Welfare Reforms... worrying information coming daily...

[feeble]

Firstly I don't believe at all that only the 'rich' should have children. And yes, if you are working you shoudl be able to afford to support your family. However, I don't think that people should have 4 or 5 children because they want to but cannot afford them.
I know you are passionate about homeschooling Feeble but I think the issue is that when you start making exceptions the system becomes even more difficult to manage.

I am probably in a more unusual situation than many as I see both ends of the salary spectrum. I took a career break after my maternity leave so I have been a SAHM for 3 years and we live solely on DH salary, without any benefits. Almost all of our friends are earning beyond the £36k mentioned but many of them are choosing not to have more than 2 kids due to financial concerns. At the other end of the spectrum I work with many families on very low incomes and I see daily how they struggle. I just don't think that we should be having large families when we know in our heart of hearts that we cannot afford to support them.

I haven't suggested making any exceptions, just pointed out that situations arise often (not just to do with homeschooling, I also mentioned disabled or social uncomfortable children) which means it is better for one parent to remain at home.

I have also said that one person working long hours should be able to support the family, none of that suggests there should be an 'exception' for homeschoolers, there shouldn't have to be.

I agree with the points about large families but I do not think cutting tax credits to working families will affect that at all. If anything it will exacerbate the problem as people will continue having kids to continue to get income support/tax credits for their families.

Rather, it would be best to cap child benefit after say the third child, to put a loop hole in council tenancies that state if you have more children than your council house can hold, you will be expected to move into the private sector to find housing (so you will not be rehoused time and time again because your famiy size has increased) and insist on community involvement to receive benefits. I would also stipulate that if you wish to receive benefits, you have some form of proof regarding birth control, be it the 5 year injection, the implant or a coil.

 

[Eternal]

they need to tackle childcare costs imo. at the moment, a lot of mums dont work because they cant afford to which is so ridiculously backwards! i think they need to change it so you only stay at home if you can afford it (like having a partner who can support the whole fam or if youve saved up), not because you have to. im sure a lot of single mums would love to go out to work but simply cant, especially if they have more than 1 child.

this is me, i cant afford to work as i have three kids under 25 months, my husband works and it would be nice to earn a little myself so that we can afford what a lot of people get on benefits! I obviously don't want to work right this second, as my twins are just 10 weeks, but by 5 years?

I don't think the change is there to force both parents to work, I think its meant to get people to take personal responsibility, if you don't earn enough to be able to support your family then maybe not keep having kids is a good idea?

If you need benefits then maybe you DO need to work. Otherwise you will be continued to get benefits until the child is 16 or older!!!

What is wrong with working while your kid is at school?

What if you wish to homeschool? What if you have a child with learning disablities or social issues that needs you around in the day?

Should only the very rich be able to home educate?

Edit; sorry missed the rest of your post, you think only the very rich should have children at all.

If an adult working 40hr weeks cannot support their family, there is something wrong with the economy, not something wrong with the family. That's why we have tax credits.

No, i dont think they very rich should be able to be the only ones having kids, i just think adults need to engage brain before having loads of kids, have what you can afford to help, i wont be having more kids than what we can afford.

Fine if someone wants to home educate, but there isnt millions of families doing this, your making out that everyone wants to home educate, im sure provision can be made in these circumstances but its very much an minority thing.

As for disabled children you get carers allowance and money for the child which allowed parents to stay at home.

Your picking at every circumstance, im clearly stating the in majority of families why should the tax payer pay for someone not to work for 16 + years? if you chose to have a baby then benefits are great when your baby is young, but when the child is at school than that person can work. if you choose not to than that's your decision but i don't get any money for being a SAHM so why should anyone else? You can choose to work or choose to stay home but you do it with yoru own money.

If everyone had the attitude that the gov needed to pay for their families we would be bankrupt ... oh wait ... we nearly are.

 

[Eternal]

they need to tackle childcare costs imo. at the moment, a lot of mums dont work because they cant afford to which is so ridiculously backwards! i think they need to change it so you only stay at home if you can afford it (like having a partner who can support the whole fam or if youve saved up), not because you have to. im sure a lot of single mums would love to go out to work but simply cant, especially if they have more than 1 child.

this is me, i cant afford to work as i have three kids under 25 months, my husband works and it would be nice to earn a little myself so that we can afford what a lot of people get on benefits! I obviously don't want to work right this second, as my twins are just 10 weeks, but by 5 years?

I don't think the change is there to force both parents to work, I think its meant to get people to take personal responsibility, if you don't earn enough to be able to support your family then maybe not keep having kids is a good idea?

If you need benefits then maybe you DO need to work. Otherwise you will be continued to get benefits until the child is 16 or older!!!

What is wrong with working while your kid is at school?

What if you wish to homeschool? What if you have a child with learning disablities or social issues that needs you around in the day?

Should only the very rich be able to home educate?

Edit; sorry missed the rest of your post, you think only the very rich should have children at all.

If an adult working 40hr weeks cannot support their family, there is something wrong with the economy, not something wrong with the family. That's why we have tax credits.[/QUOTE]

I agree with this part. My OH works 45+ hours a week and just doesn't take enough to live without having to claim tax credits.

Up until 3 years ago we both worked and was entitled to very little, things change though and so does circumstances. Unfortunately not everyone is going to have well payed jobs, someone has to have the less well payed ones but I certainly don't think it means they are less entitled to children.

As for 'what is wrong with working while your kids are at school'. I'm sure alto of mothers would love to go back to work while their children are at school but finding a job that is that flexible with times or having to cover the rest of the childcare costs that would come with it just wouldn't be possible.
Also with todays economy and job vacancies I think it is alot easier said than done.

I do agree if one parent is working then fine, but i dont think it should be given at the full rate until the child is 16, obviously not 5 or even 10, but a 14 year old is able to let them selves in and make a sandwich for themselves.

I have no problem with topping up wages to an extent, if someone is working a full working week then of course its great to get top ups, but in these circumstances benefits should be stopped at 2 children.

As for jobs, i do appreciate its not easy, there certainly isn't many full time jobs that would allow you ti take your kids to and from school, but i think an option needs to be available for people to be able to go back. right now if i wanted to go back childcare would cost me a minimum of £24,000 a year!

As for the economy issues, i think wages need to increase NOT benefits. Increase minimum wage and reduce benefits and we soon will have a working economy.

Im not saying people shouldn't have babies, im saying people shouldn't have 5, if they cant afford them all by themselves. If I want another baby, I have to be able to afford it as no one else is going to give me money.

 

[Eternal]

It's a difficult one really. I do think there needs to be changes to system so that being on benefits is a stop gap rather than a way of life. With regards to stopping Income Support after 1 year, I actually do agree with this, but there should be a maximum amount of children you can claim for. The way I see it is, I get a total of 12 months (3 months unpaid) maternity leave before I have to return to work, why should it be any different if you are on benefits?

If you wish to be a SAHM, then honestly, I think that you should be able to support yourself in doing this rather than expecting the government to foot this bill. Obviously single mums will struggle with this and possibly some exceptions could be made, especially with the lack of jobs around.

Homeschooling, well this is going to be tough. Although by homeschooling you are saving the Government money but should you be 'paid' to homeschool your children? I'm not too sure and to be honest I think if you were I can see 'workshy' parents using this an excuse not to work, pull their kids out of school to 'homeschool' and it will have a detrimental affect on their childrens education.

you say it way better than I can

 

[Eternal]

Firstly I don't believe at all that only the 'rich' should have children. And yes, if you are working you shoudl be able to afford to support your family. However, I don't think that people should have 4 or 5 children because they want to but cannot afford them.
I know you are passionate about homeschooling Feeble but I think the issue is that when you start making exceptions the system becomes even more difficult to manage.

I am probably in a more unusual situation than many as I see both ends of the salary spectrum. I took a career break after my maternity leave so I have been a SAHM for 3 years and we live solely on DH salary, without any benefits. Almost all of our friends are earning beyond the £36k mentioned but many of them are choosing not to have more than 2 kids due to financial concerns. At the other end of the spectrum I work with many families on very low incomes and I see daily how they struggle. I just don't think that we should be having large families when we know in our heart of hearts that we cannot afford to support them.

I haven't suggested making any exceptions, just pointed out that situations arise often (not just to do with homeschooling, I also mentioned disabled or social uncomfortable children) which means it is better for one parent to remain at home.

I have also said that one person working long hours should be able to support the family, none of that suggests there should be an 'exception' for homeschoolers, there shouldn't have to be.

I agree with the points about large families but I do not think cutting tax credits to working families will affect that at all. If anything it will exacerbate the problem as people will continue having kids to continue to get income support/tax credits for their families.

Rather, it would be best to cap child benefit after say the third child, to put a loop hole in council tenancies that state if you have more children than your council house can hold, you will be expected to move into the private sector to find housing (so you will not be rehoused time and time again because your famiy size has increased) and insist on community involvement to receive benefits. I would also stipulate that if you wish to receive benefits, you have some form of proof regarding birth control, be it the 5 year injection, the implant or a coil.

I actually agree with you here.

 

[mum22ttc#3]

they need to tackle childcare costs imo. at the moment, a lot of mums dont work because they cant afford to which is so ridiculously backwards! i think they need to change it so you only stay at home if you can afford it (like having a partner who can support the whole fam or if youve saved up), not because you have to. im sure a lot of single mums would love to go out to work but simply cant, especially if they have more than 1 child.

this is me, i cant afford to work as i have three kids under 25 months, my husband works and it would be nice to earn a little myself so that we can afford what a lot of people get on benefits! I obviously don't want to work right this second, as my twins are just 10 weeks, but by 5 years?

I don't think the change is there to force both parents to work, I think its meant to get people to take personal responsibility, if you don't earn enough to be able to support your family then maybe not keep having kids is a good idea?

If you need benefits then maybe you DO need to work. Otherwise you will be continued to get benefits until the child is 16 or older!!!

What is wrong with working while your kid is at school?

What if you wish to homeschool? What if you have a child with learning disablities or social issues that needs you around in the day?

Should only the very rich be able to home educate?

Edit; sorry missed the rest of your post, you think only the very rich should have children at all.

If an adult working 40hr weeks cannot support their family, there is something wrong with the economy, not something wrong with the family. That's why we have tax credits.[/QUOTE]

I agree with this part. My OH works 45+ hours a week and just doesn't take enough to live without having to claim tax credits.

Up until 3 years ago we both worked and was entitled to very little, things change though and so does circumstances. Unfortunately not everyone is going to have well payed jobs, someone has to have the less well payed ones but I certainly don't think it means they are less entitled to children.

As for 'what is wrong with working while your kids are at school'. I'm sure alto of mothers would love to go back to work while their children are at school but finding a job that is that flexible with times or having to cover the rest of the childcare costs that would come with it just wouldn't be possible.
Also with todays economy and job vacancies I think it is alot easier said than done.

I do agree if one parent is working then fine, but i dont think it should be given at the full rate until the child is 16, obviously not 5 or even 10, but a 14 year old is able to let them selves in and make a sandwich for themselves.

I have no problem with topping up wages to an extent, if someone is working a full working week then of course its great to get top ups, but in these circumstances benefits should be stopped at 2 children.

As for jobs, i do appreciate its not easy, there certainly isn't many full time jobs that would allow you ti take your kids to and from school, but i think an option needs to be available for people to be able to go back. right now if i wanted to go back childcare would cost me a minimum of £24,000 a year!

As for the economy issues, i think wages need to increase NOT benefits. Increase minimum wage and reduce benefits and we soon will have a working economy.

Im not saying people shouldn't have babies, im saying people shouldn't have 5, if they cant afford them all by themselves. If I want another baby, I have to be able to afford it as no one else is going to give me money.

I do agree with this part. Although it wouldn't be easy to find a job around school hours, holidays etc once a child reaches 5, I don't see any reason for a second parent to get a job once the child reaches secondary school age.

 

[Eternal]

they need to tackle childcare costs imo. at the moment, a lot of mums dont work because they cant afford to which is so ridiculously backwards! i think they need to change it so you only stay at home if you can afford it (like having a partner who can support the whole fam or if youve saved up), not because you have to. im sure a lot of single mums would love to go out to work but simply cant, especially if they have more than 1 child.

this is me, i cant afford to work as i have three kids under 25 months, my husband works and it would be nice to earn a little myself so that we can afford what a lot of people get on benefits! I obviously don't want to work right this second, as my twins are just 10 weeks, but by 5 years?

I don't think the change is there to force both parents to work, I think its meant to get people to take personal responsibility, if you don't earn enough to be able to support your family then maybe not keep having kids is a good idea?

If you need benefits then maybe you DO need to work. Otherwise you will be continued to get benefits until the child is 16 or older!!!

What is wrong with working while your kid is at school?

What if you wish to homeschool? What if you have a child with learning disablities or social issues that needs you around in the day?

Should only the very rich be able to home educate?

Edit; sorry missed the rest of your post, you think only the very rich should have children at all.

If an adult working 40hr weeks cannot support their family, there is something wrong with the economy, not something wrong with the family. That's why we have tax credits.[/QUOTE]

I agree with this part. My OH works 45+ hours a week and just doesn't take enough to live without having to claim tax credits.

Up until 3 years ago we both worked and was entitled to very little, things change though and so does circumstances. Unfortunately not everyone is going to have well payed jobs, someone has to have the less well payed ones but I certainly don't think it means they are less entitled to children.

As for 'what is wrong with working while your kids are at school'. I'm sure alto of mothers would love to go back to work while their children are at school but finding a job that is that flexible with times or having to cover the rest of the childcare costs that would come with it just wouldn't be possible.
Also with todays economy and job vacancies I think it is alot easier said than done.

I do agree if one parent is working then fine, but i dont think it should be given at the full rate until the child is 16, obviously not 5 or even 10, but a 14 year old is able to let them selves in and make a sandwich for themselves.

I have no problem with topping up wages to an extent, if someone is working a full working week then of course its great to get top ups, but in these circumstances benefits should be stopped at 2 children.

As for jobs, i do appreciate its not easy, there certainly isn't many full time jobs that would allow you ti take your kids to and from school, but i think an option needs to be available for people to be able to go back. right now if i wanted to go back childcare would cost me a minimum of £24,000 a year!

As for the economy issues, i think wages need to increase NOT benefits. Increase minimum wage and reduce benefits and we soon will have a working economy.

Im not saying people shouldn't have babies, im saying people shouldn't have 5, if they cant afford them all by themselves. If I want another baby, I have to be able to afford it as no one else is going to give me money.

I do agree with this part. Although it wouldn't be easy to find a job around school hours, holidays etc once a child reaches 5, I don't see any reason for a second parent to get a job once the child reaches secondary school age.

yeah, i mean i dont know what the age should be, and i really think other things should be tackled way before this is even considered, i mean both parents not working is a bad thing, and i am actually in favour of all mothers being sahm's my issue is those who have loads of kids and loads of benefits and NEVER work.

I do think its good for kids even when at school to have mum around, but there does need to be a point when parents either do that without benefits or have to work. i just feel you need to be responsible for your own kids, so dont have 5 if you cant afford to.