Moral Hazard & Fairness - Housing

IveSeenTheLight

LilacPixie wrote: »

My oldest is nearly 4 and she wants a party at a soft play centre. It is £10 per child with a minimum of 10 kids maximum of 18.

If you think that's too expensive then you don't have to cater for your child's demands.

Make some jelly, buy some ice cream, invite all of their friends that they want and have fun at your house.

There are loads of fun things that can be done with little money

Exocet

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

If you think that's too expensive then you don't have to cater for your child's demands.

Make some jelly, buy some ice cream, invite all of their friends that they want and have fun at your house.

There are loads of fun things that can be done with little money

You have to be CBR checked nowadays. Plus serving food that has been prepared at your home is inviting trouble. That's why we always hire a caterer. tbh I find the best entertainment is dressing up as a chav family and taking a taxi to the local Morrison. The kids love it (we let them swear for the occasion) and there's always some right wing nutter taking notes and hoping to dobb us in for benefit scrounging.

flashnazia

SingleSue wrote: »

By your profiling then....you would get us completely wrong!

All children very polite, no swearing heard at all and helpful to other shoppers.
No dad with us but when he was, yes he was bald but that was more to do with male pattern baldness than anything else...no tattoos.
Children are not allowed to eat anything until we have paid for them.
Children are not allowed to run amok, I am very strict on this.
My speech extremely clear and (I hate to admit this, but I have the fun taking out of me for it) quite posh....I also don't shout, my behaviour rules means I don't have to.
No 'bling' in evidence anywhere, I don't wear any at all, not even a watch.

By your profile, I would probably be middle class and working whilst
living in an owner occupied house!

I think it's been said on here before; you are not the type we have issue with! I believe you are on benefits because of circumstances beyond your control? Please don't make this thread about you. I believe this thread to be about the incentives given to the 'won't work' community so that they multiply. Nobody is saying all benefit claimants are like the supermarket family described above. Just that a higher proportion of the 'incentivised' families (which isn't all claimants) will act like that.

LilacPixie

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

If you think that's too expensive then you don't have to cater for your child's demands.

Make some jelly, buy some ice cream, invite all of their friends that they want and have fun at your house.

There are loads of fun things that can be done with little money

18 screaming 3-4 year olds in my house, I would be fit for an early grave :eek:

My point is not that I think its too expensive it's that I could not provide the kind of childhood I want for my children on what equates to less than £60 per week to cover everything from clothes to utilities, food and treats.

SingleSue

flashnazia wrote: »

I think it's been said on here before; you are not the type we have issue with! I believe you are on benefits because of circumstances beyond your control? Please don't make this thread about you. I believe this thread to be about the incentives given to the 'won't work' community so that they multiply. Nobody is saying all benefit claimants are like the supermarket family described above. Just that a higher proportion of the 'incentivised' families (which isn't all claimants) will act like that.

Erm, I wasn't making it about me, just pointing out the stereotyping has flaws.....the comment was about knowing a family on benefits (not stated which ones) and living in council houses.

Hence, I meet the basic criteria for the stereotype.

It was also a little tongue in cheek and being silly rather than serious take offence....a light hearted response post if you like.

LydiaJ

LilacPixie wrote: »

I could not provide the kind of childhood I want for my children on what equates to less than £60 per week to cover everything from clothes to utilities, food and treats.

Yes but you want that kind of childhood for your children because of the sort of person you are and the sort of things you want. And you would not choose a life on benefits if you could avoid it, likewise because of the sort of person you are and the sort of things you want. Not everybody is like you or wants the same things as you. So they make different choices from yours.

This thread is about whether the system as it stands provides the wrong kind of incentives for people who are not like you, don't start from the same starting point as you, and tend to choose different things from you.

IveSeenTheLight

LilacPixie wrote: »

18 screaming 3-4 year olds in my house, I would be fit for an early grave :eek:

My point is not that I think its too expensive it's that I could not provide the kind of childhood I want for my children on what equates to less than £60 per week to cover everything from clothes to utilities, food and treats.

There are many on benefits that do.
There are many that don't use the money for their childrens benefit.

I do think welfare has to be much tougher and incentivise people to go out and earn more

From what your saying, the benefit would not provide the childhood you'd want for your children so what would you do.
I guess go out and earn more so you can provide more.

I applaud you for wanting to give your children the best you can, as I do

silvercar

My point is that I don't think its possible to bring up children decently on £60 a week for everything.

LydiaJ

silvercar wrote: »

My point is that I don't think its possible to bring up children decently on £60 a week for everything.

Perhaps the intractability of the problem lies in the varied definitions that people have of this idea of decently.

If benefits are set at a level that middle class people consider adequate to ensure a decent upbringing for children, then "won't work" types will feel sufficiently comfortable on that level of benefit that there is little or no incentive to work. Meanwhile the "can't work at the moment" types will struggle along valiantly, acutely aware that they would like to be able to provide their kids with more than their circumstances allow.

silvercar

But even bringing up children cheaply on £60 a week is not going to give you money left over, so I don't get where having a brood gives you loads of money, it may give you a big house - that you then have to heat, it may give you cash, but you will spend all that on keeping the family.

So what is the cheapest amount you can feed, clothe and school stuff, outings and holidays for a child per year. Benefit levels give you about £3k a year extra per child. I doubt you can do it for less - even at ill-fitting second hand shoes, value food, charity shop clothes etc