It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Plan to cap benefit at two children: New mothers with three children would lose £700 in £5bn welfa

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Dec, 16 2013 @ 06:38 AM
I come from a big family but decided to just have 2 children and was lucky enough to have a boy and a girl. I never wanted any more even if I could have afforded it. We had hand me downs like I had to wear my older brothers clothes etc and new school uniforms was a joke because even though my father and mother worked full time, in those days the wages were not much and we suffered because of it.

posted on Dec, 16 2013 @ 09:44 PM
Sorry to hear you folks in the U.K. are having these same problems we're having in the U.S.

Politicians cutting public benefits, ostensibly to save money--yet the projects the saved money is supposed to be redirected to somehow never materialize. (The only legislation our politicians can be trusted to enact are their own wage raises, thrice or so yearly when they're at their most responsible. Meantime, U.S. has by far the highest number of children living in poverty, of any of the industrialized "first-world" nations.)

How come things keep getting worse for those of us who have it worst, and better for those of us who already have it best? Can't keep myself unconfused nowadays.

posted on Dec, 16 2013 @ 09:46 PM
reply to post by scotsdavy1

In my family, the hand-me-down clothes are cycling through their second generation, ha. Furniture through its third. For people like us, "recycling" began way before the 90s.

posted on Dec, 17 2013 @ 07:18 AM
reply to post by gravitationalethics

We took it as a way of life in our day. Didn't know any better I suppose. Even Xmas was the usual Monopoly or Cludo games etc, nothing like what the kids get today....But we still had a good time regardless

posted on Dec, 17 2013 @ 07:51 AM


NO not the same as China's policy .....

You CAN have as many children as you like, as long as YOU pay for them

and don't expect the 'state' to support them .... Its called responsibility not self


I had my children before there were benefits for children, I would have liked to have

more but couldn't afford them!

Bravo! You are absolutely correct. That does seem to be the difference.

To OP:

I find it hard to believe that not everyone is on board with this. Really. We had the amount of kids we could afford as most people do. If you are already receiving benefits you should probably avoid pregnancy entirely. It kind of sucks that other people may want more children yet are responsible enough to not have them because they won't be able to provide for them as they would like to.... YET have to watch their tax money go to people who chose not to be as responsible.

I wouldn't mind seeing something like that put into effect here. I guarantee that most would quit having so many kids if their benefits did not increase with each one. When they are not rewarded for poor decision making... they may possibly make better decisions.
edit on 12/17/2013 by Kangaruex4Ewe because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 17 2013 @ 07:54 AM


in this full up world we live in where all the resources are being used up we are told surely they should be paying you NOT to have children .

just watch the jeremy kyle show and you will see where our tax money is going

So you believe everything you see on JK? I have watched the show a few times and on at least 2 occasions, I have seen the same person come on with a different problem. I swear many of these people are actors.

Of course, front line services being cut, welfare benefits being cut, children's amenities being closed because Government has cut funding. In the meantime top earners have their tax cut, we bomb the hell out of Libya and were quick to try to persuade us that the same response was required in Libya.

I'm not saying all benefit recipients are genuine, but the welfare bill isn't to blame for the financial situation in this country.

Did you know that there have been in the region of 1300 suicides as a result of genuine disabled people being told by ATOS that they were fit for work and their benefit cut or stopped entirely?

This Government is the worse I have lived under and they do not have a majority, no mandate to do what they are doing. Spiteful, unempathetic snobs, who should never have the responsibility of managing this great country.
edit on 15/12/13 by Cobaltic1978 because: (no reason given)

you never grew up under a Liebor government then, the 70's were hideous and i never ever want to go back there. Spiteful and unempathic could just as easily relate to the previous administration as well, remember the bigotted woman ? How about the, we opened the flood gates to immigration just to pee off the right, documented and fact. In charge of the largest ever tax take in UK history, yet still managed to spend more than were earning. Forced down wages with it and then you say the current should have no responsibility of managing our great country.

Tax cuts for millionaires, so Liebore were in power for 13 years and ONLY decided to raise the threshold 30 days before being kicked out then bleated about it, they could have raised it back in '97 but hey, they were courting big business and wouldn't have stood a chance if they'd raised it before

The welfare bill isn't helping by any stretch of the imagination

posted on Dec, 17 2013 @ 08:18 AM
I started life in the 50s and know what all the governments have been like. I have worked for many many years, been on the benefits on and off due to ill health as well. What I am saying is there has always been too many who have children just for the money and not much else. They reckon once they are pregnant, they can get a house, get more benefits and don't need to work.
I know a lot of them personally and have seen this happen for more years than I care to remember.
I don't like what this government has done to our country with cuts to our health system, benefits, pensions, and we had to live for just over 5 weeks with no money at all from the DSS because someone had mislaid my file. We lived on our savings until it was sorted.
They are not saying to not have any more than 2 children, just that it's going to stop paying at 2 as some are just exploiting the system completely by having kids like rabbits just for the money.
It's the children that suffer in the end as the parents don't seem too bothered and constantly complain they haven't enough money.
There are many many genuine people who are too sick to work yet they are being told in a 20 min so called medical or assessment that they are fit to work, then their money, rent and everything is stopped immediately. No ifs or buts, end of.
Then they have to try to get money to live on and keep a roof over their heads through no fault of their own.
They there are the ones who don't care and have never worked a day in their life. I see,them all the time here, as soon as they get some money it's off to the local shop for drink and then see their dealer for the drugs they need.
Why have children if you can't afford to have them whether a person is working or not? I don't see the point in that at all.

posted on Dec, 17 2013 @ 10:19 PM
reply to post by scotsdavy1

It's the "tragedy of the commons" all over again.

What is there for public use, for the benefit of all, is subject to abuse. The majority will believe they can abuse the commons, reap 100% of the benefit of their abuse and only a small fraction of the negative effects. Meanwhile, those who use the system responsibly (out of fear or conscience or civic duty) breed themselves out of the gene-pool due to having a more difficult time existing than do the abusive majority.

Least that's what Garret Hardin believed.

If he's right, then here do folks like us stand, smiling, and happily waving good-bye to the gene pool.

"They hang the man and flog the woman
who steals the goose from off the common;
But let the greater villain loose
who steals the common from the goose."

edit on 17-12-2013 by gravitationalethics because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 18 2013 @ 06:34 PM
reply to post by Kangaruex4Ewe

Prior to the introduction of 'child benefit' and entitlement to 'free or subsidised'

housing, a girl/woman who got pregnant without a 'partner/husband' usually had

to rely on her family to help out with a roof over her head and child

care, while they worked to support their child. As the family resources

would not allow for the majority to simply be able stay at home.

Often the child would be absorbed into the family and would grow up believing

the 'Grandmother and Grandfather' were the 'Mother and Father' and the natural

mother to be a sibling.

I had a friend who was a result of those circumstances ... and Jack Nicholson and

Catherine Cookson among many others are also the result of that type of situation.

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in