Is this fair?

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..

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 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.

That's sad Aveline 😔

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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 ⬆️

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...

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

“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.

GraieGravy13
I absolutely agree

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

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

MaizieD

How about if the government removed the third, and any subsequent, babies at birth?

Would that keep you all happy?

Thank you for a bit of balance.
It's perfectly possible for people to feel they can afford more than 2 children but then circumstances may easily change. Redundancy, illness, death etc can happen to any family. The last thing those in difficulty need is to have people like some on here dismissing them as 'feckless'. The only difference between them and us may well be.. luck.

Lathyrus3

“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.

Oh well. Immigrants will have to do it then. Like the 10 million who have come here in the last 20 years to help pay for the extra 2 million pensioners that we have....

My late DD decided not to have any children as in her view there were too many people in the world already. Both DSs have only one as they felt they could afford only one. Watched
a young single mother with her eyebrows microbladed, false eyelashes and talon nails declare how she will be abe to feed her children now that the child cap had been
removed. All 4 children had been born after the chid cap had been introduced. Heard that a lot, will it only be pensioners using food banks next year.

Tokerer

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...

Tax avoidance is perfectly legal.
Anyone who has an ISA is avoiding tax, albeit in a small way. Rachel Reeves has wished up to that now!

Tax evasion is illegal and so many of the very well-paid and wealthy know just how to do that.

Wised
Autocorrect didn't like that.

Tokerer

Lathyrus3

“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.

Oh well. Immigrants will have to do it then. Like the 10 million who have come here in the last 20 years to help pay for the extra 2 million pensioners that we have....

Another attempt at deflection (sigh).

Am I witnessing the return of the great deflector?😬🤔

FriedGreenTomatoes2

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?

I agree Pantsglas
We get told “it’s not the children's fault they need breakfast clubs”.

Puts me, you and others in the frame for sounding like heartless judgemental bitches.

In my experience a lot of children in breakfast club are there because their parents go out to work and they're enabled to work a longer day if they go. My grandchildren go, and my daughter gains half an hour. They previously went to the paid breakfast club which gave her an extra hour and a quarter to work, but the cost has gone up to cover the cost of the "free" club

Tokerer reserve my wrath ? What a strange thing to say 🤷‍♀️

My posts on this thread haven’t been angry in any way.

I wholeheartedly support benefits for those who need them.