Moral Hazard & Fairness - Housing

Shakethedisease

I've got to be honest. I don't think anyone having kids does it 'just' for the 'benefit's or the 'incentives'.. I doubt it crosses their minds to be honest. Kids cost far too much for benefits to be any kind of incentive in my personal experience.

Most women that find themselves pregnant just get on with it. It's either that or an abortion ( to be blunt ).

You're a cynical lot and are 'over thinking' this. Perhaps even being sucked in a bit by all the media stories about endless families of 8 'raking in the benefits' and in 6 bedroom houses. They're extreme examples that people, ie on this thread, like to get a bit 'incensed' and ranty about. Those sorts of examples are rare in the big scheme of things.

'Getting pregnant' isn't as easy as it looks either. If you listen to some here you'd think all it took was a night out, a few drinks, and then a quickie behind the pub.. 1 in 5 couples have trouble getting pregnant ( defined as taking a year or more of regular intercourse on the designated days ). It takes careful timing since there are only 2/3 days a month where it's possible, and optimal conditions.

Where this notion is that people just go round 'popping babies out' at 'will' comes from I don't know. Have a read of the TTC thread here..

amcluesent

>Where this notion is that people just go round 'popping babies out' at 'will' comes from I don't know.<

How thousands of council homes go to foreigners

Thousands of Eastern European citizens are given council houses every year, leapfrogging millions of Britons languishing for years on waiting lists.

Helena Horvatova is grateful for her council house. Her only complaint is that it has just three bedrooms for herself, her husband and their seven children.



"A mansion for us, my new Engleesh friends? Yes, please!"

andrealm

A 3 bedroom house to house a couple and 7 kids? Somehow I'm not seeing much incentive here to "pop out" kids in order to get more money and a huge house.

michaels

Well just looked on budget brain for us (couple with 3 kids) - if I remove mortgage, council tax, school trips and school dinners and luxuries like ballet lessons (but keep 2 cars inc depreciation and household repairs and 130pm for utilities in a 3 bed semi and 400 for food so no 'value' options) I get an annual total of about 14k (and my kids are known for the fact that they are always in new clothes). Not sure how much benefits 3 kid family would get tho?

silvercar wrote: »

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

LydiaJ

Shakethedisease

I'm sorry if you thought I was saying that people who have loads of kids do it "just" for the benefits. That isn't really what I meant. There may be a few people who do that - I don't know - but I doubt that it's at all common.

Incentives are more subtle than that, and people may not be aware of the way the incentives are affecting them. A woman starting out on a career in an investment bank, who knows that a baby at this stage of her life will destroy her career prospects, is likely to be very careful with contraception. The motivation may not be so strong for someone who is the third generation of their family that's never worked - it may for some of them, but it may not for others. There's a difference there in the way that incentives are affecting these people.

I wrote in a previous post about how the way WTC is structured motivated me to up my hours to get over the crucial 16 hours/week mark. Well, it also affects my attitude to overtime. If I work overtime, I then lose 20% in income tax, 11% in NI, and 38% in lost CTC, so I only get to keep 31% of my nominal rate of overtime pay. And 31% of the overtime rate feels like not very much money for the amount of work concerned, so I feel "why bother?". (Actually I do work overtime whenever I'm asked to, because I know it gives the department a problem if I don't. I wouldn't do it just for the money, though.)

SingleSue

michaels wrote: »

Well just looked on budget brain for us (couple with 3 kids) - if I remove mortgage, council tax, school trips and school dinners and luxuries like ballet lessons (but keep 2 cars inc depreciation and household repairs and 130pm for utilities in a 3 bed semi and 400 for food so no 'value' options) I get an annual total of about 14k (and my kids are known for the fact that they are always in new clothes). Not sure how much benefits 3 kid family would get tho?

A fair few will still need to pay for school trips, I know I do (and I am not making it about me here, just using an example). Some schools will operate a little help towards it if you ask, a very few will make it free if you ask for it but mainly, you still need to pay for it when you are on a low income (you don't need to be not working - just a low income) even if that is on a reduced basis for those lucky ones where the school operates some help.

There are also some on benefits/low incomes, who will also pay out for 'luxuries' like swimming lessons, music lessons or even, dancing lessons....these tend not to be free either and/or, some parents value their child having 'extras' even if it means the parent going without somewhere else down the line.

To be honest, looking through the posts (and having my objective head on), both parties are right, although not always with the strength they believe. There are some who will pop out babies because the cut off is coming up for benefits stopping, yet there are others, where the idea of having more children is more of an Arrggghhh one. There are some parents who will neglect their children so they can have another pack of ciggies or a four pack, there are others who will devote every last penny they have for the children's well being.

There are some parents who don't give a jot about their children or what they are doing but there are other parents who care about the childs education, their manners etc.

So some will meet the stereotype and some won't....the same as those who work hard and earn their money.

We all have different values, different priorities whether working or not (even if by choice or not).

flashnazia

Most people who are concerned about the current benefit system (me included) all seem to know persons or people on benefits that seem to live quite comfortably. Many posts on this thread say otherwise; that the benefit rates are too low to live on. I'm confused. I think those that think £60 cash in hand for each child is not enough are the types of parents that only buy the best for their children and perhaps spend all they can on them.

I still think it's more than enough to heat, feed and clothe.

IveSeenTheLight

Shakethedisease wrote: »

'Getting pregnant' isn't as easy as it looks either. If you listen to some here you'd think all it took was a night out, a few drinks, and then a quickie behind the pub.. 1 in 5 couples have trouble getting pregnant ( defined as taking a year or more of regular intercourse on the designated days ). It takes careful timing since there are only 2/3 days a month where it's possible, and optimal conditions.

the wife and I were statistically one of those who found it difficult initially to get pregnant.
That said we just started trying for honourable number 2 (I did love when Charlie Chan introduced his brood, although doubt the wife want's the number of children he had) and was lucky first time

LilacPixie

I had a bit of a count up and removing activities mortgage and C tax I think we spend around 15k a year thats including petrol/diesel but I admit to having a clothes/shoe habit which could go if i really really tried hard enough.

I think I am on the same wavelength as silvercar, I just cannot imagine not wanting to give my kids everything I possibly can even if it means me going without to give them it.

I think Lydia could have a point that some people just could not give a damm about their kids and will keep funding there own lifestyle at the expense of their kids. My mind just can't imagine that mindset which is probably why I can't understand why having more and more kids helps any, it does give more mney but its still the same amount per head.

TBH at the mmoment i probably look like a right chav, a 2 and 3 year old, visible baby bump and none of my clothes fit. I am off work until next week s i'm living in jeans and a few longer t-shirts and a zip up fleece that belongs to OH. I look a right state but hey the salesmen in shopping centres won't stop me because I look like a jakey so its a result. I desperatly need a shopping trip and my hair done .

I will be sad and admit I had a midwife appointment today and because of my due date I could claim the health in pregnancy grant of £190. I am chuffed about that beyond words. I must admit though i find it bizzare that I can considering I have income but apparently its not means tested so even those earning 500k a year could claim it.

sjaypink

michaels wrote: »

Not sure how much benefits 3 kid family would get tho?

For a couple:

Means-tested income entitlements

Tax Credits £7,456.95 ( £143.01 )
JSA (income based) £5,357.67 ( £102.75 )

Other income entitlements

Child Benefit £2,455.92 ( £47.10 )

Total Entitlements £15,270.54 - £292.86 weekly


* Single parent is £13,325.62 - £255.56 weekly