[armand.kay]

Now I'm not someone who normally has an opinion about things like this as I don't really know about the benefit system and don't like to generalise.

So a friend of my mothers just came over for a visited. I was listening to them talk about how she's pregnant again (she only just gave birth last year and this will be her third child & neither her or her husband work full time).
She basically started bragging about the money shes getting because of her kids and said she's exited for the third one to come. She then said something like better off staying on benefits than working as a crappy cleaner.
I never actually knew people did stuff like this, I always thought stories like this was just the daily mail exadurating, this it just seems so unfair.

What do you guys think about things like this?

[Samm]

I agree, the benefit system needs sorting out it's ridiculous these people don't try or work hard to get money while other people work extremely hard to get money etc

[Nedusa]

We will only know the answer to that question when the Govt annouces it is suspending all claims for housing from unmarried mothers who have just given birth, preferring instead to bring in compulsory fostering of all newborn babies born to unmarried or single mums who are unable to provide for the baby's needs.

[Pete.]

Some people do and it's disgraceful imo

[arista]

Originally Posted by Petemitch

Some people do and it's disgraceful imo

Yes its a Mess

[armand.kay]

Idk I just think that people should wait until they are financially stable and are working to have kids. I don't understand why she would have more kids when she's already sponging off the state.

[Northern Monkey]

Originally Posted by armand.kay

Idk I just think that people should wait until they are financially stable and are working to have kids. I don't understand why she would have more kids when she's already sponging off the state.

I agree 100%.
A family is something that should planned and prepared including being able to afford it.
Yeah condoms split and accidents can happen but benefit babies should not be a lifestlyle choice.
Having kids is a privelidge not a right.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by EyeballPaul

I agree 100%.
A family is something that should planned and prepared including being able to afford it.
Yeah condoms split and accidents can happen but benefit babies should not be a lifestlyle choice.
Having kids is a privelidge not a right.

I could not agree more. I would have had 20 kids if I could afford them (and my wife didn't wear out ) but I stuck at three. Then again, I had to work for a living.

[Northern Monkey]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

I could not agree more. I would have had 20 kids if I could afford them (and my wife didn't wear out ) but I stuck at three. Then again, I had to work for a living.

Yeah we are sticking with 2 for exactly that reason.We would struggle to afford more than 2 kids.We don't claim any benefits.It's common sense to live within your means.

[Ninastar]

Originally Posted by EyeballPaul

I agree 100%.
A family is something that should planned and prepared including being able to afford it.
Yeah condoms split and accidents can happen but benefit babies should not be a lifestlyle choice.
Having kids is a privelidge not a right.

Totally agree with this 100%

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by EyeballPaul

I agree 100%.
A family is something that should planned and prepared including being able to afford it.
Yeah condoms split and accidents can happen but benefit babies should not be a lifestlyle choice.
Having kids is a privelidge not a right.

Well said Eyeball

[Josy]

Some people do yes.

About three years ago it was reported that there were over 180 non working families in the UK with more than 10 kids, that's not to say those people had their kids for the benefits but the money these people are receiving in benefits per year for themselves and the children plus housing benefits means there really is no incentive for them to go out and work, they would earn less working than what the benefits added up to so why would they bother?

There definitely needs to be (if there's not already one in place I don't really know) a cap on how much child benefits people can claim IMO.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Josy

Some people do yes.

About three years ago it was reported that there were over 180 non working families in the UK with more than 10 kids, that's not to say those people had their kids for the benefits but the money these people are receiving in benefits per year for themselves and the children plus housing benefits means there really is no incentive for them to go out and work, they would earn less working than what the benefits added up to so why would they bother?
.

That's not how it works though, the vast majority of those benefits will be child tax credits / child benefits which you still get if working, and probably more as with someone working there's then working tax credits. Housing benefits also scale with income, getting a job doesn't mean losing it (necessarily) unless the job is a high paying one. So long as it's 16 hours a week or more, a household will ALWAYS be better off to some degree if working.

That said, with that much coming in, the difference of a few hundred pounds a month might seem "not worth it" to many. The benefits cap should largely have addressed that, though. The 26k cap effectively caps families at 4 children, having more won't increase anything. I also suspect it might be pretty much impossible to raise 10 kids on 26k per year. I find myself occasionally broke on more than that with just two .

[Ninastar]

Absolutely. I know at least 5 people who have purposefully gotten pregnant because they know that they will get a house. It's so wrong and infuriates me. I'll write more about it later though.

[Kizzy]

Do they work part time and share child care? they'll get working tax credits then.

[waterhog]

of course people have kids for benefits. do you want some reasons and benefits

1.its lovely trying to create one - benefit - pleasure
2. when you need a cup of tea - benfit - child will make it for you
3. to help pay the rent - benefit - child we help pay

on all seriousness - people do not have kids to claim benefits but family's from other religious backgrounds often have larger family's. the amount you get for 1 child is peanuts compared to the cost you will spend.

[Tom4784]

It's rarer then it's made out to be I think. More of a hysterical image to stir up resentment towards the unemployed than a true image of what life on benefits is like.

[RichardG]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

It's rarer then it's made out to be I think. More of a hysterical image to stir up resentment towards the unemployed than a true image of what life on benefits is like.

^was going to say the same thing

There's no doubt that this stuff happens, but I reckon it's not very common overall.

[AnnieK]

It definitely used to be more common when I was younger. A few girls I went to school with had kids at 17 simply to get a house which they did. Now I don't think it's half as bad a problem....particularly with housing so limited in a lot of areas

[smudgie]

Wasn't there talk of only paying child benefits for the first two children?
Not a bad idea maybe, providing it is long term claimants.
Anyone can fall on hard times and lose their job, they may already have more than two kids

[GiRTh]

It definitely happens but is not as prevalent as some will claim.

It quite ironic cuz many of the girls think they're getting away with something by having kids instead of working but sadly they are too thick to realise by having kids they are actually working far harder than their peers who have jobs.

[jennyjuniper]

Originally Posted by GiRTh

It definitely happens but is not as prevalent as some will claim.

It quite ironic cuz many of the girls think they're getting away with something by having kids instead of working but sadly they are too thick to realise by having kids they are actually working far harder than their peers who have jobs.

This is assuming that the people who have kids instead of going to work actually are good parents. The ones who do use kids as a way to get more cash may not give a toss if the kids are fed and changed etc.,
That's the tragedy of funding this kind of parent, because those kids will grow up knowing they are not really wanted, just a means to an end, and later on because of this, they too may become a social problem.
Child benefit should only be paid for the first two children. After that you are on your own.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by jennyjuniper

This is assuming that the people who have kids instead of going to work actually are good parents. The ones who do use kids as a way to get more cash may not give a toss if the kids are fed and changed etc.,
That's the tragedy of funding this kind of parent, because those kids will grow up knowing they are not really wanted, just a means to an end, and later on because of this, they too may become a social problem.
Child benefit should only be paid for the first two children. After that you are on your own.

I agree.

It is the continued disintegration of the traditional 'Family Unit' which is chiefly responsible for the continuous increases in anti-social behaviour and gangs of ignorant,feral kids who have no respect for anything or anyone, because they have not been raised with any kind of discipline and moral instruction. This cuts across all classes of society, but is predominantly 'lower working class'.

[Vanessa]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

I agree.

It is the continued disintegration of the traditional 'Family Unit' which is chiefly responsible for the continuous increases in anti-social behaviour and gangs of ignorant,feral kids who have no respect for anything or anyone, because they have not been raised with any kind of discipline and moral instruction. This cuts across all classes of society, but is predominantly 'lower working class'.

I agree. Kids should feel wanted and when they don't that's when the problem start.

[user104658]

Probably, but nothing like as many as is made out. Personally I would say, children are MUCH more work than getting a job, so it seems like a flawed plan to me! "I don't want to get up at 7 and go to a normal job, so instead I'll have a kid, get up at half past 5, and do a much harder job relentlessly all day every day."

Good thinking!

Also, I would point out that the number isn't always a "choice". Our first wasn't exactly planned and we weren't in the financial position to have a child at that time either, we were both in our final year of University, but it was a "happy surprise" (... After a few months of panic!). Our second was planned a few years later in a better financial position. We have never planned on more than two (enough work! Especially as my younger daughter has just recently been diagnosed with ASD) but we got pregnant again, completely unintentionally, in November last year. Unfortunately it ended in an early miscarriage, but if it hadn't ended that way we would have just gone with it.

So, "should" children always be planned? Yes, definitely, but I know from personal experience that both first children AND additional children can be unexpected. I personally think a lot of people just try to make the best of the situation when they are probably still a bit in "panic mode" and saying things like "well, at least we'll get extra money!" can be part of that.