Deleted

ruggedtoast

Die thread die.

oldvicar

The article says they are officially overcrowded, and after the quote above goes on to say the governmnet will solve the problem:

The government says it will ease overcrowding for those on the lower rungs of society with market mechanism – a mix of coercive policies that cut benefits if people do not respond to them. The first idea is to cut the benefits of those "under-occupying" social housing if they do not move to smaller properties

But for me the best quote from the article comes earlier:

The flat is small: a master bedroom, the children's room, a kitchen and a living room not much larger than the flat-screen television that dominates it

Maybe its bad Guardian reporting, but it does look as if they could move to a 4-bed house if they found one, and Housing benefit would top up rent and they'd still be within housing benefit limits:

The council rent on the two-bedroom flat is affordable at £250 a month and the Nelsons are entitled to about £20 a month in housing benefit.
Renting in the private sector would, says Nelson, be impossible. Rent for four-bedroom properties in Southwark starts at around £1,700 a month, but the government has capped housing benefit at about £1,600 a month

Fella

So that's a teaching assistant living with a civil servant on benefits & so far they're at four kids & counting.

And just to get this right, it's THEM who're complaining? Not the taxpayers who appear to be funding 100% of their existence?

Rather than whine about it perhaps they could have considered holding off on maybe the 4th child until they could, er, afford to pay for it themselves?

Free houses in Dorset sound great. Can we all have one?

ruggedtoast

And there we have all the predictable griping from the anti child forum curmudgeons.

Almost no one can afford to pay for their children while they are children, that is why the vast majority of people send their kids to NHS doctors and State schools.

Unless they are boomers, looking forward to a bumper pension and stella house price rises, over the longer term most people pay will pay in more than they take out.

Graham_Devon

Fella wrote: »

So that's a teaching assistant living with a civil servant on benefits & so far they're at four kids & counting.

And just to get this right, it's THEM who're complaining? Not the taxpayers who appear to be funding 100% of their existence?

Rather than whine about it perhaps they could have considered holding off on maybe the 4th child until they could, er, afford to pay for it themselves?

Free houses in Dorset sound great. Can we all have one?

They probably assumed the fourth child would push them up the housing ladder. Many others seem too, and for many others, it worked well.

pqrdef

ruggedtoast wrote: »

More decent, hard working families forced to live in conditions the previous generation would have balked at.

The flat sounds similar in size to the zillions of two-up two-down terraced houses that were built for families to live in. Both my parents grew up in houses like that. My father was one of 4 teenagers, 2 boys 2 girls. Later the same house held 3 generations. Several of the neighbours, not having enough family to breathe all the oxygen, took in lodgers.

One generation was the first not to live like sardines, and may have been the last. Just an aberration.

I hope the Nelsons get used to their situation, because under the latest government plans they'll be at home until they're 25.

ILW

ruggedtoast wrote: »

And there we have all the predictable griping from the anti child forum curmudgeons.

Almost no one can afford to pay for their children while they are children, that is why the vast majority of people send their kids to NHS doctors and State schools.

Unless they are boomers, looking forward to a bumper pension and stella house price rises, over the longer term most people pay will pay in more than they take out.

4 kids is way over what a low earning family should plan for. It's a matter of responsibility.

Percy1983

I will say we haven't started making mini Percy's here just yet but after much discussion the most we want is 2, first thats the most we could afford, secondly the world doesn't need more people, 2 people = 2 children = population stable.

MacMickster

Mrs MacMickster is from a large family. 4 girls shared one bedroom and 4 boys shared the boxroom which contained 2 sets of bunkbeds.

To support the family her father at one point was working almost around the clock. He worked as a crane driver during the day, on the ticket desk of a cinema in the evening, then 3 days a week he did shifts as a nightwatchman (where he admitted to occasionally sleeping on the job). Her mother did not work. Her job was to raise the children, which she did very well.

As a family they were ashamed to claim child benefit, and in their old age when both had significant disabilities they refused to claim attendance allowance to which they were entitled.

The children never felt that they were living in poverty or overcrowded conditions as they were growing up, although holidays were confined to the odd day out at the seaside.

The difference today is all about attitude. "How much can I claim and what can I get?" rather than "How can I avoid the stigma of claiming and how can I best make do with what I've got?"

abaxas

Housing standards are one of the benchmarks for developing countries.

Hence, we are 'undeveloping' Not good

chewmylegoff

In Southwark, south London, Mona Nelson, 35, would like to move out of her small flat – preferably to a four-bedroom home nearby as Leah needs her "own space". She says with the children settled at school and family on hand to help, they do not want to leave the community. Buying in London is out of the question.

so basically she's making a choice to accept overcrowded housing so she can stay where she is. they could always move somewhere else, but they don't want to. fair enough, but don't moan about the over crowded housing in that case.