Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Politics

Angry at scrapping of 2 child limit

580 replies

BearBuggy · 04/12/2024 15:42

I know there are a few families that find themselves in rotten circumstances and this isn’t aimed at them . However I live in an area where having children to continue to receive benefits was the norm and only now the cap is in place has that stopped.

The Scottish government has now announced it will be scrapped. I am so angry I’m paying towards people breeding children they can’t afford. I didn’t vote SNp this time because of this, as did many of my friends. They lost heavily in my area but still seem to not care what the tax payer is saying.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
13
JudgeJ · 04/12/2024 19:31

Lemonadeand · 04/12/2024 19:00

It’s interesting to me that the criticism of child benefit is mostly directed at families in poverty.

We receive £42.45 child benefit per week (both teachers). We spent £32 per week on swimming lessons.

Shouldn’t you be angry at people like us, spending tax payers’ money on swimming lessons? Rather than being angry at the people who struggle to feed their children?

If your children were going hungry because of your decision to pay for swimming lessons then, Yes, people would be justified in being angry. As it is they're not so it's irrelevant.
No-one had ever been able to explain to me how different families on exactly the same income, be it from work or benefits, can give their children a vastly different lifestyle. There are many people who are able to manage on their benefits because they try to, not all do sadly and that's their own fault.

inkymoose · 04/12/2024 19:31

ByMerryKoala · 04/12/2024 19:21

906000 was the net migration June 22 to June 23.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3degx4029ko

Edited

Scotland receives around 6% of net migrants into the UK, which is lower than its 8.4% population share.
source: Office for National Statistics

SerenePeach · 04/12/2024 19:34

Choobakka · 04/12/2024 19:08

Well my husband and I do it and don't begrudge it. HTH.

Well a lot OP people do and do begrudge it. HTH.

Mo819 · 04/12/2024 19:34

BearBuggy · 04/12/2024 19:19

Not quite that straightforward. They will also get extra SCP as it’s Scotland. The requirement to work is also extended which is why children are generally born 3 years apart.

So an extra 40 quid a week then deffinatly worth it. It costs a hell of a lot more than that to feed and clothes a child.

Startrekkeruniverse · 04/12/2024 19:38

albapunk · 04/12/2024 16:21

I've never understood why people fail to see that there IS many who absolutely relish being on benefits, and many children will not see the extra money as their parents will continue to use it to make poor choices.

I come from a very deprived Scottish town. The roots of poverty run far deeper than any money thrown at it would ever reach. Massive changes in attitude are required, generations of families on benefits needs to be stopped, I know MANY people who have 0 intentions of work and some how find loopholes. Including by having children.

I've been on benefits twice, it was utterly hellish and the hoops I jumped through were ridiculous just to receive a pittance.

We need a robust welfare state as anyone could fall on hard times, but we also need intervention to ensure we have people who want to grow and break these moulds.

Those in genuine need, should always get what they need and I don't think this is what tbe OP was talking about.

Agree with this totally. I know several people who choose to live on benefits and have had kids to secure benefits and housing. It’s a way of life for some.

IdgieThreadgoodeIsMyHeroine · 04/12/2024 19:39

XDownwiththissortofthingX · 04/12/2024 18:22

When I see these threads or hear any comments on RL, I have to wonder, where are all these people living in luxury on benefits?

Presumably the same mystery island all the millions of scroungers who waltzed into a Job Centre, claimed they couldn't work because of a "bad back", and without being scrutinised were immediately handed thousands of hard-working taxpayers Pounds went.

Ask the Mail/Express 😛

That reminds me of the joke about Schrödinger's Immigrant, who is simultaneously taking your job and living off unemployment benefits totally millions. Also an invention of the Daily Mail!

CharlotteLucas3 · 04/12/2024 19:39

I'm terrified of the future because I keep being turned down for PIP and I can't work because of autism/mental health issues/chronic fatigue/stomach issues.

But you go on believing that we still have an adequate safety net. Just pray that you never become ill.

Flapjacka · 04/12/2024 19:39

Yes it’s such a horror when the poors insist on breeding. Get a life.

XDownwiththissortofthingX · 04/12/2024 19:41

IdgieThreadgoodeIsMyHeroine · 04/12/2024 19:39

That reminds me of the joke about Schrödinger's Immigrant, who is simultaneously taking your job and living off unemployment benefits totally millions. Also an invention of the Daily Mail!

The "how dare they come here and take our jobs!", directed at an Indian neurologist, by Sharon, with her two GCSE's.

SassK · 04/12/2024 19:44

XDownwiththissortofthingX · 04/12/2024 19:30

Your second paragraph is rather odd. Complaining about building more social housing, while simultaneously complaining about the lack of social housing.

It's also local authorities who decide and dictate housing priority, not central government. It's usually just number of dependants that decides priority, so a family of 6 is just a family of 6 regardless of anything else. Homelessness is obviously a priority, so of course LA's are going to provide housing to homeless families before they will to a family already in a fixed address. Are you seriously suggesting it should be the other way around?

Edited

I'm not complaining about a lack of social housing. I'm complaining about a lack of affordable housing for young working people.
Without getting into never ending complexities about housing allocation, it's a ridiculous circumstance that is presented to young people whereupon irresponsible life choices will get you a part/fully funded house whilst responsible life choices won't.

Livelovebehappy · 04/12/2024 19:44

Newsenmum · 04/12/2024 19:09

Do you really think people have children because they want extra money? Won’t the majority of them be having children anyway and just be poorer? Also I say ‘majority’ but we actually have an ageing population and a far fewer people are having kids. Considering it’s actually not much extra money I’d say let them crack on! Far more important things to wind me
up .

No, they don’t have more children to get the money, but they have more children because they know the extra money is coming, so work out they can scrape by. If you can’t afford more children without relying on child benefits or UC, then clearly you shouldn’t have them. I stopped at two because I couldn’t afford three. Having children isn’t a ‘right’.

chaosmaker · 04/12/2024 19:45

obviously should just scrap the majority of benefits and replace it with a UBI. Should still have a cap on children due to us not needing to replace ourselves. Human population is too high for the rock we live on.

XDownwiththissortofthingX · 04/12/2024 19:45

SassK · 04/12/2024 19:44

I'm not complaining about a lack of social housing. I'm complaining about a lack of affordable housing for young working people.
Without getting into never ending complexities about housing allocation, it's a ridiculous circumstance that is presented to young people whereupon irresponsible life choices will get you a part/fully funded house whilst responsible life choices won't.

That isn't true though.

It's homelessness, and dependents that get you priority.

Livelovebehappy · 04/12/2024 19:47

Flapjacka · 04/12/2024 19:39

Yes it’s such a horror when the poors insist on breeding. Get a life.

Yep, you’ve got it in one. It is a horror when people who can’t afford kids, continue to breed.

chaosmaker · 04/12/2024 19:47

also, just on benefits. There is an interesting Dispatches available on all 4 about how they can trap you and that's as much when you want to get off them as onto them in the first place.

livingafulllife · 04/12/2024 19:47

I could not care any less how many kids someone wants.
Im not the one raising them.

PCOSisaid · 04/12/2024 19:53

Out of interest I put my personal circumstances into entitledto tonight as if I had the same circumstances but a single parent and just lost my job (both might be a possibility soon). I would receive £1900 a month in universal credit, child benefit and reduction in council tax alone. Then any child maintenance payments, free prescriptions, free school meals etc etc etc. if I factored all that in - I get the equivalent almost of my actual salary, and I earn £70k a year in work.

Obviously appreciate most people don’t get child maintenance because of shitty fathers (often plural). But again tax payer money should not be spent, it should be a criminal offence to not pay maintenance for your kids.

if children are living in poverty in this country, it’s not because we are not throwing enough money at the problem. It’s a combination of poor education and some adults being feckless lazy cunts. I grew up on one of the biggest housing estates in the north and mums would coach their daughters on how to get pregnant and secure a council house from around age 15. It was shocking.

There needs to be radical reform, cash benefits should be reduced and swapped for different tax bands depending on your family circumstances for people earning less than £50k, and discreet “debit cards” that you can only buy food or essential items with.

It boggles my mind some families who work pay tax and then have to ask for it back in the form of benefits, talk about a cottage industry

SassK · 04/12/2024 19:54

XDownwiththissortofthingX · 04/12/2024 19:45

That isn't true though.

It's homelessness, and dependents that get you priority.

I'm not talking about criteria (as well you know). I'm talking about the choices made that result in, nay dictate given how widespread lack of responsibility is, housing allocation.

Startrekkeruniverse · 04/12/2024 19:55

SwordToFlamethrower · 04/12/2024 17:32

I was one of 6.

My mum had 3 with her first husband. They got divorced and she was a struggling single mum.

Then my dad came along and they had 2. He was abusive and she left him.

Now with 5 kids, she was alone, in poverty and traumatised from the abuse she suffered. We wore rags at times, had no treats or holidays. My mum was drowning.

Then my step dad came along and he wanted a baby too, so along came my sister, making 6 of us.

Unfortunately, he was a wife and child beating bastard too.

What was my mum supposed to do? Carry on living in absolute poverty, being judged by all of fucking society and shit heads like op, or stay with the man that gave her black eyes every other week. She wanted and loved her children, and had them in good faith that the man she had them with, would be decent, hardworking and kind.

It's a tough one isn't it op! Maybe the answer is to keep punishing mothers and children for the abuse and neglect of fathers.

I really feel for your mum, it sounds like she’s had a terrible time. But if she was struggling with three kids I’m surprised she went on to have 3 more, especially knowing that men don’t always step up and support their kids.

PCOSisaid · 04/12/2024 19:56

Lemonadeand · 04/12/2024 19:11

If I wanted an extra £20 per week I can think of much easier ways of doing it than another pregnancy, childbirth and then parenting a baby or toddler. Jeez.

The point is they mostly don’t parent their children so the cycle continues

Flapjacka · 04/12/2024 19:57

Livelovebehappy · 04/12/2024 19:47

Yep, you’ve got it in one. It is a horror when people who can’t afford kids, continue to breed.

It’s a horror when people look down on those who have less than them.

CrispieCake · 04/12/2024 19:58

The UK has more of a problem at the moment with people having 0 children than having, say, 4 children and I believe that's especially so in Scotland. The number of large families (4+) is really very small and set to decline further. This isn't really a real issue. Most women want 0, 1 or 2 children and only a small minority want more.

I have a lot of sympathy for parents of young children, especially single parents, bringing up children in tight financial circumstances or on benefits. It can be almost impossible to keep all the plates spinning unless you have family support. When things are stressful here, I "buy" myself out of difficulties - extra paid childcare, takeaways, a taxi here and there to get back before the nursery closes. It's not surprising that so many single parents, especially with more than one young child, struggle to balance work and childcare especially if they have no spare money to throw at life's problems.

XDownwiththissortofthingX · 04/12/2024 19:58

SassK · 04/12/2024 19:54

I'm not talking about criteria (as well you know). I'm talking about the choices made that result in, nay dictate given how widespread lack of responsibility is, housing allocation.

So this is what you posted in your first post -

Young working people, who plan their families in a responsible way, can't get a council house because priority is given to people who've gone ahead and had children they can't afford, and mortgage rates are too high for young people to get a foot on the ladder

Quite clearly an assertion that people with "planned" families lose out to those "irresponsible" people with "children they can't afford"

That simply is not true. A family with two children is given the exact same priority as any other family with two children. Whether or not the parents are young, working, or "responsible" is neither here nor there, because the only qualifier here is the two dependants in each case.

There is nothing at all that prevents any family applying for social housing. They will be given the exact same priority as any other family in with the same qualifiers. How their children came about is neither here nor there.

If you are simply stating that social housing tenants are more frequently economically inactive than those in private housing, then you could just state that. It doesn't mean they are in social housing because they are given any special priority for it over "responsible" people though, it means they actually bothered to apply for it.

strawberrybubblegum · 04/12/2024 19:58

notbelieved · 04/12/2024 19:24

and how many years has that been going on for? do you expect other countries to take you in in the event of war or massive targetted attack on the UK?

It's grown about 50% in the last 5 years. So it was already significantly above replacement level before that.

They're saying it's about 700k this year... but given that they just increased the 22-23 estimate - now 200k higher than previously estimated - who knows whether it is genuinely dropping.

Angry at scrapping of 2 child limit
SassK · 04/12/2024 20:04

XDownwiththissortofthingX · 04/12/2024 19:58

So this is what you posted in your first post -

Young working people, who plan their families in a responsible way, can't get a council house because priority is given to people who've gone ahead and had children they can't afford, and mortgage rates are too high for young people to get a foot on the ladder

Quite clearly an assertion that people with "planned" families lose out to those "irresponsible" people with "children they can't afford"

That simply is not true. A family with two children is given the exact same priority as any other family with two children. Whether or not the parents are young, working, or "responsible" is neither here nor there, because the only qualifier here is the two dependants in each case.

There is nothing at all that prevents any family applying for social housing. They will be given the exact same priority as any other family in with the same qualifiers. How their children came about is neither here nor there.

If you are simply stating that social housing tenants are more frequently economically inactive than those in private housing, then you could just state that. It doesn't mean they are in social housing because they are given any special priority for it over "responsible" people though, it means they actually bothered to apply for it.

Edited

I'm talking about young people sans children! Young people who delay starting a family until they are in a committed relationship and can afford to raise a child without relying on benefits.

Honestly, please stop replying to me now. You're right and I'm wrong 🥱

Swipe left for the next trending thread