16 Year old benefits

busy_mom_2

The_MoneySavingKid wrote: »

Then that logic could be applied to the rest of life.So we should have no debts....

There is a big difference between having a debt and being responsible enough to support your own family and not expect the state benfits do to that.
I have a mortgage thats a debt... but a provide a roof over our heads. Hopefully some of that equity will provide a start to my childrens future. I do not expect the goverment and tax payers to put the roof over my head, food on the table and certainly not provide the xmas pressies and games consoles. Some people belives beneift is a right and not an entitlement.
If benefits were there to support only those who needed them at some unfourtunate stage in their live rather than generation upon generation who see it as their right to be supported by others, then there may be more in the pot at times of need.

sp1987

busy_mom wrote: »

There is a big difference between having a debt and being responsible enough to support your own family and not expect the state benfits do to that.
I have a mortgage thats a debt... but a provide a roof over our heads. Hopefully some of that equity will provide a start to my childrens future. I do not expect the goverment and tax payers to put the roof over my head, food on the table and certainly not provide the xmas pressies and games consoles. Some people belives beneift is a right and not an entitlement.
If benefits were there to support only those who needed them at some unfourtunate stage in their live rather than generation upon generation who see it as their right to be supported by others, then there may be more in the pot at times of need.

Maybe this is this young girls time of need or 'some unfortunate stage' even if of her own making. Until the child is 16 itself we cannot estimate as to whether the mother will spend a year or two with the child before getting back into education and getting a decent job to pay her own way, and the money she has received back into the 'pot'. If there is a father on the scene then it may be they end up as a two income household, or a one income household which is certainly good enough.

I am at the stage now I am considering what I may be able to claim for next Jan-Sept when my own child is due, in case my savings are not enough to sustain me. The job I have to go to in two years time (already secured) will pay me triple what I could even estimate to be able to claim during my 8 months of ''unplanned baby leave''....and as a starting salary for a professional position I would hope that would increases (albeit the starting salary is not high). One year of my life claiming something should not in any way make me seem a scrounger. I planned to pay taxes from age 23 (when I would have left education) to 60+...now it will be 24 - 60+...not a big difference in the grand scheme of things. I'm sure they will get more out of me than I take.

I have student debts (unavoidable, sadly as no part time job would have enabled me to have no debt on my course) but no overdraft/bank loans/hire purchase. Student debt and a mortgage is I would consider, a fair expenditure to secure better futures for yourself/family.

DaisyFlower

Doodles22 wrote: »

Not being funny, but think your post is uncalled for and way out of order to be fair.


Maybe some of these girls WANT a baby, maybe the state has failed them as schools don't offer correct learning.
Think its very unfair you branding them disgusting tbh, can you refrain from saying such on any of my postings please.



Thanks for all yor replies, in fact the father lives with the girl who is pregnant, they don't claim housing benefit and rent privately.
There a nice couple, engaged and stable, so for everyone thinking its another teen pregnancy, its not, its been well planned and they are wanting the best for there child.

Why has the state failed them? Every child has the right to a school place and is educated to GCSE level. If anybody has failed them, its the parents not the state.

"Engaged and stable with a planned pregnancy" - mmmm would be a good statement if she were not 16. She's not even an adult herself and I doubt the relationship is stable at 16. If well planned, why the need now to ask about benefits?

Our benefit policy has long been due an overhaul and hopefully will get one once labour gets voted out. Having a child should be down to the parents to support not the state. How many other countries throw money at people who see having children as a means of never having to work or support themselves.

NASA_2

DaisyFlower wrote: »

Why has the state failed them? Every child has the right to a school place and is educated to GCSE level. If anybody has failed them, its the parents not the state.

"Engaged and stable with a planned pregnancy" - mmmm would be a good statement if she were not 16. She's not even an adult herself and I doubt the relationship is stable at 16. If well planned, why the need now to ask about benefits?

Our benefit policy has long been due an overhaul and hopefully will get one once labour gets voted out. Having a child should be down to the parents to support not the state. How many other countries throw money at people who see having children as a means of never having to work or support themselves.

Labour are doing pretty well reforming the system - they have gone a good distance in getting rid of Income Support and have plans to go further - I dont see that the Conservatives have much different planned.

leveller2911

NASA wrote: »

Labour are doing pretty well reforming the system - they have gone a good distance in getting rid of Income Support and have plans to go further - I dont see that the Conservatives have much different planned.

Blimey NASA have you been on the sauce again???, "labour are doing pretty well"......

No theyre not, for the 1st time in History the benefit bill to the taxpayer is £3billion higher than income tax receipts............

Secondly the WTC system is open to abuse on huge scale and lastly WTC just encourages employers to pay NO more than the minimum wage because they know the poor old taxpayer will stump up the difference....
Its shocking to say the least........
Surely your comments are tongue in cheek...:rolleyes::D ps "getting rid of income support"? more like just re-naming it and ticking boxes........

NASA_2

Its an opinion, and no, I havent been drinking today.

The amount of people claiming benefits is down to the economic climate - there is little that can be done to stop that - most of them are claiming Jobseekers Allowance. Income Support no longer acccept totally new claims based on sickness and the amount of lone parents is being reduced hugely. ESA is much harder to stay on than IB was.

There is obviously more to do - at the minute you can stay on JSA forever so long as you play by the rules - in normal times it should perhaps only available for a short time ie. two years or so.

WTC - thats not part of DWP's remit and isnt a 'benefit' in the classic sense of the word.

The tories have yet to say exactly what they would change other than saying they would be tougher than Labour.

Metranil_Vavin

Originally Posted by Doodles22
Not being funny, but think your post is uncalled for and way out of order to be fair.


Maybe some of these girls WANT a baby, maybe the state has failed them as schools don't offer correct learning.
Think its very unfair you branding them disgusting tbh, can you refrain from saying such on any of my postings please.



Thanks for all yor replies, in fact the father lives with the girl who is pregnant, they don't claim housing benefit and rent privately.
There a nice couple, engaged and stable, so for everyone thinking its another teen pregnancy, its not, its been well planned and they are wanting the best for there child.

What is her boyfriend doing in terms of supporting them then? Does he work?

leveller2911

NASA wrote: »

Its an opinion, and no, I havent been drinking today.

The amount of people claiming benefits is down to the economic climate - there is little that can be done to stop that - most of them are claiming Jobseekers Allowance. Income Support no longer acccept totally new claims based on sickness and the amount of lone parents is being reduced hugely. ESA is much harder to stay on than IB was.

There is obviously more to do - at the minute you can stay on JSA forever so long as you play by the rules - in normal times it should perhaps only available for a short time ie. two years or so.

WTC - thats not part of DWP's remit and isnt a 'benefit' in the classic sense of the word.

The tories have yet to say exactly what they would change other than saying they would be tougher than Labour.

I would partly agree Nasa, the tories haven't said what they will do because they want to win the next election,pure and simple.The Tories are no better or worse than Labour.My point is Labour have been in for 12 years and to say they have done pretty well is too much,lets be honest they could have been radical and pro-active in completely changing the benefit system but they didn't and the only reason was they didn't want to anger thier core voters, well not until the 10p tax fiasco...

Wench

I would have presumed ( in answer to Metranil Vavin) that he must work, as he is privately renting and he is not claiming housing benefit.

Metranil_Vavin

In which case I would imagine the OP would need to tell us what he earns as that would affect any benefits they may be entitled to.