surely it is better to limit child benefit to 2 kids per family

supa-girl

bendix wrote: »

Simple.

When you are comfortable that you can raise the child up to its own financial independence without recourse to state benefits.

.

I have 5 children. When we chose to have a large family we could easily afford to raise them without relying on benefits. DP had a thriving business and I was working too.

Unfortunately DP's business was a victim of the recession. He found another job straightaway - he hates it and earns a fraction of the income we used to enjoy but a job is a job. I am a sahm now, there is no affordable childcare now the the breakfast club and after school club have closed, so yes now we are more dependent on child benefit and the tax credits we get. I am hoping it is a short term thing, it certainly isn't a lifestyle choice! DP is looking for a better paid job and I too am looking for a job - if I can get a better paid job then I will take it and he will be at home with the kids. We will do what we need to do to support our children.

I am certainly not a scrounger, I don't own a tracksuit and I did not churn out kids I could not afford to pay for. I don't sit around watching tv (and we don't own a flat screen tv either) - while I am at home I am using my time to brush up my skills by doing some volunteer work for charity, things I can take my younger children along or which provide a creche.
Circumstances change. People need to realise that.

I am not actually surprised by the comments on here though. I too used to be in posession of an ivory tower and an attitude of judgement towards those relying, even partially, on benefits to support their family. I am embarassed about that now, and I'm sure some of you will be too if your circumstances change and you find yourself on the receiving end of such damning and ridiculous sterotyping.

When I read some of these attitudes though, I actually pity the posters and genuinely hope they never fall from their high horses.

SG

StevieJ

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Nah, we didn't have to move house and change schools every 6 months. I could also as a teenager, have as many posters over the walls as I liked. And my mum and dad were free to paint and redecorate as they wanted as fashions changed. The garden ws also planted, patio's laid, shed's put up and looked after.
Oh, and living in a council house I wasn't looked at as 'scum' then either, as it is now. All on one, very modest wage in a council house. Better of than renting privately as a family.. not financially, of course, if we had been privately renting.. in terms of the HB/LHA.. paid to the landlord. But, I'd say, much, much better off in just 'getting on with life' without a constant 6 month ast or section 21 hanging over us.

It seems to me that you have that the wrong way round, there appears to be a great deal of jealousy aimed at people with council houses

Hadrian

When we had 2 children in the 60's we got 10/- (50p) ONLY! Now my nephew gets more a month for his one (in total) than I get in a month for my old age pension after working for 41 years including military service. Who decided that we the taxpayers should assist parents to finance their children. When we were poor in those days we had to go to the National Assistance and plead for money, that way we didn't fritter it away on holidays to Bangkok. We went, if we could afford it, to Blackpool or Butlins. I know a lot of people will poo poo this but believe me I know, I lived in those days and by heavens we were happier by a long chalk. Anyone over 70 agree?

Chris2685

I have a kid, and plan on having many more.

I am not a rich man, but I agree that child benefit should be scrapped. It is a total waste of money and is just recirculating tax money, but costing a fortune to do so.

They should get rid of it, we can pay for our own children and in extreme circumstances people can get help from the government for costs. In this case, I think food stamps (or child stamps?!) are far better for those who really need it, so that the money has to be spent on things that you need to raise a child (basically food and clothes). You can pretty much get free baby/childrens clothes if you're not too proud to take second hand stuff from freecycle or friends.

Anyway, off on a tangent there. I don't see why folks who choose to be single or childless should subsidise my family.

Edit: Just wanted to add in here that I am also not too proud to claim it while it is there. I'd be a fool not to, this is MSE after all!

bendix

Chris2685 wrote: »

I have a kid, and plan on having many more.

I am not a rich man, but I agree that child benefit should be scrapped. It is a total waste of money and is just recirculating tax money, but costing a fortune to do so.

They should get rid of it, we can pay for our own children and in extreme circumstances people can get help from the government for costs. In this case, I think food stamps (or child stamps?!) are far better for those who really need it, so that the money has to be spent on things that you need to raise a child (basically food and clothes). You can pretty much get free baby/childrens clothes if you're not too proud to take second hand stuff from freecycle or friends.

Anyway, off on a tangent there. I don't see why folks who choose to be single or childless should subsidise my family.

Edit: Just wanted to add in here that I am also not too proud to claim it while it is there. I'd be a fool not to, this is MSE after all!

Good for you, except for the last paragraph.

bendix

supa-girl wrote: »

I have 5 children. When we chose to have a large family we could easily afford to raise them without relying on benefits. DP had a thriving business and I was working too.

Unfortunately DP's business was a victim of the recession. He found another job straightaway - he hates it and earns a fraction of the income we used to enjoy but a job is a job. I am a sahm now, there is no affordable childcare now the the breakfast club and after school club have closed, so yes now we are more dependent on child benefit and the tax credits we get. I am hoping it is a short term thing, it certainly isn't a lifestyle choice! DP is looking for a better paid job and I too am looking for a job - if I can get a better paid job then I will take it and he will be at home with the kids. We will do what we need to do to support our children.

I am certainly not a scrounger, I don't own a tracksuit and I did not churn out kids I could not afford to pay for. I don't sit around watching tv (and we don't own a flat screen tv either) - while I am at home I am using my time to brush up my skills by doing some volunteer work for charity, things I can take my younger children along or which provide a creche.
Circumstances change. People need to realise that.

I am not actually surprised by the comments on here though. I too used to be in posession of an ivory tower and an attitude of judgement towards those relying, even partially, on benefits to support their family. I am embarassed about that now, and I'm sure some of you will be too if your circumstances change and you find yourself on the receiving end of such damning and ridiculous sterotyping.

When I read some of these attitudes though, I actually pity the posters and genuinely hope they never fall from their high horses.

SG

So, in other words, you decide to pump out five kids at a time when you weren't sure that you would be able to support them until they became adults, but decided to do it anyway because - they - the taxpayer will be there should anything happen to our jobs.

Nice one. Thanks. I look forward to receiving a big thank you from each of your kids when they reach 18.

harrup

bendix wrote: »

So, in other words, you decide to pump out five kids at a time when you weren't sure that you would be able to support them until they became adults, but decided to do it anyway because - they - the taxpayer will be there should anything happen to our jobs.

Nice one. Thanks. I look forward to receiving a big thank you from each of your kids when they reach 18.

Jeeeeeeeeeesus....and who made YOU God?

What a lot a self rightous BS.

Mate, I for one am happy that other people have kids. We could have easily afforded a bunch of them.....but there is a LOT more to good parenting than a deep pocket. I didn't think we had what it took to be great parents. Yes, we had the money, but I neither had the patience nor the inclination to raise the next generation.

I'm jolly glad someone else did.

And let me tell you this: I know plenty of rich kids who are a disgrace. Rude, spoilt, inconsiderate, demanding little prats. Who seemingly had little to offer the world - nor do they show any willingness to do so. And I know plenty from poor backgrounds who are and will be a great credit to society. As are their parents even if they need occasional help from society.

There is something seriously wrong with a society or a person if they feel they have no obligation to contribute something to the future generation. Because that's what and who that money is for - assistance to raise the kids.

That aside, have you ever head the saying "don't climb so high and then you won't fall so deep?". Heed it. For your sake.

neverdespairgirl

Hadrian wrote: »

When we had 2 children in the 60's we got 10/- (50p) ONLY!

Not taht different, actually:

In 2008, £0 10s 0d from 1965 is worth



£15.10 using average earnings.

loveGSDs

supa-girl wrote: »

I have 5 children. When we chose to have a large family we could easily afford to raise them without relying on benefits. DP had a thriving business and I was working too.

Unfortunately DP's business was a victim of the recession. He found another job straightaway - he hates it and earns a fraction of the income we used to enjoy but a job is a job. I am a sahm now, there is no affordable childcare now the the breakfast club and after school club have closed, so yes now we are more dependent on child benefit and the tax credits we get. I am hoping it is a short term thing, it certainly isn't a lifestyle choice! DP is looking for a better paid job and I too am looking for a job - if I can get a better paid job then I will take it and he will be at home with the kids. We will do what we need to do to support our children.

I am certainly not a scrounger, I don't own a tracksuit and I did not churn out kids I could not afford to pay for. I don't sit around watching tv (and we don't own a flat screen tv either) - while I am at home I am using my time to brush up my skills by doing some volunteer work for charity, things I can take my younger children along or which provide a creche.
Circumstances change. People need to realise that.

I am not actually surprised by the comments on here though. I too used to be in posession of an ivory tower and an attitude of judgement towards those relying, even partially, on benefits to support their family. I am embarassed about that now, and I'm sure some of you will be too if your circumstances change and you find yourself on the receiving end of such damning and ridiculous sterotyping.

When I read some of these attitudes though, I actually pity the posters and genuinely hope they never fall from their high horses.

SG

i dont have any problems with people getting financial help for their kids when they have legitimately lost their job. its the ones who have never worked who should get nothing, the ones who use having children as a career that annoys me. :mad:

Exocet

These threads depress me. There are few things more precious than a childs voice, those first steps, the small hand in yours as you cross the road, Father Xmas, the first words.

Obviously there's booze, pornography and illegal drugs of course.