Is this fair?

I have been banging on about having more than two kids for years.

Back in the day re the Mid Fifties
My mother did not receive the old Family Allowance for me as l was the first child. But she did get this very modest, allowance for my sister who was born four years later.

Mum and Dad both worked part-time NHS catering assistant and Dad was a Miner. They decided that they should only had two children.

So as a family, we could have a reasonable standard of living. This thinking was coming place amongst ordinary working people.

Mainly old decent Socialists who voted Labour.

You know when benefits were not being thrown at irresponsible people with lots of children they can't afford to keep. And think the state should look after them with overly generous benefits.

The New Entitled Me Generation.

If you go on MUMSNET. Beware what you pos. As you may find you will get a very different, almost aggressive response

MN Consensus seems to be people on benefits should have as many children as they want. And you are being judgemental. If you say otherwise

Contraception is free. Not always infallible, though.

Expecting people to reproduce in order to pay taxes to keep elderly people is not a good idea is not sustainable and the Earth won't be able to sustain an ever-increasing population either . In future a higher NI contribution, some ring-fenced and invested for pensions might have to be paid, as other countries now do.

If only the welfare problem could be addressed by all political parties together. It is too important for the future of this country to remain a political football.

We should not be putting people off having children. Our birth rate is too low already. Today’s babies will be the workers and tax payers in the future. Who is going to support and care for the vast numbers of old people in the future?
45% of conceptions are not planned so it’s contraception to be blamed for large families on welfare, not a deliberate intention to have more children than you can feed.
Our society would be fairer if corporations paid their taxes and if the very rich had a conscience.

I agree with all about Sure Start, but Sure Start by itself isn't going to bring employment to deprived areas and, at the moment. the government isn't doing anything to improve the situation.

It’s the product of a society that allows young people to claim benefits while bringing in migrants that travel thousands of miles to do the work our own youth wont cross the road for.

Nothing is going to change with this government in power

It isnt simply a failure of governments, it is a failure of society. We fail to address issues that are really tricky and might be 'hurtful'. Children who don't have the example of ' work' are more likely to have poorer life chances, and that is without even looking at the impact it has on the adults.
The 'best start' strategy looks as if it may be a sure start type of strategy, but I think there needs to some brave discussions around the welfare of children alongside of that.

Sure Start 2 would be a great practical way ahead

NotSpaghetti

I am going to bash my old drum for SureStart here.

I could actually name some young mums (and dads) who went on to be good parents, into education and also, later, into work with help and support of this project.

Some people really do need a way out.

I think a big boost to early years could be instrumental here.

There is more that unites us than divides us really.

I am going to bash my old drum for SureStart here.
I'm hearing you! I'll blow the 🎺

I'm finding the assumption that all of these lazy shiftless scroungers could be in work to be strange as I seen to recall that areas of the country, notably the old industrial heartlands, are deserts when it comes to employment since our industrial base was hollowed out in the '80s and '90s

As I said earlier (could be on another thread), more Government spending on infrastructure which is desperately needed would create more jobs and opportunities.

Instead, many small business owners are in despair at some of the recent Government changes and say they may have to make staff redundant to be able to keep going.

A lot of 3rd and more children happen when previously married or partnered parents are in new relationships. I can sort of see why people would want a new child together.
Personally, I might have liked four children, but there was no way we could have brought up four in the way we could with our two.
four what

I am going to bash my old drum for SureStart here.

I could actually name some young mums (and dads) who went on to be good parents, into education and also, later, into work with help and support of this project.

Some people really do need a way out.

I think a big boost to early years could be instrumental here.

There is more that unites us than divides us really.

Quite apart from the blunt fact that the Welfare bill is unafordable,

I'm sorry, but that is just a convenient lie that the government tells to back up its chosen ideological stance.

Welfare benefits do not disappear into a big black hole once they have been paid out. THEY ARE SPENT. Spending means that local shops get custom and an income and the government gets more and more of the original sum it paid out as it circulates in the economy, being continually taxed, either directly or indirectly.

The government can afford anything it wants to afford so long as there are goods and services available to be bought, either directly by the government or indirectly by its employees or the recipients of welfare payments.

Allira

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.

Calling people om benefits with more than 2 children 'lazy and shiftless' is very wrong, too, but it doesn't stop anyone doing it.

I note that no-one has produced any figures to back up their assertions (because why should I do it? I'm not the one making these claims) so I'll consider them as worthless.

I'm finding the assumption that all of these lazy shiftless scroungers could be in work to be strange as I seen to recall that areas of the country, notably the old industrial heartlands, are deserts when it comes to employment since our industrial base was hollowed out in the '80s and '90s

Looking at the figures for children living in 'long term workless households', surprise, surprise. The largest percentage is the North East 16.6%(which no doubt explains why Galaxy encounters so many), followed by the North West, 12.4%, the Midlands, 10.4%. This is above the average for England of 9.1%. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are also well above the England average. Long term worklessness is as much a failure of government as it is of individuals.

Unemployment rates, needless to say, more or less coincide with the long term workless rates.

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 .

Tizliz

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.

I do understand. Years ago, before I went back to retrain then to work when the youngest started school, my oldest DD made friends with a girl whose mother was a childminder. This was in the days before there were (m)any nurseries.
When I went to pick DD up from this friend's after she'd been playing there, I was horrified at the way the woman spoke to the little girl she was childminding. I vowed not to leave a child of mine with a childminder.
Yes, I know most are excellent but this woman presented one face to the public, another behind the scenes.

Galaxy

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.

Who are you talking about, Galaxy?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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