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

[anais]

Well, who wants to start?

Harrysmum, wouldn't demanding to have children made possible, such as freely accessible IVF treatment be different from denying people the right to have children for economic reasons? The Convention doesn't state that the demand be made possible but the the right not be subject to external demand. Which has been proposed in previous posts.

I would interpret the 'right' to have children as to not be interfered with by the state. I don't interpret that as a 'demand' to have children. Didn't read teh India Knight ( obviously ) article mentioned earlier, but agree with JimJams that children just are. Some people can have them, some people can't. Some people want them, some people don't. Having them is largely down to luck. But the, I'm saying this as one who has one so don't mean to cause offence/hurt to anyone else.

This might belong on a different thread, but I know at my work, there are several colleagues who defend their right not to have children, which obviously is ok, but they extend this to refusing to attend events at which other colleagues' children may be present, and get REALLY angry if children are not banned from staff parties. Along the lines of 'I've chosen not to have children, I don't see why I should have other people's thrust down my throat.'

I work in a school!

Don't worry Tinker, I'm not likely to take offence!. Yes when I leave, my job will be filled by someone else who will be effectively paying my tax. I was suggesting though that if the government raised the tax rate for high earners to above 50%, you would get fewer people willing to make the sacrifices necessary to earn these fat salaries. Our trading floor is packed solid with Continental Europeans (I would say roughly a third of my colleagues are French). All say they are working in London rather than Paris because of the far lower taxes at the top end of the scale.

Like or not, the City is a massive generator of revenue for the government and is one of the country's most important and successful "industries". Maintaining this largely depends on the ability to attract people and business from all over the world which in turn, necessitates a tax regime which is perceived as favourable. That is after all largely what lies behind the development of places like Singapore and Hong Kong as financial centres (top tax rates of 25% and 15%).

Please don't think I am saying that city wankers deserve their dosh, simply that if the financial incentive isn't maintained, it wouldn't be as successful in generating cash for the government.

It's all fine-tuning. International Inland Revenue is the answer Imagine trying to claim your Tax Credits then?

Having recently 'entertained' 2 HK colleagues, have to say wouldn't fancy working there. Notion of term-time working etc seemed alien.

bells, it sounds as though at least a third of your colleagues are in fact economic migrants... shock!

oh that is the other thread, isn't it

musica thats terrible

musica, how can they not want other people's children thrust down their throats if they work in a school? People are just strange.....

I mean they are strange not you for thinking that they are odd kwim??

bells - I was probably a bit harsh earlier- I was geting ready for a punch up with a speech therapist but they have agreed to give us what we want so I am feeling mellow now

Actually I think you have raised an interesting point about it being difficult to give up having had a career. A different topic for a different thread but I have seen a lot of people go back after number 1 only to find it totally horrendous. However all the mum's I know in this position have been unable to give up until pregnant with number 2- when they have a ready excuse. it's almost like they can't admit they hate the job, the career or whatever until they have a socially acceptable excuse. And no being a SAHM is not socially acceptable. When I went to parties with city types and they asked what I did I said I was involved with setting up an internet site with a friend (which I was - but very very part time- I was really a SAHM). If I said I was a SAHM or I taught on Saturdays then thier eyes would glaze over and I would officially have no brain.

I do think many city workers would be surprised how hard professionals work outside the city though. DH is a lawyer (spit ) - not a partner- so he has a fairly normal wage. Unfortunately he is seen as being on partnership track so the company see it as an excuse to extract a pound of flesh and a bit more. He earns a good wage in terms of the majority of the country, but in city terms or even when compared to other professionals it's peanuts really, although he works as hard. Mind you it is his choice. I think he wishes he'd made a different one now

Musica, I guess the school children are "clients" whereas colleagues' children are just "pests"

Jimjams, re your right to have children article (have not read beyond that yet). Very interesting article and I think she makes some good points, I am very against all this new technology - ie messing with genes and the like. I found her comment about the aborted baby, written off as a collectiob of cells, yet able to create life itself particularly striking.

However, I think her "if you can have kids great, if you can't tough" a little harsh. It's very easy when you have kids to say well too bad if you can't have them.

I was 14 when I first started craving a child. It wasn't just a whim, a 'hey it would be nice to have a child' it was an all consuming, desperate need in every fibre of my being. I know that sounds over dramatic, but I'm sure anyone who's had trouble conceieving would relate. When I was 17 I was finally in a postion to be able to get pregnant and that's what I did. Eighteen months after my son was born I was desperate for a child again. Soon I got pregnant with my daughter. Now I have children the craving has lessened, but it has never fully gone away (I plan to adopt, and possibly have more children of my own later).

Had I not been able to have children I would have done virtually anything to have them (as it was I took the chances with unprotected sex with virtual strangers).

What I'm trying to say is that I don't think anyone has the right to deny a woman her need to have children. It's an inbuilt thing. And having children is always selfish.

Prufrock I don't expect anyone to support me, that's just the way it is at the moment. I don't want to sit back and be supported, it's not the easy ride you seem to think it is. I have tried damn hard to get myself off benefit - with no support. Finally, I think I've almost done it. Because I wanted to. I'm not leaving my kids for anyone, it was just a case of finding a way of doing both.

I am very concerned that so many people are so keen to force the likes of me out into work. Surely I have the right to choose to be with my children, isn't that what the welfare situation is about? Or shouldn't it be?

I didn't have a 'good education.' I come from a 'nice middle class' background, but I suffered from depression as a child which meant i left school aged 11. I've pulled myself up, taken some qualifications, and I will work as soon as I am able, but only from home. I won't leave my children.

What so many of you who want these draconian benefit requirements is that 'we' are just like 'you'. One day you, through no 'fault' of your own may find yourself in need. Then do you think you'd impose the same restrictions on it???

Finally back to this thread which has hotted up in my absence.

Firstly, soupdragon has replied very nicely to the first taunt thrown at me of course you don't take away children from those who have fallen upon hard times - that would be hugely detrimental to the children. However, I still believe there has to be a degree of responsibility when deciding how many children to bring into the world when you can't support them (and I thought I was being kind letting you have two ... alright, not really). I did originally favour no additional benefits for more than two children but, as other posters have pointed out, this merely makes life more difficult for the children. I'm afraid I'm still sticking to my adoption principle although I have modified it somewhat in that I am prepared to allow more than two if they are clearly being well looked after.
And would not dream of removing children from their parents except at birth.

I still think a key point is to pay mothers to stay at home with their children when pre-school age.

I am more than happy to pay taxes to help those less fortunate and to give them some quality of life. I am not happy to see that money squandered or for the benefits to be gained fraudulently.

Re musica's post - I guess they have seen enough of children during the day. Like me sometimes

Also, re the rights of parents to have children - I rather think it should be the other way round - the rights of children to have a decent quality of life. This should be the first consideration when deciding whether or not to have a child.

anais - if you carry on reading you will see that I actually propose that you would be paid to stay at home with a preschool child.

I still though have to say that I think you are wrong to have had children without a viable means of providing for them. I have had an overriding urge for a Harley Davidson since I was 14 and first rode on one - that doesn't mean I feel I should be allowed to put down a deposit on one and let the state pick up the monthly payments. You say you don't expect anyone to support you, and that it's not an easy ride (which I never said it was and remember it wasn't). But if that's the case, why did you quite deliberately put yourself in a situation where that would be the end result?

(And BTW - that doesn't mean I think you are a bad mother - from all your posts anybody can tell how much you care for your kids - I just don't unerstand the thought processes that put you in your current situation)

Hmmm, another thought, the govt is now offering free nursery places for 4yr olds, (and extending this to 3yr olds) do you -who don't want to support parents staying at home - think this is a sensible use of taxes? I don't personally, I think it would be better to pay that money for parents to stay at home that for parents to put their kids in nursery.

Prufrock - "Pie - most definately YES I would accept an increase in my taxes to fund a compulsory employment scheme"

So you're HAPPY to pay more tax? I thought the point was you were complaining about paying so much? You want to pay more just for the principle - so you're forcing me to leave my kids just because you can't stand that I want to be with my children when you don't?

Not at all anais - I am complaining about so much of the money I pay in tax going to people who assume it's their right to have it without having to do anything for it.

Re the nursery places - no, I don't think it's sensible at all. I would - as I said below, propose a payemnt to all parents of pre-school children instead. It would then be up to the parent whether to use those funds to support them staying at home woth their children, or paying for a place in a nursery so they could go to work if thet so wish.

And please don't lets resort to cheap digs about me not wanting to stay at home with my kids - I really would have thought better of you than that.

Jude - I so agree with your last post. I have been examining why I feel so strongly about this issue, and find myself saying stuff you would expect to see in a Daily mail editorial, even though I really am a very liberal person (I've been arrested on positical demo's ffs) I really do think it's because I have become every protective of children since becoming a mother, and I just cannot see how having a child when you can't afford to can possibly be good for that child. I'm not saying the poor shouldn't have kids - I'm talking about the women who end up with kids but don't really want them, the "waynettas" that we've all seen in supermarkets buying fags and then complaining that they can't afford to feed their kids properly. I went to school with lots of these kids - and could see how miserable they were. I know that's an extreme - I just think that the benefits system at the moment doesn't do enough to discourage such behaviour.

"I think if you are a single mum on benefits it is highly irresponsible and selfish to even consider having another child that people like me in the long run will have to support"
I'm sorry but I am in a position where I cannot possibly go out to work if I want my daughter to have a decent quality of life, I have a good education have always worked and paid taxes, yet I am irresponsible for wanting to have another child?!? having always paid taxes, if I want to stay at home and bring up my child, and shock horror, consider having another then I do have the right to do that.

Jimjams, I do get free nappies, they give me an allowance of 1 per day, yet I go through more than a packet each day, so I still have to pay a lot.
I do also get DLA, but a low rate, the DLA just about covers the nappies, nothing else.

www, thank you, you put it so well as usual...

I have to say though, that really p*es me off when people accuse single mums on benefits of being irresponsible. I can only speak for myself, but I became a single mum after I had my dd, I never planned to be a single mum on benefits (the very idea...), the plan was that my ex would support us. I left him because he was being violetn. Should I have stayed with him and be battered so that I could stay off benefits? Yes, that would probably have been the responsible option...

I am perfectly aware that the benefits system is a safety net, this is just how I am using it. Like other people, like Jimjams, I worked for many years and contributed for many years. Now I need the system to help me, and I'm thankful it's there, I really am, even though I'm poor, I am very glad to live in this country, where I get support when I need it. Persnally I think that my dd is benefiting much more from me staying at home and looking after her than if I had to go out and work all hours and hardly ever see her, especially as this would not mean that I would be better off than now, because of childcare costs. And to me the responsible option is to do what is best for my dd (please note, in no way am I criticising working mums here). However I don't intend to stay on benefit for ever. In fact I do unpaid work at home in my spare time, just to keep my brain in working order.

so vicimelly you feel that because you have paid in you have a right to take out? I actually think that (the particular point not you or yourcircumstances) is as selfish a view as taking without having given anything. The benefits system should be there as a safety net for people who really need it (however please refer to my previous point about SAHP being paid a wage, not a benefit - which I think is a really good idea even if none of the rest of you do )
That means that we don't treat it as a pot of money that we've put aside and can dip back into as and when we need it, but as a fund to be used for those who, not through choice, end up in circumstances where they need help.

Slug and Pie, great messages

Boe "I cannot remeber who said that they had chosen to have another child as not to put their life on hold - but where is the father? Does he not earn a living? If there is no father about why have you in your situation decided to bring another child into the world? "

Twas me who said that. I wanted my son to be brought up within a family unit. He doesn't have a dad, so why should he miss out on siblings too?

"I believe that we live in a world not a country and that as our small part of it is much richer than others we should be more genourous with it. We could obviously give alot more to these countrys in the first place and that would mean that refugees would not have to seek a better life elsewhere.. "

Nice point Beetroot, great post pie....

Jude, your ptoposal about adoption - do you honestly think it's right to FORCIBLY take children away? Think back to the times when babies were routinely taken away from young/single mums. Are you aware how much emotional damage it does to people? Even people who consented to giving up children often regret it, to force it on anyone is inhumane.

And I maintain that 'quality of life' isn't about how much money you have.

Prufrock, hang on, new message - this one is getting too long...

Does nobody agree with my money for parents of pre school age kids proposal? I've even thought up a wonderful Blairite slogan for it - "A working wage for the hardest work of all" Being given money for bringing up the next generation is not a benefit - it truly is a right. And by removing it from the benefits system, you remove the whole social stigma of being a "single Mum on benefits" I'd even give up my idea of tax breaks on childcare and just give the same money to everyone to choose whether they want to work or not.