The £40k family

Poppy9

Sarahsaver

The main reason there are not that many families as large as this is that most people only have the number of children then can support.

Re looking after younger siblings. Well I am the youngest of 4 so I looked after no one. 2 of my older siblings resented my presence and the fact they had to look after the baby, give into the baby etc. My sister just a couple of years older than me also did not want me playing with her etc.

To get back to the op I think most people agree that the benefit system was not developed to fund this family situation. The benefit system was originally introduced when people had more self respect and saw benefits as a safety net to help them when they could not work. Sadly times have changed and now in the 21st Century we are a selfish bunch of people who think we are entitled to everything. Some people take the attitude that if you can get it for free all the better. I personally favour ditching all these different types of benefits - I am always amazed that there are so many people who know what you can and cannot get - and replacing them with one benefit. Then this couple Mr & Mrs Scott would not get so much extra for each child they had but would be like a working couple just getting extra CB. I am also doubtful about the payment of DLA and Attendance allowance to children. If a child has a severe physical disability I can see there are extra costs involved in getting specialist equipment, though I think this should be provided by the state free. Respite care is available free from LA but I realise that you might want to employ someone to provide extra respite. For almost 30 years I have lived next door to 2 children 1 with severe physical and learning disabilities and 1 with learning difficulties. The first family was much more seriously affected by their child disabililty. He was born a healthy little chap but had a seizure at 6months. This caused severe brain damage. He was constantly fitting, doubly incontinent, agressive and unable to speak. The stress on the family was immense and I witnessed 20 years of this. Somehow both parents manage to work. The hubby full time and the mother set up and ran her own shop employing someone outside school hours. I can see why they would need extra money though. The second family again both parents worked. The child here had been affected by rubella and this caused Learning difficulties. She was unable to communicate and a bit tempermental a bit like having a permenant 2 year old! They were in receipt of mobility allowance, attendance allowance, DLA etc. I have to say I couldn't see why they needed this extra money. They never employed anyone to care for her to give them a break the grandma used to babysit. I don't wish to offend anyone here if they are caring for a disabled child but in this case Mrs Scott herself said there is nothing much wrong with the 3 kids she gets DLA for (over £700 per month) its just that they are a bit slow.

jellyhead

maybe there are lots of families not using formal contraception but abstaining at certain times in the cycle? my father-in-law is only 50 and is one of a dozen children, they all lived in a 3 bedroomed house (with only one girl, so 11 boys to a bedroom - eeek!). maybe people are objecting to having so many children while never having worked for a living, i think that's more unusual. my grandparents all had 8 children each and that was considered normal back then, i don't know if they had the pill but they didn't have abortion. i don't know if i'd like that many children, i'm 33 while having my second child so it's not likely to happen even if i wanted it. my reason for having such a large gap between my 2 children is because i was on benefits for a while after the first was born - for me it's not right to concieve children if you're not working (when the first was conceived i didn't know i'd be on benefits). that's a personal decision though. fair enough if you have had children then find yourself on benefits it's not something you have a lot of control over but to have them knowing that you're not going to work to support them is more unusual i think.

Poppy9

Jellyhead

If only everyone was as sensible and reasonable as you. My Grandma was the eldest of 21 kids. She was born in 1900 and the last in 1925. They lived in a two up two down house. At 14 the eldest children were put into service in the big houses in London. All but 4 of the children reached adulthood and they all did very well for themselves. Funny not one of them had more than 3 kids though.

halloweenqueen_2

My Nan was one of 11 all born before WW2, they had nothing and were quite a poor family, one died and was only able to be buried because people helped to pay for the funeral. Not one of those remaining ten didn't work they worked damn hard, three fought in the war, one was decorated for bravery and received a disability that affected him for the rest of his life, only three of them ever drew state pension, do you think they got any help - they'd worked and saved - so no. The family all worked together to bring money in, the kids had to help grow veggies etc and look after animals, so they had avery strong work ethic from day one.
I don't care how many children people have but why should the rest of us who stick to having a few children in our means still end up paying for more children, I'd loved to have had a bigger family but want to give my kids a certain standard of upbringing and we couldn't afford to do that - I don't mean that in a snobby way, i have friends with five and six kids and they bring in more money than us and can afford more!
Its not the size of the family - each to their own - its just that they are blatantly taking us for all we can give them while on the other hand pensioners who did give something into this country aren't getting half that money. My grandparents pension was less than their grandaughters allowance for being a single mother with one child, the grandaughter has never worked.

Fran

Poppy9,

I don't see why you have a problem with people knowing their rights! We all should so that we can't be disadvantaged by the many systems in life that will either rip us off or use our ignorance to keep us "in our place".

Your use of the words "Attendance Allowance" when referring to disabled children shows how little you know about benefits. AA is only claimed by people aged 65 and over!

There are many hidden expenses of disability and unless you were to talk to disabled people or research the subject properly you might not realise how they really do need the extra cash.

IvanOpinion

Fran
I think you are still missing the point ... ignoring absolutely everybody else on benefits, how on earth can any benefits system be justified that gives one family the equivalent of £50K per year ... about 3X the national average wage for NOT working. Where is the incentive for this family to contribute to society instead of taking from it?

I would prefer to see this money going to people that actually need and deserve it.

Ivan

Poppy9

Fran

Did I say I had a problem with people knowing their rights? I really don't see the need for the agression in your posting . I am amazed with people knowing so much because the system is so hugely complicated. As I have said on other occassions people who have spent the majority of their life working and being outside the benefit system have to find their way through a overly complicated system of benefits at a time when they could really do without the hassle. The administration of all these different benefits is also a very costly process.

I have never professed to be an expert on benefits as I have worked for over 20 years. The mother told me they get an extra allowance as the child needs 24 hour care. She called it attendance allowance. Who am I to argue. The child was 2 at the time and is now 22.

As mentioned I have worked for over 20 years, this is despite having a serious back problem due to being knocked over by a car and of course arthritis (which a huge %age of the population suffer from in one form or another). My partner too manages to work despite having asthma and having a physically demanding job. Perhaps we should just quit work and wallow in self pity. I don't think so and do you know why - cos life isn't easy everyone lives with some form of pain and suffering. Do you think the road sweeper, cleaner, nurse, shop assistant etc enjoys his/her job - all that bending, picking up and mopping up and standing. Do you think they don't go home at the end of the day aching from top to toe. Do you think that they don't want to get up in the morning and do another shift. However if they didn't the system would soon grind to a halt. I have only ever claimed maternity pay and child benefit. I have tried to help my in laws as so and so had told them that they could get x benefits as well. I am an average intelligent person and I found it extremely difficult in just trying to find out what benefits they might be able to get. If you get this you can or can't get that, unless of course you have x. For goodness sake when people are geniunely needly they just want money to survive and live. They don't want an excessive amount of forms asking the same questions. My partner has suffered redundancy and mindful of the fact we had a mortgage to pay he took a stopgap job to help pay bills. I however appreciate that there are times when people find themselves reliant on the benefits system. The point has been made earlier that the system is a contributory system. If someone who is able to work never pays in how can we afford to pay for those who are truely unable to work either for life or for short periods of time? Do you think Mrs Scott is raising all her kids with a good work ethic. Whats the betting that her brood follow their parents example of living off the state? Not a very palatable thought. This family is working the system. The fact that there are so many different benefits available enable them to do so. This is to the detriment of those who really need the benefits and why they are embarassed to claim them. Jellyhead has said she didn't feel she could have a second child on benefits. Why should she feel like that after all she has no doubt paid NI contributions for years. Mrs Scott didn't have any such feeling but then again she might have a Compulsive Disorder. What about couples who need fertility treatment - they have a great, overwhelming urge to have a family. Sadly many have to live without because they can't afford the treatment.

Sofa_Sogood

Maybe us taxpayers should pay even more taxes to cure Mrs Scott of any obsessive compulsive disorders she might have? It might be cheaper, and it's certainly more ethical if her choice to have such a huge family was based on religious grounds too?

System

Sofa_Sogood wrote:

It might be cheaper, and it's certainly more ethical if her choice to have such a huge family was based on religious grounds too?

She cant blame religious grounds, she can abstain. I would.

Sofa_Sogood

Judi wrote:

She cant blame religious grounds, she can abstain. I would.

I did