Irresponsible to have children on benefits?

[Mum2b_Claire]

With neither parent working OR looking for work? Yes irresponsible.
If one or both parents are working but on low incomes that are being topped up by benefits, then that's different IMO.
I don't like the idea of people having x amount of children paid for by the taxpayer with nothing ever being put back into society but at the same time, I absolutely hate the idea that only families with at least one high earner ought to be able to have children. And in the London and the south, usually to manage on one income it does need to be pretty high.

 

[Lellow]

If a couple are both on benefits, are healthy and able to work and are not looking to come off benefits anytime soon and are actively TTC, then yes, it is irresponsible!

Who in there right mind would do that anyway?!

Now if its an accident, thats different, if a couple were TTC and both become unemployed thruout the pregnancy, again completely different...but to just to plan a family with no resources of your own to rely on, that IMO, is absolutely wrong!

Just to add, topping up a low income family doesnt count...The point is, that one of them is working!

 

[indy and lara]

I really don't think that you should be ttc if neither of you are working. At the end of the day when you have a child it is your responsibility to provide for it and you can't if you have absolutely no income and rely on benefits. I am also not comfortable about people being SAHM when their partners cannot afford to support them.

 

[Mum2b_Claire]

I really don't think that you should be ttc if neither of you are working. At the end of the day when you have a child it is your responsibility to provide for it and you can't if you have absolutely no income and rely on benefits. I am also not comfortable about people being SAHM when their partners cannot afford to support them.

Neither am I in principle, however, for myself and a lot of others, we can't afford to work, as crazy as it sounds. I always planned to go back to work, and have done, but can't continue, as it just isn't working, we can't afford basic stuff. So maybe it's not on to actively plan a child knowing this will be the scenario. For us we were just ignorant about childcare fees but Ruby wasn't planned, not that I consider that as an 'excuse'.

 

[Hayley90]

With neither parent working OR looking for work? Yes irresponsible.
If one or both parents are working but on low incomes that are being topped up by benefits, then that's different IMO.
I don't like the idea of people having x amount of children paid for by the taxpayer with nothing ever being put back into society but at the same time, I absolutely hate the idea that only families with at least one high earner ought to be able to have children. And in the London and the south, usually to manage on one income it does need to be pretty high.

this!! nothing else to add... i think its unfair that people can do what they like without paying a penny in in the first place, but i also dont like to dictate who can/cant have children and why.

x

 

[Hayley90]

I really don't think that you should be ttc if neither of you are working. At the end of the day when you have a child it is your responsibility to provide for it and you can't if you have absolutely no income and rely on benefits. I am also not comfortable about people being SAHM when their partners cannot afford to support them.

me either really... i try really hard at work so i can earn enough to cover everything... yet others get to stay at home because they chose to knowing that they would get a bit of their income covered by the govt. not really fair. then again neither are childcare costs so

 

[Boony]

If both parents arent working then its irresponsible. If you cant afford kids dont have them! Having said that though low income families shouldnt feel bad about needing to be topped up by the government as long as one of them is working full time!

I also dont agree with SAHM's whose partners cannot fully support them!

 

[Lellow]

I do feel that people should use there entitlements as a bonus and not really rely on them to subsidise themselves when wages aren't covering everything.
In this day in age, we dont know what government will do next, i know its highly unlikely, but these benefits could be taken away at any time - How would families cope then?!

 

[sequeena]

I'm a bit confused now. Low income families who need help topping up are ok but SAHMs where the partner cannot fully support by just working (and therefore probably get top ups) aren't ok?

I don't know where I stand on this. My OH works, I don't and we are now getting £80 hb (monthly) and £37 wtc (weekly) because he's had to drop £6,000 in his salary... Anything I say would probably make me a hypocrite we were ok when I first fell pregnant, it's only in the last 2 months or so that our circumstances have changed.

 

[Mum2b_Claire]

I also dont agree with SAHM's whose partners cannot fully support them!

What would you expect them to do instead, when commuting + childcare = their take home wage? It's often a case of choosing a lesser of 2 evils, temporarily, until working becomes a viable option again. It's not really my ideal to be a SAHM tbh, I prefer to do some part time work but I can't afford to.

 

[special_kala]

TTC whilst solely relying on benefits is irresponsible and blimming stupid IMO, of course accidents are different.

We get CTC and housing benefit but our decision to have another baby wasnt reliant on that changing when baby come. The idea that some people get the benefits calculators out to work out how much extra they will get before TTC makes me feel a bit ill.

If they took away our CTC (which if they change the qualifying amount next year we may do) we will absorb the "loss".

I also dont think that you should automaticly qualify for a bigger council house if you keep having more kids as its not like if your a home owner you get given £10,000 to buy a bigger house just because you have kids

 

[indy and lara]

That's is the thing. It is a minefield isn't it? For us we planned a long time to have a child and waited until I would be able to have time off afterwards. But then Bobo died so in the period before Em was born we saved like people possessed so I could be a SAHM as long as I wanted to.

For me I would not have been a SAHM if I was only able to on top ups but I understand not everyone agrees with this. I think that part of what gets my goat a bit is that I know the frightening amount that hubby pays in tax yet when the changes to CB come into play we won't even get that. Yet we are funding other people who can work but don't. I am a strong supporter of the benefits system but I do believe it is there to support the vulnerable and those temporarily down on their luck. Hmm, as I say though, it is a minefield.

 

[sequeena]

It is an absolute minefield... and tax is the bane of our lives

I don't think I'll able to be a SAHM for long when Thomas arrives and I'm not sure how much childcare is in my area. I do know that it can be skyhigh though

 

[Hayley90]

Thats the thing... when i pay childcare, in a few months... it will be the same as my wage. But if i was to give up my job, i wouldnt be entitled to anything because i would have quit So i will continue working until i can find a job for less hours that pays enough to cover us.

i dont see why other people should have the luxury of staying at home when people like me have to go to work regardless... it is a complete minefield and incredibly unfair how people are allowed to choose to stay at home knowing full well that they will need to rely on the govt to support them.

If the entire benefit system was taken away a LOT of SAHMs (and dads!) would have to go back into work regardless of childcare costs... this of course wont happen, for amny reasons, but it does highlight how many people are too reliant on a 'help' service, when they dont need the help, they just need to work. i just dont think its fair that some get to choose when others (like me!) dont.

i understand childcare is too expensive, but some of us are going to have to pay for it regardless, i dont see why certain people should escape that.. maybe childcare costs should be looked at instead of tax brackets for ctc and wtc... if that was lowered there might be more working parents, which ultimately fund the whole thing anyway.

 

[Mum2b_Claire]

Yeah it is a total minefield. I must say I have changed my tune on this over the last year, seeing how we don't actually benefit at all from me working. I always said that I'd still work if we broke even versus being on benefits with me at home doing the childcare, but we are actually worse off! We will be substantially better off on benefits. I think this is very very wrong but we only have one life and to keep working out of principle, meaning that we could never have any more children, and for what reward? Not for us. Selfish yes, but it just comes down to the question, do you only think people on a high income should be able to have children? If you think that, then I guess you're going to 'disagree' with our family situation, but we don't agree that that should be the case, so that's how we reconcile doing something we are not 100% happy with really. It's very temporary too. I definitely will return to work once it is financially beneficial for me to do so, either through my 2nd child turning 3 or by changes to government systems.

 

[pupsicle]

We were both unemployed but OH managed to get a job when LO was 10 days off. We didn't spend our money in stupid ways and we had money saved for baby things.

 

[Mum2b_Claire]

Thats the thing... when i pay childcare, in a few months... it will be the same as my wage. But if i was to give up my job, i wouldnt be entitled to anything because i would have quit So i will continue working until i can find a job for less hours that pays enough to cover us.

Just to say, the bolded bit isn't true. I have been to the CAB about my situation and they confirmed this. It only applies to unemployment benefits, not HB etc.

 

[lesleyann]

See i dont work, Oh does i got pregnant with kyle while i was at college and i finished my course before he was born however no where would of taken me on at 30weeks pregnant so i had no option but to be in a way a SAHM, When kyle turned 1 i went back into education and got pregnant with our daughter my course has just finished am im 21weeks, however regardless of being pregnant or not i would not of been getting a job as i would be back at college completing course which i need to get onto a nursing/midwifery job.. So once #2 is a year old i will be going back into education again for many years to come..

My oh has a low income and we get top ups, however he has just had a slight pay rise, so we get less again now, so does that make me wrong for being a SAHM for a year after each of my children are born before going backinto education to end up working for the nhs?

 

[Hayley90]

Thats the thing... when i pay childcare, in a few months... it will be the same as my wage. But if i was to give up my job, i wouldnt be entitled to anything because i would have quit So i will continue working until i can find a job for less hours that pays enough to cover us.

Just to say, the bolded bit isn't true. I have been to the CAB about my situation and they confirmed this. It only applies to unemployment benefits, not HB etc.

But then all i would get is £20 CB surely? Apparently £20k a year is 'enough to live on' if you were to do a calculator thing, it doesnt even cover my rent etc the things i would be 'entitled' to I dunno maybe i would be better off but from everything i have seen i would be entitled to next to nothing based on OH salary And its not even enough to cover us

 

[Mum2b_Claire]

Thats the thing... when i pay childcare, in a few months... it will be the same as my wage. But if i was to give up my job, i wouldnt be entitled to anything because i would have quit So i will continue working until i can find a job for less hours that pays enough to cover us.

Just to say, the bolded bit isn't true. I have been to the CAB about my situation and they confirmed this. It only applies to unemployment benefits, not HB etc.

But then all i would get is £20 CB surely? My rent etc would still need paying Thats what i mean, some people swan around getting everything paid for, yet regardless of what i do i stil have to pay full whack and get none of the luxury of seeing my son grow up

Depends what your OH earns? Mine is on a lowish salary, so we will be entitled to some (but not full) housing benefit, plus more CTC as our household income will be a lot lower.
The change from my wage after Childcare and commuting to London is practically zero, so we're clearly better off taking the HB and CTC and having me full time at home looking after the children. Even if we weren't having another this would still be the case.
Honestly, I won't be swanning around at all - like now, we will not be in a position to have any luxuries. It's just that we will be able to avoid going into debt once I stop work.