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

[anais]

Well, who wants to start?

Prufrock, I do agree with you on the wage for SAHP thing.

Prufrock..."You say you don't expect anyone to support you...But if that's the case, why did you quite deliberately put yourself in a situation where that would be the end result?"

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. The fact is that having a child was a need that was overwhelming every part of my life. I could think of nothing else. I needed to have a child, and it's the best thing I ever did and certainly not something I will ever regret.

"(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)"

Thank you, that means a lot. And to be fair, I don't think you're alone, most people don't understand

Sorry about the cheap dig about sah/work. You're right, that was out of order.

Isn't taking away babies because of financial and practical reasons what you do with you dogs and cats if they get pregnant and deliver?

Are people who have children whilst on welfare to be treated like animals? Why not bypass the whole expensive maternity/labour part and force an abortion or force sterilisation. If its finance thats the problem then this would be the more economical solution.

Prufrock, yes I do agree (shock! horror!! ) with you about payment for sahm parents. On benefits I am stuck living in a crappy flat in an area I hate, because housing benefit won't pay for anything else. This kind of payment would give me a lot more freedom, and, as you say, take away the stigmas.

But, would it be workable? Would it be means tested? If not, would it be fair? Would it be possible to provide a livable wage without a huge tax increase?

Prufrock - I agreed with you - in fact I think it was I who first suggested it - right down on message 4 (or thereabouts )of this thread.

anais - no I don't like the idea of forcibly removing children from parents. But the rights of the child come first. Maybe if people knew this would happen they wouldn't get pregnant in the first place. (alright, maybe not). There are FAR too many children who are seriously disadvantaged by their upbringing, creating a vicious circle. But if you throw money at the parents it just encourages them to have more children. I would love someone to come up with a way to help these children without damaging their parents.

pie - I personally don't like abortion so would never advocate it. Sterilisation means the woman would never be able to have children again. I wouldn't go that far.

Oh OK jude - but I came up with the slogan.

Anais - thanks. I don't know if it would be workable. I was practicing being a politician - I thought that meant I just had to come up with ideas, not make them work. Means tested -no. Fair, what is fairer than giveing to all? ax increase - well if you gave me back some of the money, I wouldn't mind you taxing me. I actually think the childless are taxed very lightly - given that it's our kids who will be funding their future pensions (finally an idea nobody on Mumsnet will disagree with). And by paying to all, you will make it far easier for the mothers who do want to work to do so, which should increase the money flowing into the state coffers. So economically viable - maybe, politically - unfortunately I think not.

Jude, you think adoption is a good option for the children involved? You think they would actually benefit from that???

It wouldn't stop people getting pregnant (I read a thing today saying that 60% (or there abouts) of unplanned pregnancies were to women using contraception). It would just create a lot of needless suffering.

Will no one accept that money isn't the key to happiness??? That children raised on even a very low income can grow up happy, balanced and fulfilled? Money doesn't mean anything to a child.

As of March 2002 93,200 children in this county were in care, of those 3,400 were adopted directly from care. This counts even babies who were in care for a day before being placed with a family.

Jude, if you were to enforce such adoptions the number in care would raise and there is no guarantee that adoptions would too. Infact in Scotland for instance adoption applications have fallen by 14% in the last year.

You want whats best for the child, I think that everyone on here does, but surely you can't think that a life in care would be that??

Prufrock, you're right, that's just about how politics work

But, why should people who are earning 12k pay their taxes for money to go to people on 150k?they don't need any extra income to stay at home, if they choose to, so why should taxes go to giving them handouts?

"so vicimelly you feel that because you have paid in you have a right to take out?"
Yes I do, I do not intend to be on benefits forever, when circumstances allow, I will return to work. In the interum however I do think that I have a right to the benefits I receive, and I don't believe that I should have to put my life on hold and refrain from having any more children until that happens. In any case if I were to have another child whether I was working or not I would leave work again to spend my childs young years at home home with them, again I think everyone should have the right to do this if it is what they feel is best for them and their children. If this means I have to rely on benefits for these few years then so be it, isn't that what they are there for.

But where do you cut it off? We do earn £150k+ as a family, but still can't afford for me to carry on working when we have two kids. To earn that kind of money you tend to have to work in the, or a city - and houses there aren't cheap. Especially if you need a largish one so you can do the client entertaining that goes along with dh's job. And childcare isn't cheap either. Nursery for two would cost me most of my salary - so why work?

vicimelly - that wasn't my point - see my (Ok judes) manifesto pladge to pay you to stay at home. In my world view you can do that. So you have a right to the benefits - but not because you've paid in. If that was the case you'd end up with higher rate taxpayers having more right to live on unemployment benefit than somebody who's never been able to get a job.

Prufrock, how much (££ are you proposing this should be?

Young posh and loaded is back and so is Donatella! Anyone remember her?

Why, is she a single mother on benefits flaunting her 2+ children?

Sorry prufrock, took your comments the wrong way, I understand what you are trying to say. I agree that we should be paid to stay at home while the kiddies are young, and we should get a bloody good wage because it's a HARD job!!! lol

Where I grew up and still live there are a lot of girls who leave school at 15 or 16 and get themselves pregnant on purpose so that the council will give them a house, pay their rent and council tax and they can then claim benefits and never have to work a day in their lives. These girls often go on to have 3 or even 4 children. I know of one woman in her thirties who did preceisly this has 4 children and has never worked a day in her life. I also know of another who had 3 children and has never worked and probably never will because she just doesn't want to.
By all means I agree that if someone wants to have a child they should have one but they should be in a position where they can support that child and any subsequent children without having to rely soley on benefits. Obviously accidents happen and the reasons for living on benefits can fit into a lot of different categories due to circumstances etc but to deliberately set out to have children and expect everyone else to pay for them is wrong in my opinion.
To an extent I dislike having to pay my taxes for these girls/women to just live their life like this but at the same time I would hate to see the children suffer from not having any money at all coming into the household.
Having worked since the day I left school and always paid my taxes I do get annoyed sometimes at those who buck the system. I do however believe that the system should be there for people who really need it due to becomming single mothers, job loss, disabled children etc. I believe that it should be there to support you in your time of need until the time that you can get back on your feet so to speak.

Freyah, don't mean to sound patronising, but it's very easy to judge without knowing the whole story.

I have a group of friends, all of whom are young mums (think late teens - 23ish)most of whom have 2 children. Seeing them (around with the children, during the day) it would be easy to assume these are all single mums on benefit. In reality, I am the only one in the group who is single, and the only one who is on benefits.

It's easy to make assumptions about people, and I know myself I do it all too often.

The type of people you describe are the tiny minority, and I do resent being judged the same way. You have to legislate for the majority, and I think however you do that there will always be some who abuse the system. Would you let everyone else suffer just because of a selfish few?

Why not make the fathers of these girls who get pregnant who have never paid in to the pot financially responsible for their offsprings offspring (and the fathers of the boys for that matter) - not only would it cut down on the number of teenage mothers but I am sure there would be less kids hanging around the streets at night, STDs and children being born to children.

I do not think it is everyone's right to have a child and think that people need to be more responsible - anais, I would dearly love to have a baby at the moment and spend hours thinking about it ad choosing names but I am not in the position to at the moment as I could not finacially provide for it (as well as being married to someone else!!) which I think is the responsible attitude to have.

I am sure that you are a fantastic mother but I just think having another child is irresponsible given your situation (whilst admittedly I do not know the whole story!!). What about the dad of your youngest - is he not about also?? Did he know that you wanted a child and was willing to provide and not have a part in its life. Sorry to intrude, I would just like to know a bit more and then could understand better I suppose.

I think it's quite interesting, comparing the amounts people have said they get on benefits, with the 'shopping bill' thread - PLEASE NOTE I'm not talking about anyone in particular, at all, but how many of us would be able to manage on £80 for everything...

I don't think it's an easy option! In fact, once you take into account looking after the kid, wouldn't most teenagers rather work, and be able to buy more, than stay at home with screaming baby (total stereotype here.... )

Er... Boe since when has any offspring done something to make sure that their parents don't have to 'pay' when they want to do it?

Thats like saying x commited a crime and now their father has to pay to keep them in jail. If a person is over 16 and can have sex with whom ever they like the parents can have no legal responsiblity for the act or the outcome.

Would you have an ultra Catholic who condemed divorce have you father pay because you are going through one as a way to 'discourage' the way you live you life?

Sorry if offended Pie - just thought may be a way to make parents more responsible for their offspring's actions - i.e. getting preganant at a very young age. I think it is not a wise thing to do - getting pregnant at a young age that is - you lose your childhood, and often the cycle repeats itself and your children end up having children when they are very young.

I think that parents know that they will not have any repercussions on them if their children become parents and so let them do what they want - I cannot believe that these children are left alone in a house at 14 - 16 with someone of the opposite sex when they are going through a phase of being curious about sex - yes I may sound old fashioned but I think it is so sad to see such young people throw away their lives and I am sure that the chances of these relationships working and the children growing to be in a happy household with 2 parents is very small.

I do not think that there are any easy - viable solutions to any of this at all.

As for the divorce thing I think that is a bit far fetched - I am an adult and I make decisions for myself - divorce is not an accident in my case or a choice that I wanted to make and no reckless behaviour (other than my husband hitting me and being a complete bastard) has made me chose this. I just really think that it is such a shame when you see these children who are having children of their own when they could be growing up and having a whale of a time, getting experience in different aspects of life and being well rounded grown individuals. I have seen countless programmes about young girls saying that if they could turn back the clock, no matter how much they loved their child they would chose not to have it when so young.

I only pointed out about the divorce as there are those who do take a completely different view on whether or not it is responsible, or for that much moral. There is a womens shelter near me and I have spoken to some of the women in the local park over the years when our kids are playing. Their families have told them that the responsible thing to do is keep the family together no matter what. That being a single mum when there is a husband who wants you (and beats you) is reckless and endangering their childs welfare. But they got out and are trying to do whats best for their child.

As I said in an earlier post as of March 2002 93,200 children were in care. There are 11.9 million under 16s in this country. That is a tiny percentage of people who to the legal definition do not look after their children properly (and no I don't have a figure for the estimated number who fall through the cracks in the system). Whilst there are 4 million children living in proverty, proverty in itself does not make for any legal definition of bad parenting.

Actually if you want to talk about proverty and disadvantaged children, more than a third of all muslim households where there are children have no working adult. Muslim children also experience much more overcrowding (more than two in five - 41.7 per cent - compared with an average of 12.3 per cent) and one in eight live in a household with no central heating compared with the average of 5.9 per cent - one in 16. Arguably the majority of people who knowingly bring their children into proverty or underprivalege/disadvantage are ethnic minorities, perhaps you would rather see some sort of screening as to who has children/recieves welfare based on race and religion?

I think that teenage mums are a minority of the 6.5m families in receipt of some form of welfare (including working tax credit). And it is my understanding that the figures in all but the 14 year old age group are dropping. Last year there were 398 14 year old pregnant women. As to the entire under 16 population, 8.3 out of every pregnant 1000 women will be under the age of 16. A total of 41,300 were actually under the age of 18. This is out of an estimated 600,000 pregnancies in this country every year.

Furthermore over 50% of underage conceptions ended in an abortion. So I think that there are alot more teenagers than you reaslise feeling the same way about children as you. That they need to be older and more financially independent.

I've too seen alot of programmes about the harsh reality of a teenage mum. But it is worth bearing in mind that these women are picked because it makes good viewing not because they are necessarily representative of the society we live in.

OK - just thought I would throw in a couple of objections.

Jude the Obscure - taking away babies at birth would be simply unworkable. Already women who suspect that their child will be taken away at birth often go to extreme lengths to avoid this - by hiding their pregnancies, giving birth alone and unattended and by attempting to hide the existance of the child from those in authority. If you brought in a policy like this all that would happen is that you would create a subclass of "hidden children" who officially do not exist - and thus have no access to healthcare etc. And what would you do when one of these children emerged - at the age of 2 or 3 maybe? Would you forcibly adopt them then? If so the danger would be that these children may end up living their entire childhood in deprivation of thise things that society rightly offers us all. But if you didn't take the children at this stage then it would be seen as an easy way of avoiding the policy - just to not mention the child until you had to - as long as they were a year or so old then it would be OK and you will have tricked the system.

Boe - i don't really think you can blame parents for what their teenage children get up to (sex wise). I had my first boyfriend when I was 15. My mother was vigilant - she would drive me into town to meet him, I was not allowed to go to his house unless his mother was at home, and he was not allowed to my house unless she was home. I even suspect that she had the neighbours keeping an eye out when she was at work, to make sure there were no infractions. It really didn't make any difference. We used to go to his house (his mother worked) and have sex there. i didn't get pregnant, but that was just luck, really. Cetainly i don't see what else my mother could have done - short of forbidding me to lewave the house unaccompanied - and setting some sort of jailer to ensure my compliance.

Hm - I feel that I have shared too much....