Capping benefits at 4 kids?

cavework

A care worker is a responsible job not low status. So why are you offering the minimum wage?
Just interested

claire16c

Person_one wrote: »

Tell that to someone brainwashed by Catholics.

My grandma's a 'lapsed' one but its really hard to shake those teachings.

It may be yes but ultimately its someones own choice to choose to believe in something, and follow every single rule/commandment, whatever you want to call it, when we are living in a different type of world to when that religion was created.

So if they have 8 kids as a result then yes that's their fault.

clearingout

claire16c wrote: »

How on earth would someone have 8 children through no fault of their own?

there is a huge gap between 'access' and 'control'. The Government in this country gives free access to contraception for everyone, even if they are under the age of consent. However, there are literally thousands of reasons why people can't control that access - abusive relationships is the obvious one (refusal to use condoms, 100% control of personal space making it very difficult to take the Pill without detection), but poor levels of education (not realising you can get condoms for free, not knowing where to get condoms for free, not knowing how to use condoms or the Pill or the Morning After Pill effectively, not being able to read instructions, not being able to understand instructions, being too scared to say 'sorry, doctor, I don't understand',...) feature a close second, misinformation (you can't get pregnant the first time, you can't get pregnant standing up...), religious beliefs (I once had a pharmacist refuse me the Morning After Pill, had I been a 16 year old girl with no access to a car to go to the next open pharmacy on a Sunday, I might have ended up pregnant), etc. etc. etc.

We can sit here and pontificate about personal responsibility and 'how on earth can anyone not ask a doctor to clarify how often they should take the Pill?' but it happens...all too often. 8 times is pushing it,though....

claire16c

clearingout wrote: »

there is a huge gap between 'access' and 'control'. The Government in this country gives free access to contraception for everyone, even if they are under the age of consent. However, there are literally thousands of reasons why people can't control that access - abusive relationships is the obvious one (refusal to use condoms, 100% control of personal space making it very difficult to take the Pill without detection), but poor levels of education (not realising you can get condoms for free, not knowing where to get condoms for free, not knowing how to use condoms or the Pill or the Morning After Pill effectively, not being able to read instructions, not being able to understand instructions, being too scared to say 'sorry, doctor, I don't understand',...) feature a close second, misinformation (you can't get pregnant the first time, you can't get pregnant standing up...), religious beliefs (I once had a pharmacist refuse me the Morning After Pill, had I been a 16 year old girl with no access to a car to go to the next open pharmacy on a Sunday, I might have ended up pregnant), etc. etc. etc.

We can sit here and pontificate about personal responsibility and 'how on earth can anyone not ask a doctor to clarify how often they should take the Pill?' but it happens...all too often. 8 times is pushing it,though....

Exactly. All of those situations happening 8 times? To the same person.

And thats assuming the person didnt happen to learn about any of that stuff after the previous 7 pregnancies? I dont think so.

One of the first things that happens after someone has a baby is they ask them what contraception they want!

And with 8 pregnancies youd be talking about a space of atleast 10 years so theres plenty of time to sort it out. There is no excuse after a while.

Perhaps if there was a cap, that abusive partner might not be so keen on so many kids..

peachyprice

clearingout wrote: »

so how would that have worked for me? I had 2 children and was pregnant when my ex husband walked out, taking everything we had financially and I had at that point only one day's work a week. No choice but to claim benefits and they're still chasing him for maintenance 3 years later (no end in sight to that....). Should I have been capped at 2, then? Should I have been forced to have an abortion 'cos I'm a benefit scrounging '!!!!wit'

But you and your husband weren't living on benefits before he walked, you worked he (presumably) worked. Would you have then gone on to purposely have another baby once you were a single parent to 3 children just for the extra benefits the 4th would bring?

Those are the people the cap is aimed at, non-working families who keep breeding, not families whose circumstances have changed.

Person_one

cavework wrote: »

A care worker is a responsible job not low status. So why are you offering the minimum wage?
Just interested

Ah, you've misunderstood, I'm the healthcare assistant not the employer, sadly I didn't decide the wage!

Most care work is very low paid and yes, it is low status, requiring no qualifications, no registration and not very respected by most.

peachyprice

elaine373 wrote: »

I dont think it should be capped at any particular number.Someone with 8 children getting enough money for 2 (could be no fault of their own) would find it hard to feed and clothe the children.Children`s welfare should always be the first priority,although i agree some people are irresponsible.

It's simple really, a very good deterent would be to give welfare that can ONLY be used for the children, clothing vouchers, food vouchers, shoe vouchers etc, not hard cash that can then be used to support the parents lifestyle.

clearingout

claire16c wrote: »

Perhaps if there was a cap, that abusive partner might not be so keen on so many kids..

I don't know much about DV, but I suspect that's too simple a view on things, however logical in a benefits sense. Plenty of women have little or no control over their joint finances because their partner deals with stuff - I think, potentially, this would literally see a lot more children go without more than they already do.

Person_one

peachyprice wrote: »

It's simple really, a very good deterent would be to give welfare that can ONLY be used for the children, clothing vouchers, food vouchers, shoe vouchers etc, not hard cash that can then be used to support the parents lifestyle.

Petrol? Heating? Water bills? Phone bill? New appliances? Home repairs? Toys (yes children NEED toys)?

lostinrates

peachyprice wrote: »

It's simple really, a very good deterent would be to give welfare that can ONLY be used for the children, clothing vouchers, food vouchers, shoe vouchers etc, not hard cash that can then be used to support the parents lifestyle.

this has been raised many times on the ''debate economy'' board where there is a strong opinion that suh a system would cost far more to administer. Also, vouchers would probably have a ''black market'' value so that in some case children would do with out still.