Is this fair?

I have enough “wrath” for everyone who doesn’t contribute their fair share.

I never understand why people think that deflecting is the answer.

GraieGravy13
I absolutely agree

“The couple have produced another five workers to go into the system”.

Unlikely Tokerer.

Not when they know you don’t have to work. There’s no reason for them to do that.

My GS told me his wife was complaining that people she had been at school with and were not working and had 3 or more children could afford a new car and a foreign holiday every year. She wants to know how they do it. They have moved from one end of the country to the other in order to afford to rent a property
I also feel annoyed that people who have never worked get a full pension but I only get 1/2 pension despite working most of my life from age 14.
Some people seem to know how to play the system

GrannyGravy13

Tokerer

GrannyGravy13

I stand by my opinion that benefits should be a safety net not a lifestyle choice

The example in the OP appears to be a ^lifestyle choice^

Here's another way of looking at it. It takes an extra five workers to pay your pension, I believe. So that couple have produced another five workers to go in to the system.

A pension isn't a savings scheme. If so who paid the first pensions? It is a contract with the Government. (According to Martin Lewis.)

The people working today pay the pensions of the people who retired yesterday.

Having paid NI until the age of 66, along with still paying tax, I stand by my post that benefits should be a safety net, not a lifestyle choice.

If someone is unable to work due to disability that is a different matter.

If someone has a sudden illness and needs support of course they should be able to access it.

If someone is made redundant they should be able to claim benefits whilst being helped back into work.

Benefits should not be an option for the work shy and those who know how to play the system.

May I humbly suggest that you save your wrath for the "successful" people who routinely indulge in tax avoidance. It costs us FAR MORE than the benefits bill. From sole traders to large multinationals - they are all at it...

GrannyGravy13

I stand by my opinion that benefits should be a safety net not a lifestyle choice

The example in the OP appears to be a ^lifestyle choice^

This sums the situation up perfectly ⬆️

Tokerer

GrannyGravy13

I stand by my opinion that benefits should be a safety net not a lifestyle choice

The example in the OP appears to be a ^lifestyle choice^

Here's another way of looking at it. It takes an extra five workers to pay your pension, I believe. So that couple have produced another five workers to go in to the system.

A pension isn't a savings scheme. If so who paid the first pensions? It is a contract with the Government. (According to Martin Lewis.)

The people working today pay the pensions of the people who retired yesterday.

Having paid NI until the age of 66, along with still paying tax, I stand by my post that benefits should be a safety net, not a lifestyle choice.

If someone is unable to work due to disability that is a different matter.

If someone has a sudden illness and needs support of course they should be able to access it.

If someone is made redundant they should be able to claim benefits whilst being helped back into work.

Benefits should not be an option for the work shy and those who know how to play the system.

In the 2024/25 financial year, UK government welfare spending is forecast to be approximately
10.9% of the UK's Gross Domestic Product (GDP). This figure represents around 24% of the government's total annual budget.

Half is spent on pensions - they are not 'welfare' imo.

Yes France can spend 1/3 of it's budget on 'welfare' not 24%.
Where is the UK money going?
Possibly on pitting different sections of society against each other?

AGAA4

I agree with all the above posts. Some feckless parents will spend the extra money on drugs and booze and the child poverty situation won't improve.
It is irresponsible to have more and more children that you can't afford and expect others to pay for them.

My DD and her DH decided to have just one child as they could not afford any more. They are both working in reasonably well paid jobs.

Don't forget tattoos & fags.

GrannyGravy13

I stand by my opinion that benefits should be a safety net not a lifestyle choice

The example in the OP appears to be a ^lifestyle choice^

Here's another way of looking at it. It takes an extra five workers to pay your pension, I believe. So that couple have produced another five workers to go in to the system.

A pension isn't a savings scheme. If so who paid the first pensions? It is a contract with the Government. (According to Martin Lewis.)

The people working today pay the pensions of the people who retired yesterday.

We only had one child all those years ago because we were struggling to survive when mortgage rates went up to 15%. I needed to find a job to just cover the weekly supermarket shop. My view is - have the number of children you can afford to feed, clothe and put a roof over their head without resorting to the state to bail you out.

Pantglas2

I’ve noticed on this forum that anyone agreeing that parents on benefits shouldn’t have more than 2 children (=more benefits) is told to consider the poverty those children live with.

However the parents themselves aren’t told to consider it before they have those children…🤷‍♀️ why’s that?

Jacob Rees Mogg has told everyone to have MORE children. Seemed a bit strange to me considering the flak people get for having more than the usual two. (Three if they're feeling generous).

I have spent thirty years in children's services working with very vulnerable families, I think not talking about it is not the way forward. I am afraid 'be kind' often dies more harm than good.

That's sad Aveline 😔

I so hate these threads and the people who leap on them.
When you have worked for 30 years in Child Protection and you have worked with as many desperately poor children as l have and seen the terrible, awful things that l have, then you are qualified to comment.
Not all people who have 3 or more children are feckless idiots. So many people that l worked with who had more than two children had ghastly things happen to them through no fault of their own. Partners dying, people horrifically disabled and unable to work and (usually) women left on their own to bring up the children on their own. I have worked with so many children who never have birthday or Christmas presents, new shoes, warm coats or clothes that fit. Who never have treats, holidays or days out and who are always hungry. If this government ensures that these children have a bit more money then that makes me happy.
Yes there are exceptions, there always are, but why make posts to stir people up, it does no good at all and as far as l can see a great deal of harm.

I make it just over £22000 in total then the benefit cap comes into force. Yes it has to cover rent and council tax.

I’m not condoning any of the family concerned..But I think you’ll find in that £2800 it is also to cover rent and council tax..

PamelaJ1

Send it to Rachel.
We had two children because we decided that’s what we could afford. Even then I went to work in the evening for 4 hours 5days a week so we could have a few extras.

.

I wanted to be a stay-at-home after 18-years working. My husband had his own business and worked hard and long hours but he too didn't want any children growing up as 'latch key kids'.

So we quickly realised that to achieve this we could only afford two children.

Throughout the years I was often annoyed at how often 'mums at the school gate' told me how lucky I was not to have to work. They all always had at least three and often four children - and they never realised the irony in their moans!
.
.

windmill1

leeds22

I don't think the two child benefit cap should have been lifted. And certainly the 50-ish waitress in our local cafe didn't think so either, she was almost incandescent with anger that she (on minimum wages) was having to pay taxes to cover this allowance. RR might have been pleasing her back benchers but probably not the electorate.

Quite apart from the blunt fact that the Welfare bill is unafordable, hence the limit has to be capped at two children because the country is literally bursting at the seams.
I was working in a local council housing dept and every day we were dealing with applications from very young Mums who were under the illusion that having a child (or more) would bump them up the waiting list for a flat.
The rules had to be altered, eventually, just not enough accommodation to go round plus an ageing population added to the local authorities problems.
The elderly had my sympathy, accumulation of health problems really left them up the creek but young women churning out kiddies like a sausage production line are plain selfish .

I'm not surprised those young mums thought that. Because it used to be the case in the past.

When I'd got to my 20's (in the 1970s) and couldnt see how the heck home-owner me was supposed to be able to buy a house on my income (as it was so low there was nothing there for savings - even after all the economising I did) = I asked a Labour city councillor I was on friendly terms with what the procedure was to get given a council flat - as I hadnt the faintest idea how to get housing that way.

Cue for his first sentence was "Get pregnant maid" and he wasnt joking either. He didn't seem to see that older people coming before me was fair enough....but people who deliberately didnt effort and just got pregnant shouldnt be ahead of me (who does make effort).

My reply was "....and just what do I do with that child I don't want when it's served its purpose?". He had no answer to that - as apparently even a non-Mum like me was supposed to accept the effect on my body of 9 months pregnancy and then giving birth and keep the child I didn't want....so I guess I'd have had to give the unwanted child up for adoption and at least manage to avoid unwanted parenthood. But he had no answer as to how to deal with giving birth against my will and how to get my body back to exactly normal again afterwards.

I had to look for another route and managed to find two different ways to get extra points and then got just enough I got put on a list for housing association property (which, thankfully, worked out better for me in the end). So - in the 1970s one could get housed just by churning out unwanted children where I was. But this is 50 years later and life has changed a lot all round - for the worse. These "very young mums" do need to learn to keep up on the news.....

Cabbie21

If the extra money could have been allocated in vouchers, eg food, uniform, clothing, school expenses, childcare, clubs, books even toys etc, could have gone directly to support the children, not increase the parents’ income eg food, clothing, school items.

My thoughts exactly and nowadays we can have digital vouchers which a parent could just scan in at the supermarket. My husband uses a Blue Light Card and he scans the digital card, shows his ID to ensure it is him and off he goes. It is also only valid on certain goods so he can't "cheat" the system. The Government could do that to ensure that the children get what they need.
I don't want children to suffer for the poor decisions of their parents but I do think parents should make better decisions based on their circumstances. x

AGAA4

I agree with all the above posts. Some feckless parents will spend the extra money on drugs and booze and the child poverty situation won't improve.
It is irresponsible to have more and more children that you can't afford and expect others to pay for them.

My DD and her DH decided to have just one child as they could not afford any more. They are both working in reasonably well paid jobs.

Most people of my age decided the size of the family they wanted without any financial considerations other than being able to provide the children with a happy, healthy home. We had two children - we could have "afforded" a few more but didn't want or need any more and certainly didn't want a larger family because of the unearned income it generates.

That is for couples and single parents.

Unless I’ve missed it, no one has mentioned the Benefit Cap which is still in place. No one (outside of London) can receive more than £423.46 per week no matter how many children they have. So there is a limit.

Not necessary, just pay for them yourself.

Labour incentivising idleness while workers who go out every day have their income snatched to pay for these people.