Sure STart Grant cut off for consecutive children?????

Deepmistrust

Breast_Cancer_Survivor wrote: »

I'm not against benefits anyone who falls on hard times is entitled to claim them.

I'm on benefits because i'm ill & will be returning to work once i'm well.

I have never agreed with the pregnancy grants & cutting them will go along way to saving the Country some money.

We will have to agree to disagree on the op's point of view as neither of us knows the real reason for her contemplating having another child.

I am autistic so don't always take things the right way but in this instance other people have read what the op had said as that she will have another baby if she will get the grants otherwise she won't bother.

Obviously that is a much wanted child if not receiving a grant is enough to deter you from adding to your family.

I'm not going to argue with you we are all entitled to our opinions & that is mine.

I've already stated, that I'm not arguing the single case of the OP. I'm pointing out that a £500 grant is not IN THE TRUEST sense of the word - an INCENTIVE.

In the case of the OP, she has stated she CAN'T afford another child without the assistance. There is no need to make her post out (as some have done) that as if she is using a baby to gain £500.

Jowo_2

Deepmistrust wrote: »

I've already stated, that I'm not arguing the single case of the OP. I'm pointing out that a £500 grant is not IN THE TRUEST sense of the word - an INCENTIVE.

But the anticipated lack of benefits payable to her, has explicitly acted as a disincentive for her to breed again....

So if the lack of maternity/child related benefits is a disincentive, then the restoration of them would be an incentive....

Though this doesn't apply to the OP, a study of rates of lone motherhood in Europe has identified that there are high rates of single motherhood in countries that provide the highest rates of benefits for that group of claimants (such as the UK and Ireland), and lowest rates of single motherhood in countries that provide very low benefits (Spain, Portugal). There could be other factors at play but there is possibly a link between state subsidy and fertility in western europe...

Fiddlestick

Deepmistrust wrote: »

You're not paying for her choice. You're paying taxes, and if you think you'll be paying any less taxes whether the grant is available or not you are sorely mistaken.

For every pound less spent on benefits, there is an extra pound available to reduce the deficit.

Using your logic, you're also funding illegal and immoral wars, you're also bailing out banks, you're also paying MP's expenses.

Apples and oranges, but I'm not a Daily Mail reader who thinks the Government was wrong to take banking shares in exchange for preventing the collapse of the economy, nor do I have a problem with politicians claiming reasonable expenses if they were entitled to them under the rules in force at the time.

And likewise, (again using your own logic) I funded your education, and possibly (if you have them) you owe me for your student loans, you will also want me to pay for your childrens child benefit in the future if you so have them, and you will want me to take care of you if you fall ill

Completely different situation.

Everyone requires and is entitled to an education. Having a child is a LIFESTYLE CHOICE which people freely choose.

You will not be paying child benefit for my children as it's against our principles to claim it.

Sorry to !!!! on your parade

nottslass_2

Jowo wrote: »

But the anticipated lack of benefits payable to her, has explicitly acted as a disincentive for her to breed again....

So if the lack of maternity/child related benefits is a disincentive, then the restoration of them would be an incentive....

Though this doesn't apply to the OP, a study of rates of lone motherhood in Europe has identified that there are high rates of single motherhood in countries that provide the highest rates of benefits for that group of claimants (such as the UK and Ireland), and lowest rates of single motherhood in countries that provide very low benefits (Spain, Portugal). There could be other factors at play but there is possibly a link between state subsidy and fertility in western europe...[/QUOTE]

There may be low rates of single motherhood in the countries that supply the least assistance to lone mothers,but I'd be interested to know how the abortion and adoption rates compare.I suspect there is also a great deal of women living in abusive relationships in the countries that would give little or no assistance if she were to leave.

The Adoption rate in the UK has dropped dramatically since women facing single parenthood have been able to claim state assistance.

gorgeousgeorge

bestpud wrote: »

Going OT a bit but do you charge them rent?

I've started charging dd(18) now she is earning as I think it will help with the transition into the real world if she is used to 'losing' a portion of her wage every month.

Not that she is in any great hurry to move out but I think she'd like her own space - wouldn't we all! :rotfl:

Yes I do charge them rent I take 10% of their earnings dd (23) is on a salary so her money is the same every month ( tho im sure she has just had a huge wage rise recently, but i havent put it up yet lol) ds works different hours each month, so i just take 10% of what he has coming in, so it varies each month. Not that either of their rents covers much especially when they have their b/friend and g/friend staying over and the fridge and food cupboards are raided every hour lol. Son did want to move out, but when i sat down and told him about all the extras he would have to pay out he soon changed his mind as it would have been at the very least 5 x more than he gives me! :eek: so I would rather them both save while being at home so when they do eventually leave home, they have money that they can fall back on if anything happens

andyandflo

Breast_Cancer_Survivor wrote: »

How do you think people managed before all these incentives came in?

Ive got 3 kids & I never got any grants etc for any of them (they were all born in the 90's).

I'd love to have another child because I love being a mum not because I could possibly get a grant out it.

Btw I will have to buy baby formula because I can't breast feed as I have no breasts.[/QUOTE

Hey yes you have it right!

My wife worked up until the twins came along in 1981. We had no handouts etc only the Maternity Grant. We coped and managed well. My wife has never worked since 1981, due to our belief that children do far better in life with a 'full time' mum at home.
We had no nannies, child care or home help.

We brought them into this world and it our responsibilty to provide for them. We already had two beforehand and decided that four was as many that I could afford to keep.

There are ways that make it possible for you to provide for your offspring without government handouts! Try terry nappies, second hand cots, high chairs, toys, etc.

If you have to use government funding to help provide for your children then quite honestly you can't afford one!!

Deepmistrust

Jowo wrote: »

But the anticipated lack of benefits payable to her, has explicitly acted as a disincentive for her to breed again....

So if the lack of maternity/child related benefits is a disincentive, then the restoration of them would be an incentive....

Though this doesn't apply to the OP, a study of rates of lone motherhood in Europe has identified that there are high rates of single motherhood in countries that provide the highest rates of benefits for that group of claimants (such as the UK and Ireland), and lowest rates of single motherhood in countries that provide very low benefits (Spain, Portugal). There could be other factors at play but there is possibly a link between state subsidy and fertility in western europe...

Regardless of the OP's position regarding the grant. £500 assitance, is not an incentive.

It's not a case of, "I'm skint, I know how to get £500 quid, I'll have a baby". Because that baby will cost up to that £500 x 400 over the next 20 years.

Personally, I do not understand her stance - £500 is not the make or break decider when faced with the question: Do I want more kids?

She is misguided at best. Plenty of people would recognise that £500 would be very useful, much needed indeed, but not the dealbreaker here. But none the less that is her choice.

If you are looking to Europe, you should look at scandanvian countries benefits systems. You should also check out the percentage of Icelands single parents.

There have always been low income families. We are in a period of time when we have a far better welfare system than even before, yet birth rates for British born mothers, single or not, have never been lower.

Deepmistrust

andyandflo wrote: »

Breast_Cancer_Survivor wrote: »

How do you think people managed before all these incentives came in?

Ive got 3 kids & I never got any grants etc for any of them (they were all born in the 90's).

I'd love to have another child because I love being a mum not because I could possibly get a grant out it.

Btw I will have to buy baby formula because I can't breast feed as I have no breasts.[/QUOTE

Hey yes you have it right!

My wife worked up until the twins came along in 1981. We had no handouts etc only the Maternity Grant. We coped and managed well. My wife has never worked since 1981, due to our belief that children do far better in life with a 'full time' mum at home.
We had no nannies, child care or home help.

We brought them into this world and it our responsibilty to provide for them. We already had two beforehand and decided that four was as many that I could afford to keep.

There are ways that make it possible for you to provide for your offspring without government handouts! Try terry nappies, second hand cots, high chairs, toys, etc.

If you have to use government funding to help provide for your children then quite honestly you can't afford one!!

And what if you'd decided to run off with the local barmaid (more fool her), or for whatever reason you split, died without insurance, whatever/reason beyond her control.

Would you call her a scrounger then?

Deepmistrust

nottslass wrote: »

Jowo wrote: »

But the anticipated lack of benefits payable to her, has explicitly acted as a disincentive for her to breed again....

So if the lack of maternity/child related benefits is a disincentive, then the restoration of them would be an incentive....

Though this doesn't apply to the OP, a study of rates of lone motherhood in Europe has identified that there are high rates of single motherhood in countries that provide the highest rates of benefits for that group of claimants (such as the UK and Ireland), and lowest rates of single motherhood in countries that provide very low benefits (Spain, Portugal). There could be other factors at play but there is possibly a link between state subsidy and fertility in western europe...[/QUOTE]

There may be low rates of single motherhood in the countries that supply the least assistance to lone mothers,but I'd be interested to know how the abortion and adoption rates compare.I suspect there is also a great deal of women living in abusive relationships in the countries that would give little or no assistance if she were to leave.

The Adoption rate in the UK has dropped dramatically since women facing single parenthood have been able to claim state assistance.

That's good, I'm glad that woman don't feel forced to hand over their babies at birth anymore.

andyandflo

Deepmistrust wrote: »

andyandflo wrote: »

And what if you'd decided to run off with the local barmaid (more fool her), or for whatever reason you split, died without insurance, whatever/reason beyond her control.

Would you call her a scrounger then?

Nope, cos it would not have affected her.

All my wages were paid into her sole bank account. She had savings in her name only. My life was insured fully and she was the sole beneficiary.

At that time we lived in a council house which she took on as a sole tenant.

Yes we tried to cover every eventuality, everybody does don't they when you have the mother of your children at home with them and totally reliant on one income?

No she wouldn't be called a scrounger, she had all the assets in her name with no debt. All of the debt we had was in my name soley! It was planned that way for her security. Legally, I didn't have a pot to p**s in!