Should People Have Children If They Cant Afford Them

Lily-Rose_3

haras_nosirrah wrote: »

Surely the easiest answer would be to cap child related benefits to two children. That would stop the baby breeders as they wouldn't get paid to have more but I don't believe that only rich people should be able to have children as that would be incredibly unfair.

This ^^^ Sums it up for me really.

Although isn't there some talk about doing this anyway soon?

Me and my hubby (both always worked,) only had one child, (now 20,) because we could only ever afford one child. We never got help with anything (only child benefit which everyone got, no matter what their income until recently,)

There was not even tax credits when our daughter was young OR help with childminding fees. Most of my wage went on childminding when I went back to work after having our daughter. When we got to a point where we were a bit better off financially, and we were in a place where we were ready for a second child; it was too late.

Us, and many couples we knew at the time (who were homeowners/mortgage payers, and had careers,) never had more than one or two children, because there weren't the same kind of handouts as there are now.

So yes, the handouts do need severely capping, because there is no way that people should keep getting a couple of hundred pounds a month extra for every additional child they have! We never did!!! As I said, we had no help at all. There was no tax credits OR help with childminding fees!

All that said, I do find the question in the OP nonsensical, because people could wait until they can afford them, and could lose their job by unemployment or long term illness and disability anyway.

I think the OP should change the thread title to 'people on benefits should not be allowed to have kids,' because that is what they mean.

Rebel_Cause

catkins wrote: »

Exactly! I don't understand why there is such a thing as child allowance at all. This country and the planet are overpopulated so why give money to people to make it even more so?


If I want a dog or cat or horse or nice car I have to pay for them

I do not want any finances from the government such as child tax credit and child benefit. Just because I would be entitled to them if I had children does not mean I should just go out and have them and see the government and the taxpayers of the nation as a meal ticket. I do not want to fall under the umbrella of those people who have a 'sense of entitlement'

You have some people who say "I have never claimed a benefit in my life!" Alot of them are parents, so what about child related benefits? That is probably overlooked because it is not as taboo as JSA, IS and HB.

Frogletina

TBeckett100 wrote: »

The government needs to do state vasectomies when a man applies for benefits and reverse it when he finds a job.

Pity the man on a zero hours contract - he'd need a revolving door.

King_Nothing

Didn't stop the girl in the year above me at school who's up to 5 now, and hasn't worked a day in her life for the past 11 years.

maman

Frogletina wrote: »

Pity the man on a zero hours contract - he'd need a revolving door.

:rotfl:


What's really at issue here is the way the government are using benefits to subsidise employers. So many big employers pay a wage that isn't enough to live on while protecting their own profits. I'm sure many employers would reintroduce slavery if they could! Similarly many landlords are allowed to get away with extortionate rents as it's subsidised by HB and the lack of social housing allows this.


I don't believe that people should be paid benefits to have children either rather that the benefit system should be for those who have fallen on hard times or are genuinely too old/ill to work.


However if all employees were valued and given a fair day's pay for a fair day's work then the choice of whether to have children would be more realistic. What we have currently is some at the top of the tree being paid obscene amounts of money and those at the bottom being abused with zero hours contracts and low pay.

Frogletina

A young member of my family has been signing on and is just entitled to JSA and is now working 8 hours a week in the next town which she travels to by train.

8 hours work gives her less than her entitlement on JSA so she still has to sign on to get the balance each week. She is hoping to get more hours and even today has travelled to work a 4 hour shift as she has agreed to cover someone else who didn't want to work her shift.

She would dearly love to work full time, but despite having to travel and the costs which she incurs for that, she is willing to take on just a few hours work a week. It shouldn't have to be like this.

sulphate

xXMessedUpXx wrote: »

So she's claiming as a single parent even though she technically isn't?

I suppose, I have no knowledge of the system whatsoever but presumably because he doesn't live there full time his income is not taken into account. What they are doing is apparently "above board" (legally).

FBaby

She would dearly love to work full time, but despite having to travel and the costs which she incurs for that, she is willing to take on just a few hours work a week. It shouldn't have to be like this.

What do you mean it shouldn't be like this? Are you saying that she should be able to claim full benefits for as long as she can't find a full-time job?

Frogletina

FBaby wrote: »

What do you mean it shouldn't be like this? Are you saying that she should be able to claim full benefits for as long as she can't find a full-time job?

Not at all.

I should have said I was commenting on the amount of zero hour contracts which were unheard of years ago. She works in a shop with lots of other girls who have similar hours so it seems a pity that she cannot work full time. However, this may change in the new year once the Christmas temps have left.

Carmina-Piranha_2

VfM4meplse wrote: »

I think the universal problem is the failure of men to keep it in their pants. It's nothing to do with race or religion.

Unless woman are raped, I think they have a say in whether the man keeps it in his pants or not.