Irresponsible to have children on benefits?

[bumpy_j]

I did, I worked until I was 8 months pregnant though for a few hours a week so didn't really get much JSA at all- he was an accident and I intend to be on my feet again in a couple of years after undertaking some studies. So did my mum and now she has a pHD some people have to be on benefits for a while - that's what they're there for - but if you have no intention of working later on i think that's very different.

 

[smelly07]

Yes i think its wrong when people TTC when on benefits. personally i dont think they should get any extra cash for any further children. x

 

[xemmax]

In my view, I don't think it's anyones business whether people plan children while on benefits or otherwise. The only thing that should be of any concern is whether these people are fit to take care of children in the first place. So many people, even those who do work, aren't fit to make toast let alone look after kids and my main concern is that the money, however it's received, through work or through benefits, is spent wisely and on the child and obviously looking after the child in general.

I think it is 100% the business of a taxpayer when a person is planning children which will be raised on the taxpayer's money.

 

[Kate&Lucas]

I definitely think it's irresponsible. I've had to leave work recently as I just couldn't afford the travel and other expenses. So I'm a single mum on benefits. I'd LOVE another child, but I couldn't afford one and would hate to put myself in a position where it'd be even more difficult to return to work.
I don't know how people afford to have tons of kids on benefits. I can just about get by now

 

[sequeena]

I definitely think it's irresponsible. I've had to leave work recently as I just couldn't afford the travel and other expenses. So I'm a single mum on benefits. I'd LOVE another child, but I couldn't afford one and would hate to put myself in a position where it'd be even more difficult to return to work.
I don't know how people afford to have tons of kids on benefits. I can just about get by now

I think it must be pretty rewarding for some people! I'm 22 and a friend who is the same age as me is pregnant with her 3rd child. She and her OH (neither work or have worked, she got pregnant straight out of school) lived in a block of flats (2 bedroom). Because she's pregnant with her 3rd they just moved her to a house. Gave her a decorating grant etc. We have lived in our rental property for 2 years and our house is still the basic magnolia/white. We have only just decorated our sons room and he doesn't even have a border to finish it off yet

 

[Secret]

I think it is completely irresponsible to have a child whilst relying on benefits. It's not so bad if you are trying to help yourself and have top-ups but people who just sit on there arse all day doing nothing and are comfortable on handouts just make me so angry. I am 22 and working so hard at uni so that I can provide well for my future children. There are too many people that just think it's OK to bring up a child without being able to support them properly. I'd love to have a child but I'm not so selfish that I will just have one because I want one when I clearly can't support them! I just get so frustrated at the fact I am working hard at uni for the stuff that other people get for free because they are just plain lazy and can't be bothered. One member of my family said to me that I'd never have children because I want a job/money/house first! How out of order is that!? At least in years to come I will be able to appreciate what I have and be proud that I achieved it for myself rather than being some lazy scum bag who lives off tax payers money!

 

[LulaBug]

In my view, I don't think it's anyones business whether people plan children while on benefits or otherwise. The only thing that should be of any concern is whether these people are fit to take care of children in the first place. So many people, even those who do work, aren't fit to make toast let alone look after kids and my main concern is that the money, however it's received, through work or through benefits, is spent wisely and on the child and obviously looking after the child in general.

I think it is 100% the business of a taxpayer when a person is planning children which will be raised on the taxpayer's money.

I'm sorry to disagree, but everyone, no matter what, on benefits or otherwise pays or has paid tax to some extent so I still stand by my view.

 

[TennisGal]

Editing, postEd before ready!

 

[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.

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'.

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

In my view, I don't think it's anyones business whether people plan children while on benefits or otherwise. The only thing that should be of any concern is whether these people are fit to take care of children in the first place. So many people, even those who do work, aren't fit to make toast let alone look after kids and my main concern is that the money, however it's received, through work or through benefits, is spent wisely and on the child and obviously looking after the child in general.

I think it is 100% the business of a taxpayer when a person is planning children which will be raised on the taxpayer's money.

I'm sorry to disagree, but everyone, no matter what, on benefits or otherwise pays or has paid tax to some extent so I still stand by my view.

But they haven't. There are a group of people who have never worked and who are bringing up their children solely on benefits.

 

[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.

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'.

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

In my view, I don't think it's anyones business whether people plan children while on benefits or otherwise. The only thing that should be of any concern is whether these people are fit to take care of children in the first place. So many people, even those who do work, aren't fit to make toast let alone look after kids and my main concern is that the money, however it's received, through work or through benefits, is spent wisely and on the child and obviously looking after the child in general.

I think it is 100% the business of a taxpayer when a person is planning children which will be raised on the taxpayer's money.

I'm sorry to disagree, but everyone, no matter what, on benefits or otherwise pays or has paid tax to some extent so I still stand by my view.

But they haven't. There are a group of people who have never worked and who are bringing up their children solely on benefits.

there are many people who havent worked a day in their lives and are approaching their late twenties ( i know a fair few!) who have 3 bedroom glossy homes - paid for. fake nails, nice hair, sunbeds, holidays, iphones and designer clothes - paid for. rent, council tax, discounted rates, - paid for. By taxes that they havent contributed to ONCE... not for one hour of paid legal work. its a joke

 

[TennisGal]

I don't believe that anyone should be ttc while on benefits - and it galls me a bit that people will give up jobs and claim benefits to bring more money in, although I fully accept the dilemmas people find themselves in.

It's not the fault of bankers with big bonuses...however frustrating it is...if we dont pay the bankers, they go elsewhere, and our economy is ultimately stuffed. Very, very few people actually get those headline bonuses, and the number is decreasing.

I also get hugely fed up with the assumption that those on higher wages can somehow subsidise the rest of the country. Firstly, high wages always come at a price. Longer hours, city locations. My husband would be considered a high earner, but he works his butt off for them, has a commute and chose a path that meant he could support us all (although I worked pt) His tax and NI contributions are astronomical. We have *no* issue with these contributions going to those with literally no option-and I truly believe of the benefits system was shaken up, those who need them could actually get more.

However, those actively planning children when they can't afford them seems selfish to me. To all involved. Benefits are there for those who have no option, and find themselves needing them. Not those planning to incorporate them into their decisions.

All that said, I feel for the people who want to work, but find it not financially viable. Something should change.

 

[TennisGal]

Eta, this is about people actively planning-not those who have lovely baby surprises

 

[Hayley90]

I don't believe that anyone should be ttc while on benefits - and it galls me a bit that people will give up jobs and claim benefits to bring more money in, although I fully accept the dilemmas people find themselves in.

It's not the fault of bankers with big bonuses...however frustrating it is...if we dont pay the bankers, they go elsewhere, and our economy is ultimately stuffed. Very, very few people actually get those headline bonuses, and the number is decreasing.

I also get hugely fed up with the assumption that those on higher wages can somehow subsidise the rest of the country. Firstly, high wages always come at a price. Longer hours, city locations. My husband would be considered a high earner, but he works his butt off for them, has a commute and chose a path that meant he could support us all (although I worked pt) His tax and NI contributions are astronomical. We have *no* issue with these contributions going to those with literally no option-and I truly believe of the benefits system was shaken up, those who need them could actually get more.

However, those actively planning children when they can't afford them seems selfish to me. To all involved. Benefits are there for those who have no option, and find themselves needing them. Not those planning to incorporate them into their decisions.

All that said, I feel for the people who want to work, but find it not financially viable. Something should change.

Brilliant post, agree with every single word. x

 

[LulaBug]

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'.

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

In my view, I don't think it's anyones business whether people plan children while on benefits or otherwise. The only thing that should be of any concern is whether these people are fit to take care of children in the first place. So many people, even those who do work, aren't fit to make toast let alone look after kids and my main concern is that the money, however it's received, through work or through benefits, is spent wisely and on the child and obviously looking after the child in general.

I think it is 100% the business of a taxpayer when a person is planning children which will be raised on the taxpayer's money.

I'm sorry to disagree, but everyone, no matter what, on benefits or otherwise pays or has paid tax to some extent so I still stand by my view.

But they haven't. There are a group of people who have never worked and who are bringing up their children solely on benefits.

But there are a whole range of reasons from A through to Z as to why the people who plan these children may be on benefits and only a handful of these people will actually be the ones who just want as much money as they can have without working.

You find more and more all the time now, for people, including myself, that wanting to go back to work is just not affordable and being on benefits until such an occasion arises where going back to work will leave us better off, benefits is the better option.

And for those who have never worked....where is the incentive? It's all well and good people going into one about people who don't work, but when the situation arises where being on benefits is BETTER than going out and earning a wage, I fail to see where the incentive is for people to even bother trying.

And tax is paid by everyone on a daily basis. No matter what you buy, the healthcare you receive, everything is taxed, everyone pays tax. It goes round in one constant circle. So for me, all this taxpayer stuff is just....tit for tat. I may be on benefits myself, but I do contribute some how.

Food, Petrol, Cigarettes, everything has tax on it. No matter what people buy, taxes are paid and everyone buys these things. Food mainly anyways.

 

[xemmax]

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'.

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

In my view, I don't think it's anyones business whether people plan children while on benefits or otherwise. The only thing that should be of any concern is whether these people are fit to take care of children in the first place. So many people, even those who do work, aren't fit to make toast let alone look after kids and my main concern is that the money, however it's received, through work or through benefits, is spent wisely and on the child and obviously looking after the child in general.

I think it is 100% the business of a taxpayer when a person is planning children which will be raised on the taxpayer's money.

I'm sorry to disagree, but everyone, no matter what, on benefits or otherwise pays or has paid tax to some extent so I still stand by my view.

But they haven't. There are a group of people who have never worked and who are bringing up their children solely on benefits.

But there are a whole range of reasons from A through to Z as to why the people who plan these children may be on benefits and only a handful of these people will actually be the ones who just want as much money as they can have without working.

You find more and more all the time now, for people, including myself, that wanting to go back to work is just not affordable and being on benefits until such an occasion arises where going back to work will leave us better off, benefits is the better option.

And for those who have never worked....where is the incentive? It's all well and good people going into one about people who don't work, but when the situation arises where being on benefits is BETTER than going out and earning a wage, I fail to see where the incentive is for people to even bother trying.

And tax is paid by everyone on a daily basis. No matter what you buy, the healthcare you receive, everything is taxed, everyone pays tax. It goes round in one constant circle. So for me, all this taxpayer stuff is just....tit for tat. I may be on benefits myself, but I do contribute some how.

Food, Petrol, Cigarettes, everything has tax on it. No matter what people buy, taxes are paid and everyone buys these things. Food mainly anyways.

But paying tax isn't like having a savings account, and it shouldn't be treated as such. You don't pay in and expect to receive later down the line. Benefits should be there to help you, they shouldn't be seen as something you will inevitably receive.

There is a fundamental problem with the welfare system in that at present people are finding themselves in the position where they are better off not working. I totally agree that this needs to be addressed.

My problem lies with families where nobody works. I don't believe when two people are both on unemployment benefits that they should consider TTC, and if they do, I believe taxpayers have the right to an opinion on it.

Also, as for paying tax, although you might see it like a big circle, it will not work like that - more money must be received than be claimed otherwise the economy will crumble. Tax from buying items just isn't enough. And also, I'm sure VAT is zero on most food..?

 

[LeeBee]

I agree, it's a bit irresponsible to be TTC while on benefits. But at the same time, I know what it's like to want a baby more than anything... I guess you never really know what it's like to be in a situation like that until you are

 

[smelly07]

I agree, it's a bit irresponsible to be TTC while on benefits. But at the same time, I know what it's like to want a baby more than anything... I guess you never really know what it's like to be in a situation like that until you are

If a couple on benefits WANTS a baby that much then one of the parents needs to get off their backside and get a job. jmo x

 

[caz81]

I don't believe that anyone should be ttc while on benefits - and it galls me a bit that people will give up jobs and claim benefits to bring more money in, although I fully accept the dilemmas people find themselves in.

It's not the fault of bankers with big bonuses...however frustrating it is...if we dont pay the bankers, they go elsewhere, and our economy is ultimately stuffed. Very, very few people actually get those headline bonuses, and the number is decreasing.

I also get hugely fed up with the assumption that those on higher wages can somehow subsidise the rest of the country. Firstly, high wages always come at a price. Longer hours, city locations. My husband would be considered a high earner, but he works his butt off for them, has a commute and chose a path that meant he could support us all (although I worked pt) His tax and NI contributions are astronomical. We have *no* issue with these contributions going to those with literally no option-and I truly believe of the benefits system was shaken up, those who need them could actually get more.

However, those actively planning children when they can't afford them seems selfish to me. To all involved. Benefits are there for those who have no option, and find themselves needing them. Not those planning to incorporate them into their decisions.

All that said, I feel for the people who want to work, but find it not financially viable. Something should change.

I have to say I disagree with the bit that I have highlighted in your post, there are plenty of people who are on minimum wages and work very long hours and work just as hard (and often harder) than those on higher wages. I know I have done a number of jobs in my career from very low wages when I was first starting out to being on a high wage before I left to have my daughter and I know that the lower wage job was much harder.

Just because someone does a job that does not earn as much do they not deserve to have children? Or because someones husband is a low wage earner do they not deserve the right to be able to bring their children up full time? In my eyes if one of the family is working then they completely have the right to do that. Otherwise only the rich would be able to have children and surely that is not fair? A lot of the lower paid jobs are far more important to society than the higher paid ones yet and I think to imply that those who earn more work harder is just wrong.

I dont agree with people claiming benefits and ttc where neither of the family work as I think everyone should contribute to society but I completely agree with families getting top ups when the wage earner is a low earner so that the mother can bring up the children. To me this is the benefit system being used well as I believe its important for a mother to bring up her children and I dont think its right that people who work hard but have low wages have the right to have children and bring them up taken away from them.

 

[TennisGal]

I didn't say that lower earners don't work as hard, and I don't for a second think this is true. I have a friend who works for a charity, and earns a pittance...but she works all the hours God sends. What I was trying to say, and probably not very clearly , is that those on higher wages don't tend to ever have a 9-5 option, and these jobs are very rarely available outside of the city. I would never pontificate on how hard someone works based on their wages.

Of course anyone and everyone is entitled to have a child, and I wouldn't for a second want to go down some dictatorial state where we say who can't and can have children. However, to plan for children relying on benefits is, IMO, irresponsible.

I could also get annoyed that I'd like my dh home to have dinner with us in the evening, to be able to get a breakfast together...but his job supports us, and so various sacrifices are made. It's another reason why we will rarely go out together (just us) unless dd is asleep, as he is so protective of the time he has with her.

I don't think, if I am completely honest, that one person automatically has the right to stay at home to bring up the children if they are relying on benefits. It's a privilege these days, and one several working mothers would love to have, so why should their taxes support those who have just decided that they want that privilege without working? It doesn't seem fair.

Everyone, unless they are millionaires, has to make some kind of financial sacrifice these days-and I would rather see top ups going to help the disabled or those who really are in sure straits.

I have a friend claiming various top ups, who gave up work. She was musing whether or not to buy a stokke or babydan high chair. Two top brands. How is that fair to someone who can't even afford a high chair?

Sorry if this is a bit ranty, I am just enjoying the debate and NONE is meant personally to anyone...just in the spirit of good discussion

 

[TennisGal]

Dire straits, not sure straits!