Think the unthinkable - let's help the coalition with some blue-skies thinking...

Pennywise

Simple - your "children" related state benefits are limited to the number of children you had (plus any on the way) when you first go onto benefits. So you get benefits for pre-existing children, but nothing more if you choose to have more children whilst on benefits.

I'm actually quite angry at the people (whether working or not) who have children and hope for the best even though they know they can't afford them and assume the state will provide. Me and my OH waited for children - we got our careers in order, we got married, we bought a house, and only then when we were settled did we consider having children. We'd never have brought a child up without being in a stable position ourselves.

Harry_Powell

carolt wrote: »

Aspiring_Writer wrote: »

Carol I agree, life happens, my point was that people shouldn't be dropping kids expecting the state to pay, and they do. There is an estate on t'other side of town where it is practically a career move for any young girl, get pregnant, get a council flat, get pregnant again( different father, natch) and again, til yoiu upgraded to a house and hey presto, no need to work ever again.

These 'people' need to be 'discouraged' ...

Couldn't agree more with that.

That's odd because you have 'dropped' (AW's phrase, not mine) three kids and now require state assistance to the tune of £185/month:

carolt wrote: »

My children would suffer, make no mistake about it, if universal child benefit was removed. That money is in my monthly budget - not unreasonably, as universal child benefit was one of the cornerstones of the welfare state.

carolt wrote: »

But child benefit is a lot. We currently get £185/month. To replace that from taxed income would mean my having to work a lot more hours and have even less hours to spend with my children - as it would for most parents who actually have to work.

You seem to have the view that people should support themselves and their kids (quite laudable, I agree with you) and yet only so far as this affecting other people and not the benefits you receive?

How do your two opposing views sit comfortably together like this? IMHO it just smacks of hypocricy.

jamesd

chucky, you seem to have a strange idea of what a responsible adult is supposed to be doing. Yes, a responsible adult should be delaying having children until they can afford to both pay the costs of the children and house them appropriately. The same adults, if they want not to live in rented accommodation, should be delaying having the children until they can either buy one or afford the costs of a mortgage and ample insurance and emergency fund so that sickness or unemployment won't harm the children. No problem to choose to have children and rent while the children grow up if that's the choice someone wants to make, though. Nor to have the property ownership without the children if they prefer that choice.

If someone can't afford to look after children properly then they should be trying very hard to avoid creating the children. Being able to look after the children properly is supposed to be the first priority of a responsible parent.

Crime victims and those who've been prudent but uncommonly unfortunate are where the state safety net and charities come into play.

lynzpower

jamesd wrote: »

chucky, you seem to have a strange idea of what a responsible adult is supposed to be doing. Yes, a responsible adult should be delaying having children until they can afford to both pay the costs of the children and house them appropriately. The same adults, if they want not to live in rented accommodation, should be delaying having the children until they can either buy one or afford the costs of a mortgage and ample insurance and emergency fund so that sickness or unemployment won't harm the children. No problem to choose to have children and rent while the children grow up if that's the choice someone wants to make, though. Nor to have the property ownership without the children if they prefer that choice.

If someone can't afford to look after children properly then they should be trying very hard to avoid creating the children. Being able to look after the children properly is supposed to be the first priority of a responsible parent.

Crime victims and those who've been prudent but uncommonly unfortunate are where the state safety net and charities come into play.

And what do you propose to people who have made all those considerations and suddlently double digit inflation takes hold and they can no longer pay the fuel bills/petrol to work/ food on the table?

chucky

jamesd wrote: »

If someone can't afford to look after children properly then they should be trying very hard to avoid creating the children.

we're talking about human beings not machines.

everything seems so black and white that you can either afford to have children or you can't. if you can't you should not be allowed to have children. would chemical castration be ok to roll out to the masses that are on benefits James? or even to people who are fairing badly due the financial crisis we've just had? does that work for you?

the arrogance of people telling us what is wrong or right around children is quite astounding...

Harry_Powell

TBH, chucky, I find it difficult to find fault in the portion of jamesd's post that you quoted. If someone cannot afford to look after children properly then it seems to me that they should take precautions to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

Isn't it more arrogant for someone who knows that they can't afford to look after children properly, to have them anyway?

chucky

Harry_Powell wrote: »

TBH, chucky, I find it difficult to find fault in the portion of jamesd's post that you quoted. If someone cannot afford to look after children properly then it seems to me that they should take precautions to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

Isn't it more arrogant for someone who knows that they can't afford to look after children properly, to have them anyway?

yeah but children happen - having children around a budget forcast is a little bit clinical...

Running_Horse

Aspiring_Writer wrote: »

There was a story recently in my local paper where a very young couple were living in a shed, yes a shed, and she got pregnant! no doubt we are paying for the privilege now, that really annoys me.

Was that the couple from Coxheath? Turns out it was their mother's shed. There was nothing in the story suggesting the main house was overcrowded; they had just all agreed they would live in the shed, and demand social housing via the media. Have heard nothing more, so presumably they got their way.

If people got more housing points for working, getting engaged, married, then produce offspring, what might be the effect on certain sections of society? Right now you get rewarded for not being responsible, and people know it, so exploit the system that was meant to be a safety net.

Harry_Powell

chucky wrote: »

yeah but children happen - having children around a budget forcast is a little bit clinical...

I think most sensible couples plan for having kids, but as you say, accidents happen. TBH though, even if an accident happens, most people are capable of making small changes to their lifestyles to accomodate the new addition. The problem occurs when they want to keep their nights out, Dad's fags ("they're his only luxury!!"), etc. and are unwilling to change any parts of their lifestyles to help aleviate the additional costs of having children.

lynzpower

Harry_Powell wrote: »

I think most sensible couples plan for having kids, but as you say, accidents happen. TBH though, even if an accident happens, most people are capable of making small changes to their lifestyles to accomodate the new addition. The problem occurs when they want to keep their nights out, Dad's fags ("they're his only luxury!!"), etc. and are unwilling to change any parts of their lifestyles to help aleviate the additional costs of having children.

Im sorry but this patently isnt true. It might be fine if you are earning bigger salaries in some parts of the country but childcare in london can be upwards of 400 per week and thats if you get lucky. If I got pregnant today, childcare would cos the same as my salary, nay more.

Ohs salary couldnt cover everything else?

We dont run a car/ smoke/ drink/ have sky, in fact we are probably the tightest people we know.

Without tax credits families like us wouldnt survive. In fact the tax credits will be
getting reduced to "families like us". in the "middle classes".

So lets start watching as "good" "hardworking" "educated" "middle class" families start going to the wall