Benefits...following on from unfit parents thread...

[anais]

Well, who wants to start?

Yes, glad you popped in Scummy. And bossykate great post. What I've been wanting to say but you've summed it up so neatly.

Have to add something... I was 18 when i had DS, when he was 2 we discovered he had Cerebral Palsy, I was 28 weeks pregnant with DD1 when he was dignosed, I had recently given up working. DD1 was born 3 weeks later. She was 13 months when we discovered she too was disabled. I have been unable to work since, though DH does work fulltime. I want to work but would need lots of time off with DS and DD1 so it makes sense for me to stay at home with them.
I hope that when they get older the goverment will be able to help them. Ds will be able to work and live an indepent life. DD1 will always need help and will struggle with life.
Am I a bad parent because I had them early, and kept them knowing that they will struggle through life? NO I am not. I am a strong person who wants the best for my children and I have accepted their conditions easily, possiblity more so than an 'older' mum.
You can not make people give their child up, if I had be made to, I wouldn't know the joy a disable child can bring you.

HMB, I do agree with the fact that some of these girls you are talking about will struggle, but I think this is an entirely separate issue.

I do know some young mums who are fantastic mums, some who are crap - but the same applies to mums of any age. I don't think it's desirable for 14 yr olds to be having babies, I think it's very sad. There was a young girl of 12 recently in the local paper who has just had a baby. The shocking thing was the attitude of her mother who thought it was great - she'd had her first child at 15 or 16.

But the assumption seems to be that young mums aren't going to be good mums, and I think that's sad. If my dd got pregnant young I wouldn't be disappointed, I would give her the support she needed to make the decisions that were right for her. When I got pg at 17 my family acted like it was the end of the world. It wasn't until the scans showed there were problems with the baby that I started getting a bit more support. I was made to feel very guilty, and I know to this day that my parents are disappointed with the decisions I've made. But my parents supported me and not everyone in my position is that lucky. If she has no-one else where is a young, single mother to turn?

I still say that the main problem is the media, and I think that is what needs to change. Perhaps the emphasis should be on changing society and the media rather than demonising (sorry that's probably to strong a word) those who are caught in the trap.

Mieow, I just wanted to say that was a lovely moving post. We all want what is best for our children. If they grow up anything like their mum it sounds like they will be very strong people.

Exactly mieow......

I was talking to a friend about professionals the other day (by which I mean drs, senior speech therapists, clinical psychologists etc) and she said it was a pity that you never met a senior professional with a "complex" (their favourite term) disabled child- then she said "well of course you don't because if you have a disabled child it is almost impossible to hold down a full-time job".

If you happened to be a single Mum as well then you would definitely be on benefits. I said it earlier- there are many different routes to ending up on benefits. I don't really think it is up to the taxpayer to sit in moral judegment of how someone got there.

I worked for 3 years and when back to work for 1 year when DS was 1. I have paid tax for 4 years and since I started my GCSEs. I was taking exams and working at the same time. We get Child Tax credits and WTC but have never claimed income support, but if I had to, I would, as I HAVE to be at home with my children.
The people that annoy me are like my old neighbour who had 3 children, all school age, and she WOULDN'T work. As soon as my children are all at school I intend to go back to work. Hopefully by then the childrens appointments will be few and far between, though we can never say if that will happen.
I believe that the benifits system is a great idea and I hope that the people who argue against it never have to be in the position that so many people are in.

have to add this too....... One day I was in Asda with sister and BIL. BIL wanted to push DS in his buggy. He went off to get some beer or something and two old dears said behind him..... wait for it......... "teenage parents, scrouging off the system, not working etc etc" Darling BIL turned round and said "one, he isn't mine, two, his parents work, his dad works FT and his mum works PT, and they don't claim benifits" He said to me that he had never seen someone so embasassed. LOL.
Maybe its about time some people come off their soapbox, don't you think?

Scummymummy, nice to see you here again... and bloody well said!!

Anais,
I don't hink that we are very different in our opinions at all. I also think that the media is guilty of 'sexualising' our children too early. I also agree that some of them will make great mums. I also agree that some older mums can be terrible. My concerns are not to stop 'scrounging' ( a term I diasgree with) but rather reduce the potential difficulty that these girls will have trying to be adult at 13-15.

I'm sure that none of them will regret having their children, but many will regret losing their childhood so early.

And the multiple partners/STD makes me worry, as it would in any age group. Many of these girls will go on to have major problems.

The idea of the benefits system was to provide a temporary stopgap for someone temporarily unable to work, and to provide an old age pension.

In recent years it has changed. If someone who usually works is made redundant, they are supposed to have insurance to cover their mortgage & other outgoings & they are not entitled to anything (except the basic JSA)... as well as the forced National Insurance they cannot choose not to pay. We have also been told that anyone my age & younger cannot expect a state pension, even though we have been paying for it for the past 24 years, and should have a private pension in place.

Can anyone explain how I can pay for redundancy insurance and a private pension when we just about make enough between us to cover the bills? That's why a lot of us get riled when we see other people making a career of being on the dole.

I'd love to be a SAHM. I saw earlier on this thread that we should downshift... How? My DH is paid weekly. He has no skills & no qualifications. Depending on his shifts his money can vary up to £200 a month. At its worst, 50% of his pay goes on the mortgage & another 15% on the council tax. If we "want' to pay the bills as well... oh, and eat... I have to work. There is no choice. We have a 3 bed terraced house with a small garden, & 4 kids. The only property we could afford that would reduce the mortgage would be a 2 bed flat. How is that a choice? I also saw further back that lack of central heating was considered to be poverty.. we've only been able to afford CH for the last 5 years & my kids were 6,8,10 & 12 by then. They spent their babyhood with ice on the insides of the windows & damp on the walls.

My SIL conveniently had a 2nd child when her DD was 10. She "put in for" and was given, a bigger house, & they go without nothing. She'd been told she could go to work when her DD started secondary school, so she made damn sure she couldn't, & she got another 5+ years at home with her DS, who conveniently doesn't have a father.

Bitter & twisted? You bet.

Tallulah wrote "The idea of the benefits system was to provide a temporary stopgap for someone temporarily unable to work, and to provide an old age pension"

Can I refer to the foundations of the welfare state, and benefits?

"The concept of the welfare state refers to the state's provision of public measures and support to achieve basic living standards and help those in need across society. Ideally, the welfare state aims to relieve poverty, reduce inequality, and achieve greater social integration and solidarity.

The Beveridge Report was designed to counter the five giants of illness, ignorance, disease, squalor, and want. It considered the whole question of social insurance, arguing that want could be abolished by a system of social security organised for the individual by the state. Beveridge recommended the establishment of a national health service, national insurance and assistance, family allowances, and stressed the importance of full-employment.

Although not entirely as Beveridge wished, the measures were adopted and formed the basis of the British post-war Welfare State. Family allowances were enacted in 1945, and National Insurance and the National Health Service in 1946; full employment became government policy. Together, these developments created the welfare state, a system of social security guaranteeing a minimum level of health and social services."

Tallulah's comment made me think that the there will be always be the arguement we are all having here whilst there are differences of opninion as to the purpose of welfare.

Some people focus on the "relieve poverty" part of the recommendation. Others focus on the "reduce inequality, and achieve greater social integration and solidarity."

Some believe that proverty is also a temporary state of being, or that it should be regardless of the circumstances of the individual. If proverty persists then that is the fault of the person, not the result of, say, some inbuilt inequality or disadvantage. I think it would be fair to say that people can work their butts of and never get out of proverty or hardship, as you Tallulah would seem to be saying. And as such the welfare state was set up not just as a temporary measure for unemployed people, but to "reduce inequality".

As you, Tallulah, have outlined what you believe benefits for, do you not claim things like working tax credit or Child benefit?

Pie, not quite sure what point you're making there. I've also studied social history. From what you've quoted I can't see that any of Beveridge's ideals have been met. We don't have an inclusive society & poverty is still rife. There is certainly no equality or consistency in things like healthcare or education, as we've all said on other threads. We've just got a many-tiered society in which SOME people feel it's alright to live a parasitical lifestyle being funded by everyone else; some people fall on hard times and are abandoned; some people are well off and others just get by.

You didn't answer my point on the pensions/insurance front. Why do people who are working have to pay twice?

Give you an example here. My grandma is 90. My grandad worked hard all his life and got an occupational pension- which he has paid for. Because of the level of their state pension & occupational pension they were not entitled to anything else. The old lady next door never worked in her life. Her husband didn't work either, so they had no pensions. They got income support/housing benefit & everything that goes with it. They were better off than my grandparents. How is that fair?

tallulah, I'm not going to argue that the example that you have given is fair at all, but surely you wouldn't want to see the people next door to your grandmother have their benefits reduced so they are as badly off as your grandma do you?

As you have said you think benefits are a safety net, for those who need it, do you accept that the neighbours who are recieving it need it and, rightly or wrongly, your grandma doesn't?

I would prefer to see a basic standard for all pensioners, regardless of whether it is a state pension or private, so that if the private pension fell short the difference would be made up be the welfare system. I wouldn't want to see those with a private pension get the state benefits on top so that they then ended up with more than the recommended amount, because as you have said the system is for helping those in need.

I also obviously don't hold the same views with you about 'the poor' as it would seem that you have an idea about the poor and the deserving poor. Along as there has been no criminal actvity involved I don't think that it is relevant. I'm not going to penalise for what I think are bad or irresponsible choices. Thats a moral judgement I'm not going to make because its not going to change the fact that people need to eat etc.

The fact that as you put it "people who are working have to pay twice" is not down to the fact that people are on benefit, but due to the fact that ALL rates of benefit fall short of what is necessary to most people to have a decent standard of living, and that it costs a fortune to live here. So by the time you get to pension age unless you have something else you are foobarred. I wouldn't want people to be denied benefits though so that I could have more when I reach pension age though, would you?

The point I was making about the Bevridge Report was in response to the quote I gave at the beginning of my post when you said: "The idea of the benefits system was to provide a temporary stopgap for someone temporarily unable to work, and to provide an old age pension". Based on the recommendations of the report and so the founding of the welfare state I disagree with you about what the system was set up to do.

I meant to add, as by way of an analogy. If you have someone who hasn't paid taxes due to long term unemployment who develops lung cancer and who smokes do you begrudge them or deny them treatment.

You can say smoking when you can afford it is irresponsible, smoking when you can't is crazy. They have paid no taxes, they haven't take precautions to protect against lung cancer. Its not something they couldn't avoid. But they will die without treatment.

Your taxes also pay for this person's care. As well as the person who takes an 'e' and it all goes wrong. Or the person with alcohol poisoning.

The NHS is a welfare benefit. Would you (and this is directed at everyone) want it restricted the same way you would like to see benefits restricted?

Pie, we're just not going to agree on this.

What you're saying is that someone who has paid for a pension- and done without to do so- then ends up with the same as the person who hasn't bothered?

We'll be OK then. DH hasn't got a pension & it's worrying me sick, given that there won't be a state pension when we retire.. make that, IF we retire... 70 now- be 80 by the time we get there. But it's OK because we will just demand it from the state. Those of you paying all your spare cash into your personal pension- why bother?

It doesn't quite work.

Pie- other posts crossed.

The NHS IS being restricted-whether we like it or not. I think there is going to come a time when the Govt decide we are going down the American route & have to have health Ins, (not saying I agree with that).

I strongly disagree with the people who come here from abroad for free treatment- I don't know how big a problem that is. As for your hypothetical smoker- I can see your point & yes I do begrudge money being spent on self-inflicted injuries/illnesses- but only because there seems to be insufficient for other people. If there was enough to go around & everyone got the treatment they needed when they needed it, then of course not.

Treatment seems to be based on luck rather than need, which is not right at all. My dad died of a heart attack, 9 weeks into a 12-week wait for emergency surgery, so you'll forgive me for not being sympathetic to our imaginary smoker. My dad never smoked, didn't drink & was a keen sportsman all his life (playing, not watching). There must be hundreds like him all over the country. If it's an emergency you shouldn't have to wait, no matter where you live, how old you are or what your problem is.

I don't think we will agree tallulah...

I just meant it to come out as, 'well if its not ok to give both a pension, then is it ok to let them starve because they didn't make provisions?'

Its one or the other, isn't it?

I mean...is it ok to let the one who didn't work starve? Surely that doesn't work either.

I'm sorry to read about you father btw.

tallulah there's an interesting article about nhs spending on "this is where our taxes are going" thread- from today's Sunday Times.

NHS is bloody useless. Heard last week about someone who has been repeatedly to the dr for 6 months over lumps growing in his chest. Told last week it is cancer, inoperable and he'll be dead by xmas. He was unable to access private healthcare as he couldn't afford it. There are so many of these stories I'm not even surprised when i hear them now.

Just to say - thanks to anais and others for an intelligent and heated debate. However, as the insults have started flying I won't be returning to this thread (even though, as a result of further thoughts, I am moving away from my original standpoint.) When will people learn? - attack the idea, not the person.

Anais,

you say yourself 'I was young and naive and I honestly thought I would be on benefits for a few months, maximum. I thought I would be able to find work which I could do at home and suport my child. I've since discovered that it's not that simple, but I honestly wasn't aware of that at the time.'
so, doesn't this mean that maybe 17 was a tiny bit too young to have a child, since you had not been able to understand the full consequences of it? I don't want want to sound aggressive or judgemental, but you say you've not been irresponsible, and I think you have a bit, just because you were too young, I'm sure you're a very mature person now, and while I understand that you must have been emotionally ready to bring up a child, I can't help feeling that at 17 you are still young to be able to appreciate all the consequences. The fact that you despeately wanted a child and just couldn't wait to be able to support him/her is an example of this ( I think). I have been wanting a child for many years before I finally had one, but I also thought it would be better for us (and baby) if I waited until our financial situation was better, I am now in the lucky position of being able to work part-time beacsue my dh earns enough for me to do that.

Also, a lot of you said that being on benefits is no life of luxury, I'm sure of that, and I understand that most people don't choose this route, but for those who do choose it (ie having a child when you're out of work), isnt'it irresponsible (towards your won child not society)to have a child when you know the state will give you so little to support that child? You know you will have a hard life (both of you), is it fair for the child???

Talking about the welfare system in the UK, where I come from, girls who get pregnant before completing their eductaion are usually helped by the parents, and I suppose (I really don't know if there is one)there is a benefit system for those who do not have the means, but in most cases, it means that these girls manage to finish their studies and find a good enough job afterwards... for people on lower income there are subsidised nurseries. Italso means that they have a good deterrent, I know I was terrified of the idea of telling my dad that I was pregnant, and contraception is not free in my country, but I always took precautions. I wanted to study and get a good job and be able to offer my children the best possible life(I know money does not mean happiness, but there are lots of basic things you still need money for)

and yes in theory I suppose that we all have the right to stay at home with our children, but if we all did, who would pay the taxes to support us all??? I don't have a solution, but when you say you ahve a right to stay at home (I'm not talking to Anais in particular)do you realise that someone else has to give up that right and work and pay taxes so that you can avail yourself of that right?

I admit I am very proud and I am not very good at accepting help, but also, I've always believed you need to work to get what you want. (I don't even play the lottery). I suppose I'm really lucky my parents taught me this.

But I do believe the UK system needs changing, I'm afarid I have no solutions, but as it is now, it does nothing to motivate people to try and do better for themselves and their children.

I'm sure this post is not very coherent and probably repeats a lot of the other posts. Accept my apologies

just finished reading the whole thread, Anais I realise you've already answered part of my quetsions. Still don't understand why people say this thread has become offensive, it seems to me we are having an lively debate.

Maybe I haven't read the posts properly...too long to be able to.

Anyway, I fell compelled to make raise my hand and apologise if I have offended anyone...just in case

i dont think any one understands how allc onsuming parenthood is and i can certainly put up my hand and say i missed out on doing a lot as i had a child at 17, at 17 though i was mature enough to understand my choices and to live with them i have had a life of (uk relative) poverty until very recently and my children have too.

as has already been said, your not a bad mum if you are a young mum - many are as good as and better than older mums - each has its benefits i am sure.

i think if the argument is " you must be financially stable" - by whose reckoning and what criteria - must you have at least £500 in the bank before you should concieve? £ 5000? more? should you own a house - should you be in employment?

children give birth to children because they live in a cycle of hopelessness - i am an exception to the rule - i got out - most dont unless you have been up to your elbows down the back of the setee hoping for 50p for a loaf of bread to feed the kids you dontunderstand - you think you do - you really truly dont. becuase no matter how hard you try if your poor you are disadvantaged.

imagine how comfortable you feel with electric and gas in your house - supposing you had non, supposing both are supplied by meter, suppose now its christmas day and you bought your children - all three a crappy teddy from the charity shop for £1.00
with no hope, no money, no future, debt piling around. and this was after i had been on my feet already
i owned my house when the market went to pot then i became pregnant with twins - a house i couldnt afford mortgage payments on that was woth nothing and no one wanted to buy - this is after i have got on my feet after being pregnant at 17.

reposession - life on council estates - and £1.00 teddy bears no gas or electric on xmas day cos we couldnt afford it. and 10 years of long hard graft to get out - TEN YEARS.

the fact i got out is the exception - the scenario isnt, i lived amongst many people who were in the same boat - borrowing off the money man to get their children xmas preasents paying extortionate amounts of interest, losing any credit rating you may have - stealing nappies from kwik save so your child has some was not unusual

most people are good people, dont accept the media hype about how people like me live

custardo - you've just bought a lump to my throat..
I hope life is better for you now

Where were the fathers in all of this???

I am sorry to ask such a question, I probably don't understand how hard it is but am so scared of getting into that situation that I take huge precautions with contracaption and I make sure I don't sleep with anyone who is gonna buzz off if I did become pregnant.