Woman forced to terminate pregnancy due to benefit changes

unholyangel

mattpaint wrote: »

Maybe people should accept that they can't afford to have large families if they haven't the ability to earn more than basic wages?

Many professions used to be well paid jobs that are now barely earning more than minimum wage. That is because over the same period that prices have increased an average of 67%, the average wage only increased 18%. Heck I know people who haven't had an increase in 11 years and counting. What are they supposed to do with the kids they already have? Shove them back in and ask for a refund?

When you're at the point that even an average full time earner can't cover their "share", I think its time to admit we ****** up and look to fix it rather than bury our heads in the sand because "I'm alright, jack".

No I don't support the state paying for peoples life decisions, but I do completely support fair pay and good working conditions.

selement

I feel bad for the woman for feeling like it was her only option but at the same time it isn't sensible to have kids you can't afford. The government probably shouldn't help for and endless amount of kids in fairness. I'm currently pregnant with my first and am worried about affording childcare, but my partner and I won't be giving up work as we just about earn more than childcare costs would be.

I know others will disagree but I think the best way around the low wages expensive childcare issue is for further government subsidies for working parents on childcare costs. It might allow for people earning minimum wage to afford childcare (and only a few years till they'll be school age anyway). This would allow more parents to work more and so pay more taxes (and have to take careers breaks and start over) although i admit this alone is unlikely to fund it

chesky

Yes, gone are the days when a working class man could act as the sole breadwinner for his wife and family. In some ways it's great that women can take on additional roles outside the home and not just stay at home not using their talents. However it's now become necessary for most wives and mothers to earn to enable the family to pay the rent and survive.

I agree about tax credits propping up employers. But I think we've got off the subject.

catkins

The couple already seem to be milking the system as much as they can. They live separately, meaning she will be entitled to more benefits. They already have 2 children although neither of them work. No way was a third baby a sensible choice even had they been entitled to more benefits.

Unless they are very stupid they should have known about the benefit changes. I don't even have children but I know about them. Personally I think child benefit should be stopped after 2 children

I think it is fair enough to help people on low pay or who can't find work with children but what about couples with no children or single people?

Me and my DH both worked full time for over 40 years. When he had a stroke a couple of years ago I was told I would be entitled to nothing. I wasn't working due to illhealth but had to find a job and luckily my DH made a remarkable recovery and went back to work.

We have a single friend who is self employed. She can't work full time because of ill health and claims housing benefit. Now that UC has come in she has been told her housing benefit is stopping as she is not working enough hours/earning enough. She is going to lose her small 1 bed flat next month and will homeless. The council isn't interested because she doesn't have children. That to me is far more unfair than the story in the OP's post

Gavin83

chesky wrote: »

However it's now become necessary for most wives and mothers to earn to enable the family to pay the rent and survive.

Has it? Or is it just a case that the average family want a number of luxuries and therefore to afford those both parents have to work? A full time minimum wage job is what, £1200ish a month? Add benefits to this. That's enough to afford a modest 2 bed house up north somewhere, plus bills, including food and still have a bit left over. If you want luxuries you have to make sacrifices elsewhere, including possibly both partners having to work.

Owning a car is a luxury. Living in a desirable area is a luxury. Owning (or renting) a big house is a luxury. Living in London is now a luxury (another topic entirely), going on holiday is certainly a luxury, owning a TV is a luxury and even having kids is a luxury.

If people want to improve their lot in life they'll have to work for it, on the most part. The only real issue is zero hour contracts but again, that's another topic entirely.

As I said previously you can blame the minimum wage for a lot of issues. However I'm not sure if it's too late to take it away now. It might be.

sheramber

If there was not a minimum wage some people would earn an even smaller wage.

How many people got their wages increased when the minimum wage was increased?

Ames

catkins wrote: »

The couple already seem to be milking the system as much as they can. They live separately, meaning she will be entitled to more benefits. They already have 2 children although neither of them work. No way was a third baby a sensible choice even had they been entitled to more benefits.

Unless they are very stupid they should have known about the benefit changes. I don't even have children but I know about them. Personally I think child benefit should be stopped after 2 children

I think it is fair enough to help people on low pay or who can't find work with children but what about couples with no children or single people?

Me and my DH both worked full time for over 40 years. When he had a stroke a couple of years ago I was told I would be entitled to nothing. I wasn't working due to illhealth but had to find a job and luckily my DH made a remarkable recovery and went back to work.

We have a single friend who is self employed. She can't work full time because of ill health and claims housing benefit. Now that UC has come in she has been told her housing benefit is stopping as she is not working enough hours/earning enough. She is going to lose her small 1 bed flat next month and will homeless. The council isn't interested because she doesn't have children. That to me is far more unfair than the story in the OP's post

Your friend needs an urgent appointment with CAB. People who can only work part time due to health problems are exempt from the minimum income floor. However, they have to go through the work capability assessment (the same one that's used for ESA).

I'm also confused as to how and why she's been moved to UC. There must have been a change in her circumstances, as managed migration (the DWP moving people onto it) doesn't start until next year. Has she moved to a new local authority?

WillowCat

Ames wrote: »

Your friend needs an urgent appointment with CAB. People who can only work part time due to health problems are exempt from the minimum income floor. However, they have to go through the work capability assessment (the same one that's used for ESA).

I'm also confused as to how and why she's been moved to UC. There must have been a change in her circumstances, as managed migration (the DWP moving people onto it) doesn't start until next year. Has she moved to a new local authority?

The change in circumstances could have been as simple as she earned too much to continue her housing benefit claim, then her earnings dropped again. Self employed work is often seasonal and variable. Agree that she needs to request a work capability assessment, but unless she already gets PIP/DLA she will need to be earning less than 16 hours per week x minimum wage to be entitled to one.

Tabbytabitha

unholyangel wrote: »

Many professions used to be well paid jobs that are now barely earning more than minimum wage. That is because over the same period that prices have increased an average of 67%, the average wage only increased 18%. Heck I know people who haven't had an increase in 11 years and counting. What are they supposed to do with the kids they already have? Shove them back in and ask for a refund?

When you're at the point that even an average full time earner can't cover their "share", I think its time to admit we ****** up and look to fix it rather than bury our heads in the sand because "I'm alright, jack".

No I don't support the state paying for peoples life decisions, but I do completely support fair pay and good working conditions.

Can you name any professions that only pay minimum wage?

Ames

WillowCat wrote: »

The change in circumstances could have been as simple as she earned too much to continue her housing benefit claim, then her earnings dropped again. Self employed work is often seasonal and variable. Agree that she needs to request a work capability assessment, but unless she already gets PIP/DLA she will need to be earning less than 16 hours per week x minimum wage to be entitled to one.

You're right, I made a few assumptions, and I didn't realise that you had to be on PIP/DLA to qualify for the WCA.

Claiming PIP needs to go on the list for the friend in question too then.

How ridiculous, that someone who was only claiming HB has to claim more to still be entitled to it.