Irresponsible to have children on benefits?

[Lightworker]

OT- but how come people pick on benefits alot? why doesnt anyone ask whether it is irresponsible to have children when you work 60 hour weeks and you never have time for them. Financial stability should not be the yardstick with which we evaluate the competence of parents.

 

[TennisGal]

Edit-post before ready!

 

[indy and lara]

My Dh works long hours as that is just part and parcel of his job- none of them are paid. He leaves at 6am so that he can come home and have time with Emma before bed and spends his weekends with her. His doing this enables me to be a SAHM and as far as I am concerned the person who misses out is Andy who has a very small amount of free time. He doesn't have time for himself but has as much time as he can wangle for Emma. Financial stability is not everything but I do think you should be able to provide for your child.

 

[TennisGal]

^^ pretty much this.

Dh works hard - as we want to provide our children with as many opportunities in life as possible...good education, nice home, extra help when they need it. These things are important, and although 'luxuries', do help in a big way.

He is the big breadwinner, I am the home maker. Again, anyone that *chooses* to work 60 hrs a week...both parents...is very different from those who, for whatever reason, have no choice. Similarly with benefits, those choosing to use them as opposed to those who have no option cannot be said to be the same case.

Benefits are not there for people to achieve the life they want i.e choose to be a full time parent, they are there for people who actually need them to live. Imagine how much more a parent with a disabled child could get if the system was fair?

Just to add-this does not apply to anyone who now finds going back to work too expensive. That's the ridiculous system.

 

[Mum2b_Claire]

The more I read the more it just mashes my head.

I do still come down on the side of agreeing with TennisGal that it is not a right to have someone stay at home. The thing is that the nature of this forum means that we focus on families but there are many other groups in society too who are just as needy/ vulnerable. As we are all more than aware, the benefits pot is not endless and other groups probably feel that they are as deserving. For example, I wonder how a childless couple feel when they are both working FT but their tax contributes towards women staying at home?

I think part of my objection is that fact that I feel that we are supporting a lot of other people with our tax contribution but get nothing back to support our family. I do also wonder if it will be easy for people to get back into the workforce a few years down the line?

I agree it is a totally head mashing subject. Everything you say I agree with in theory! It just doesn't work for us in practice, although I guess the logical extension of those arguments are that people like me shouldn't have had children which I don't agree with, obv!

Feel your pain about the taxes, I started FT work before I'd even finished my degree, worked very very long hours in a difficult and demanding job, I earned good money but lots went to the taxman, funding people whose situations I wouldn't have agreed with at the time.

I am only 29 so have many years of work ahead of me once our second child reaches 3 or 4. I have plans for a career change I am definitely a career person who will eventually more than put back the benefits we will receive in the next few years.

 

[TennisGal]

It is head mashing! I know what I believe in theory, but in practice it is so hard...and there are so many who have to claim because the system sucks.

I think, for me, I just find it hard when we see how little the elderly, the disabled, carers, children with difficulties get from the gvt. Carers allowance is a joke!

Essentially, if it's financially viable to work, it should be pursued, IMO.

 

[TennisGal]

Eta: hope I am not coming across as some benefit buster. I fully subscribe to people getting benefits, I just want it to be fair.

 

[indy and lara]

That is what I was getting at. There are so many groups who desperately need more support. No easy solutions.

 

[BabyJayne]

OT- but how come people pick on benefits alot? why doesnt anyone ask whether it is irresponsible to have children when you work 60 hour weeks and you never have time for them. Financial stability should not be the yardstick with which we evaluate the competence of parents.

I don't think the competence of parents has been questioned - as in, how fit they are to look after children. The question is is it irresponsible to plan and have a child - or in many cases children - knowing you are unable to support them financially yet not really caring because the state will foot the bill. IMO that is highly irresponsible.

Someone working a 60-hour week does not have an adverse effect on the benefits system. In fact, they probably pay quite highly into it. That doesn't make them a competent or incompetent parent. It just makes them financially responsible for the children they bring into the world, and that is what we are talking about here.

Again - I am talking about people who claim benefits for no other reason than they cannot be bothered to work, have never worked and don't plan on working. Those who feel the world owes them something and that it is everyone else's responsibility to feed, clothe, educate and provide for their offspring.

 

[LeeBee]

OT- but how come people pick on benefits alot? why doesnt anyone ask whether it is irresponsible to have children when you work 60 hour weeks and you never have time for them. Financial stability should not be the yardstick with which we evaluate the competence of parents.

This is a good point

 

[Kate&Lucas]

OT- but how come people pick on benefits alot? why doesnt anyone ask whether it is irresponsible to have children when you work 60 hour weeks and you never have time for them. Financial stability should not be the yardstick with which we evaluate the competence of parents.

That does get discussed quite a lot, but it's a seperate debate to this one.

 

[Natsku]

Me and OH are on benefits (but Maria was a whoops baby) and I would feel wrong to TTC while on benefits but then sometimes I feel like OH might not ever be able to work again due to his health issues and is then fair that Maria will get no brothers or sisters because of her dad's health?

 

[indy and lara]

Me and OH are on benefits (but Maria was a whoops baby) and I would feel wrong to TTC while on benefits but then sometimes I feel like OH might not ever be able to work again due to his health issues and is then fair that Maria will get no brothers or sisters because of her dad's health?

Lots of children do not have brothers or sisters. As do lots of adults. Siblings are not a given. It is not about fair or unfair. Emma will most likely not have a sibling because he brother was born sleeping and we can't face another high risk pregnancy. We all have circumstances which impact on the size and make up or our families.

 

[Aidan's Mummy]

Me and OH are on benefits (but Maria was a whoops baby) and I would feel wrong to TTC while on benefits but then sometimes I feel like OH might not ever be able to work again due to his health issues and is then fair that Maria will get no brothers or sisters because of her dad's health?

But your OH is ill, he is on benefits due to the inability to work Could he not look after LO while you work or does the illness effect him in caring for LO? If yew then you have no other choice but to be on benefits, you can't work due to OH's health xx

 

[Natsku]

I can see your point and don't necessarily disagree with it but should sick/disabled people not be allowed children because they cannot work to provide for them?

 

[Natsku]

Me and OH are on benefits (but Maria was a whoops baby) and I would feel wrong to TTC while on benefits but then sometimes I feel like OH might not ever be able to work again due to his health issues and is then fair that Maria will get no brothers or sisters because of her dad's health?

But your OH is ill, he is on benefits due to the inability to work Could he not look after LO while you work or does the illness effect him in caring for LO? If yew then you have no other choice but to be on benefits, you can't work due to OH's health xx

He can't look after her by himself unfortunately, not now she is heavier as he can't hold her for very long.

 

[blinkybaby]

I do think it's irresponsible to plan a child for the sole reason that you would get more benefits - it's unfortunate that the government in this country has made it so that having babies is a career option for some people to get a bigger house and more money.

On the other hand, it's not fair to say that only people who can afford it have a right to have children. Lots of people are on benefits through no fault of their own and many do not intend to stay on them long term. I feel uncomfortable saying that those people should not have children.

 

[Midnight_Fairy]

I dont know where I stand on this. I dont work. OH does and we receive HUGE top up! Could not cope without them. Also, if we were to split. I would not be able to work so I would be on benefits. x

 

[Aidan's Mummy]

Hun, if you were single you couldn't go to work due to your little mans additional needs, thats what benefits are there for x

 

[BabyJayne]

I do think it's irresponsible to plan a child for the sole reason that you would get more benefits - it's unfortunate that the government in this country has made it so that having babies is a career option for some people to get a bigger house and more money.

On the other hand, it's not fair to say that only people who can afford it have a right to have children. Lots of people are on benefits through no fault of their own and many do not intend to stay on them long term. I feel uncomfortable saying that those people should not have children.

I don't think these are the people being discussed - not for me anyway. People on benefits through no fault of their own, and those who find themselves in a situation where benefits are needed and don't want to stay on them long term are using benefits as they are intended - to help you until you can help yourself or to help because you are unable to help yourself.

For me, it's the people who choose to live on benefits, plan and have children and think it's the state's (and therefore the taxpayers) responsibility to provide for them.