Is this fair?

Does anyone have actual evidence of people having children just for state benefits please?

Benefits above what can be earned enable people to continue having as many children as they want, whilst those in work have to limit their families to what they can support.

So if you want a large family a benefits lifestyle makes perfect sense and this is now available as an option.

It’s hardly surprising that 5 million people have decided it’s a viable option.

Or more soon maybe.

It makes sense financially and in quality of life not to keep going out to work .

...but where is the evidence of having children just for the benefits please?

I don’t know about having children solely to get benefits but, work meant I met many women/families where no one worked. I was told more than once “I’ll never work again, it’s a mugs game”. These were families who knew what words they needed to use on forms when claiming various benefits. Some had more cash each month than I earned, despite I was working full time

Yes definitely to a welfare state with a good safety net. No to exploiting it (and of course to tax evasion)

NotSpaghetti

...but where is the evidence of having children just for the benefits please?

No good asking questions, NotSpaghetti. I asked one too. Is there any evidence that the 2 child cap stopped people having more than 2 children?

They'd rather go on with their virtue signalling and separating out the deserving and undeserving poor.

I expect if you Google both questions you will come up with some official research results.

I’m not defending people who milk the system but I would just point out the highest percentage of the universal credit paid to families goes to private landlords.
The government is projected to spend £70 billion over the next 5 years to private landlords.

You’d think it would make sense to use that 70 billion to build some good quality family homes available at a reasonable rent, wouldn’t you?

Oh hold on………

I have endless evidence like iam64 of families where no one works for generations, endless issues and chaos, there children stand very little chance, giving 'extra' money will make very very little difference to those children. We are failing them.

Their not there. . I may change my mind about an edit button.

Galaxy

I have endless evidence like iam64 of families where no one works for generations, endless issues and chaos, there children stand very little chance, giving 'extra' money will make very very little difference to those children. We are failing them.

I agree with you and Iam64 and if we really want to help children this isn’t the way to do it.
This was done by RR to appease socialist ideology from the far left of the Party who seem to believe that this will magically make a huge difference to children.Any child who goes to school hungry or to bed hungry will continue that way in my view.

Iam64

I don’t know about having children solely to get benefits but, work meant I met many women/families where no one worked. I was told more than once “I’ll never work again, it’s a mugs game”. These were families who knew what words they needed to use on forms when claiming various benefits. Some had more cash each month than I earned, despite I was working full time

Yes definitely to a welfare state with a good safety net. No to exploiting it (and of course to tax evasion)

Yes definitely to a welfare state with a good safety net. No to exploiting it (and of course to tax evasion)

Absolutely. Well said.

As for spending the £70billion on private rentals over the next five years, that is just pouring money down the drains.
Let's build more housing (apparently that was an idea!) but not on flood plains but build the infrastructure needed to support communities too.

MaizieD

NotSpaghetti

...but where is the evidence of having children just for the benefits please?

No good asking questions, NotSpaghetti. I asked one too. Is there any evidence that the 2 child cap stopped people having more than 2 children?

They'd rather go on with their virtue signalling and separating out the deserving and undeserving poor.

There are several posters who have experience of this through years of work and calling them virtue signallers is very wrong.

Thanks Allira. I don’t see myself as a virtue signaller, I expect to be put in the fascist gang by many posters.

My memory is Gordon Brown introduced working tax credits, pips etc. with the aim of ensuring working people benefitted financially. It means we subsidise employers ? Pip and motability cars for people with addictions surely give no incentive to use them to access services to support abstinence. Of course we used to have such services.
Just as we used to own manage and build social housing

We need root and branch reform .

To be honest I don't actually think those who cheer this on with no examination of what is happening gives two hoots about those children.

Iam64

Thanks Allira. I don’t see myself as a virtue signaller, I expect to be put in the fascist gang by many posters.

My memory is Gordon Brown introduced working tax credits, pips etc. with the aim of ensuring working people benefitted financially. It means we subsidise employers ? Pip and motability cars for people with addictions surely give no incentive to use them to access services to support abstinence. Of course we used to have such services.
Just as we used to own manage and build social housing

We need root and branch reform .

I expect to be put in the fascist gang by many posters.
You can join me, a right-wing extremist, peddling my views all over social media, apparently 😁 even though I dislike Farage.
Is that because I voted Labour and they're not far Left enough?

I feel there may be too many double negatives in that sentence, not enough coffee this morning.

I do know of people having children for benefits, particularly housing.
A former pupil, from a notorious family, bright but refused to work either at school or later, regularly boasts to her social media circle about her progression from homeless single mother to resident of a brand new 3 bedroomed detached social housing. She and the father of her 3 children do not live together; (more points that way) he works away apparently and she is unable to work, unspecified reasons.
She thinks people who go out to work are fools. You have to get up very early to catch her out.

Thought. Is it better to finance SAHM so that children are brought up properly?

Iam, Allira and others - I am not saying there aren't families who choose not to work as like others I have experience of this through years of work and have worked with some of these families myself - but I was attempting to get to the bottom of the idea that families have more children deliberately to keep the benefit money rolling in.

I was just asking for evidence of families having more children specifically to do this.

Yes, there are (and have been all my working life) some families who know "the system" inside out and exploit it. Like Iam I know my wages were sometimes less than a (specific) family received in the various benefits.

Those of us who think a cap on two children was unfair almost certainly don't believe in hand-outs left right and centre - just as we (probably) don't approve of tax evasion.

Tizliz

Thought. Is it better to finance SAHM so that children are brought up properly?

I don't know if that necessarily follows.
One could conclude from that, that children of working mothers are not being brought up properly.

It's better, surely, if parents are in a stable relationship? So many mothers in particular are left as single parents now.

NotSpaghetti

*Iam*, Allira and others - I am not saying there aren't families who choose not to work as like others I have experience of this through years of work and have worked with some of these families myself - but I was attempting to get to the bottom of the idea that families have more children deliberately to keep the benefit money rolling in.

I was just asking for evidence of families having more children specifically to do this.

Yes, there are (and have been all my working life) some families who know "the system" inside out and exploit it. Like Iam I know my wages were sometimes less than a (specific) family received in the various benefits.

Those of us who think a cap on two children was unfair almost certainly don't believe in hand-outs left right and centre - just as we (probably) don't approve of tax evasion.

I have never said it is deliberate.
I have said that I know that contraception is not infallible.

However, when there was two-child cap and a family is struggling, unable to work, why have more children? I'm not condemning people, rather puzzled as to why? Is that fair on the children?

So very well said. I had worked this out on the day Rachel Thieves announced this idiocy. The system is meant as a safety net,not a lifestyle choice.
Why should the shiftless and feckless benefit from another persons hard work?
Give families vouchers for the added value that children need such as art,drama,sports classes and heating vouchers.

Allira

Tizliz

Thought. Is it better to finance SAHM so that children are brought up properly?

I don't know if that necessarily follows.
One could conclude from that, that children of working mothers are not being brought up properly.

It's better, surely, if parents are in a stable relationship? So many mothers in particular are left as single parents now.

There are pros and cons. Some women are more relaxed working but I know it stressed me out worrying if the child minder was doing her job properly. Eventually I gave up work and we struggled financially until the children were at secondary school - I also took this time to take my A levels.