me on either paid or free while I was aged 16-18)

Life simply isn't black and white and just like the child of a fairly well off parent can't be guaranteed success in life, neither can a child of poor parents always be guaranteed to be poor (iykwim).

It's like this notion of "you can have anything you want if you work hard enough" - it's just not true - some people work bloody hard for their entire lives and never get close to getting what they wanted. Life's a shit at times - there are always going to be more people in the low paid jobs than there are in the higher paid jobs (you can't have 100 managers, and 1 cleaner ) some people just draw the short straw in life and it doesn't matter how hard they work, how much drive and ambition they have they'll just not get there.

Some people get lucky, some people don't.

I think it's important to distinguish between those who moan that they don't have this that or the other, and "wish" they could have a bigger house/whatever, and those that believe they are entitled to it and expect it

T&F. I agree with everything you have said in your last post and I think your last paragraph sums it up nicely. But what is the answer? I don't think anyone has one.

Its not true, I know that. I'm no CEO or anything, I haven't got that far from my roots, just far enough. Some of it is luck, some of it is ambition, some of it is bloody hard work.

But yes, I agree, its the entitlement that grates. I am all for helping those who need it, I;ve been helped and supported by the welfare state. But the attitude of I can have as many kids as I like and someone else will sort it out cos I'm entitled to....it just makes me sick. I'm never going to apologise for that opinion.

"Perhaps thats the main reason I wasn't, because I was told that I was able for better from an early age. I was told to work hard and take responsibility for myself."

sorry x posts with this one - you've hit the nail on the head.

Now imagine that your mum worked her guts out, but you were still poor, she couldn't help but mention that she worked hard but still struggled. That daily life was a slog, and she was permanently miserable/stressed and that's what you grew up remembering - that your parent worked hard but was really no better off for it. That working hard, and long hours in a job didn't mean you'd have any of the "nice" things in life.

Then you'd have been a lot less likely to have grown up aiming for better wouldn't you - why would you if you'd grown up learning that even working hard didn't mean you'd be better off in life.

I don't see anyone saying that people shouldn't take responsibility for how they live their life, but you do have to look at why they are like that - and not just put them all into the "lazy bums" box.......because it's far too complex to do that. (IMO of course )

You can argue til the cows come home that people on benfits and in social housing shouldn't be discriminated against and should be able to have as many children as they like. Fair enough.

But what about people who aren't on benefits, who work for a fixed income, and who rent privately or own a house? No-one is going to offer them a bigger house if they want more children. They might get more tax credits and child benefit, but chances are this won't be enought to get a bigger property. So ordinary working folk tend to stop having children when they can't afford any more or can't fit any more in their house.

So as I see it, the only people who are free to pop out as many mouths to feed and house as they like are the people who live off the state and those who are wealthy. Those of us in the middle are being very unfairly prejudiced against here. And at least the rich are footing their own bill for their multiple progeny. I'm paying the bill for those on income support and in social housing.

Is it fair that those who often can't afford another child themselves are paying taxes so that other people can continue having children?

And, no, before anyone asks, I don't read the Daily Mail. I just don't think people should be allowed to take indiscrimiately from the welfare state without any kind of limit being imposed. It's an unsustainable, unrealistic and completely unfair system which gives people no incentive to improve their own circumstances. Why bother with education and work when you can get everything for free, for life?

I'm not from the UK, and I am constantly amazed at the welfare culture here.

Custardo, I'm not making this personal at all (but hey, thanks for the tip on how to make arguments ). I'm making the argument that when people (including you) argue against poor people expecting or taking for granted various government assistance (housing) they ignore the huge swathes of government assistance they themselves take for granted.

And I'm one of the people who takes those things for granted, by the way. I had a publicly funded pregnancy and birth, my child spent a week in a paediatric hospital when she was four months old at no cost to me, we receive tax benefits because we're under a certain income with a young dependant child, her childcare costs are subsidised because I work fulltime and when she's older she can use public schooling if necessary. I take all of those things for granted when deciding whether to have children. AIBU to do so? Why or why not?

Runnybottom asked me why I can't separate housing from, inter alia, maternity care. What I'm asking is, why should I? What separates one form of government assistance from another?

We as a society recognise that the welfare of children is a public good, not just a personal benefit. So we pay for children to have health care, education, food and various social services. If those children are in danger of growing up in overcrowded circumstances, we help with that as well. No-one has yet told me why the latter is unreasonable and yet the former is reasonable.

Tortoise - I think the difference lies in whether something is available to everyone or just a small group. NHS, schools etc are freely and equally available to everyone. Social housing is only available to a small group who fit certain criteria, and I don't see why having more children should entitle people to a bigger house when that's not the case with people who aren't on benefits. It's not fair to everyone in the way that tax credits, healthcare and school are (for the most part).

Annie is right - the difference is the availability of the benefit.
I am all for state school and the NHS. And all other open access benefits to society.

However there are many low/middle income families who have taken the decision to limit their family because they simply can't afford to rent/buy a larger house. Surely they have every right to feel resentful of those who don't take the same responsibilities. Particularly, as they are paying for it.

The way I see it sensible people cut their cloth according. Yes we all would like more children, but we stop at what we can manage mentally and financially. But there are the ones who KNOW SOCIETY WILL TAKE CARE OF THEIR MANY CHILDREN. Child benefit should be for the first two children only.

Aha! Thank you, Annie, that's the first logical reason I've been given so far. That is a perfectly reasonable explanation for why the housing issue gets people up in arms.

It doesn't, however, go as far as explaining why it's okay to say 'you should only have children if you can afford it' if you are not defining 'afford it' as 'not using government benefits'. Which include those benefits available to all.

So perhaps what we mean is not 'these people are irresponsible (and I, utilising public goods, am not)' so much as we mean 'these people are getting something I am not and it is not fair'. Does that sound accurate?

Someone earlier on this thread was arguing that people should have kids after they had established a career so they could get maternity pay and not have to rely on state benefits.

Surely maternity pay is a state benefit? Your employer pays you but they claim it back from the state. So whether you are a 16 year old who has never worked or you are a 30 year old on maternity pay, you are still getting paid by the government to stay at home and look after your baby. Most people do not stay on benefits long term - they get jobs when their babies are older.

So as most people are affording children as a result of getting maternity pay or marrying a decently-paid man, they are hardly more moral or financially independent than someone else with no real career having kids.