I wouldn't have had 7 kids in the first place if I was dependant on my husband. Anything can happen in life. Your husband can walk out, die in a car crash etc etc. My mother was left to bring up two children when my father decided he wanted a change in lifestyle and left her for another woman. It was HARD WORK. And that's just two kids. Some people never think ahead.
Quite. Which is why the state should make it clear it will only supply a safety net for children from the first two pregnancies. If you choose to have more then its entirely up to you, but the state will not provide benefit without the requirement that the parents(s) are in full time work (on or above the min wage) or go to the workhouse (working for benefit)
Well presumably the husband was working and providing for all the six older children. How else would they have got a mortgage?
But please, don't let a little thing like that put you off your outrage.
Would she get a bit more sympathy if the husband had died rather than left I wonder
Clearly not in this case where she was giving birth every two years ..
But then I suppose she'd still be vilified if she was living in council accomodation as people would complain about the size of the "palace" she was living in.
Blah Blah Blah!,
It's the cuts, It's the governments fault, It's not our fault!
Blah Blah Blah!
Good Grief, i'm sick to death of hearing about these poor little benefit claimants, living in their 4, 5 or 6 bedroom houses, and how life is so very hard for them to survive on their pittance.
In her case, why isn't her ex supporting his kids?, Why isn't he being held to account for the children he helped bring in to this world.
There are a hell of a lot of people in a damn site worse off position than her, it's the people in real dire straits that the benefit system should be helping, not some silly couple who didn't know when to say "I think we'll need to stop having kids"
If they are working, why shouldn't they be entitled to atleast NMW or the wage that other employees at that place of work are earning? Why should the state pay for their wages, whilst at the same time the private company get free labour?
Even if she was working, I wouldn't be surprised if the cost of childcare for all that lot didn't end up taking all her wages. And how on earth would you find time to cook, clean and do the laundry for 7 kids if you were at work?
If they could afford to care for and house the children when they had them, I can't see that she's to blame really. If he hadn't buggered off and ducked his responsibilities, we wouldn't even have heard of them.
He's the one that should be being vilified in the press imo.
Well she apparently claims she has £20 quid per child, per week to "struggle" on. 7 x £20 is £140. Times that by 4 weeks, that's £560. Add to the £725 rent, that's £1,285.
That leaves £715 a month - obviously just going by what little is in the article.
I would suspect her gas and electric are quite high, but even if she allowed £25 quid a week for each, that still leaves over £500 a month.
Council Tax for a 6 bedroom house would also be high, but I would imagine the benefits would take care of a good chunk of that, so even if you were overly generous, that could bring it down to £300-£400 a month after bills and after the £20 per head is taken into account.
I know childcare isn't cheap, but if she's not working, how much childcare does she actually need?
Even if she was working, I wouldn't be surprised if the cost of childcare for all that lot didn't end up taking all her wages. And how on earth would you find time to cook, clean and do the laundry for 7 kids if you were at work?
If they could afford to care for and house the children when they had them, I can't see that she's to blame really. If he hadn't buggered off and ducked his responsibilities, we wouldn't even have heard of them.
He's the one that should be being vilified in the press imo.
I agree. I don't understand why there is so much blame being thrown at the woman when it is her ex-husband's refusal to contribute to his own children that makes the benefit bill so large.
Because most people struggle with 2 kids, let alone 6. The idea she thought she could honestly live indefinitely off her husband while having a child on a regular basis is delusional thinking. Not to be utterly crass here, but if a man is rich enough to support six kids in theory, there's little chance he'll stick around with that mother if he can attract a pretty young thing given his apparently considerable wealth that allowed him to support so many children as well as his wife.
Perhaps he wanted a really big family? Some men do. Some men stay with their big families for ever, too, because they love them.
Years ago, families of 6 or 7 kids weren't that exceptional. At my primary school, there were several families of that sort of size and my S2BX is one of 6. We had several neighbours with big families too, the people next door but one had 8 kids and my brother had a friend who was one of 7. The council had knocked 2 3-bed houses into one for one of these families.
I'm not talking Victorian times, either, this was the 60's/70's.
If they could afford to care for and house the children when they had them, I can't see that she's to blame really. If he hadn't buggered off and ducked his responsibilities, we wouldn't even have heard of them.
They were clever enough to know circumstances changes but still had several kids. They took the gamble they would be self sufficient, and we have to pay because they lost.
Quite. Which is why the state should make it clear it will only supply a safety net for children from the first two pregnancies.
And what are parents of larger families supposed to do with the 3rd/4th children if they fall on hard times? Put them into care, which would cost more than giving them enough benefits to keep them? Sell them to the gypsies?
And what are parents of larger families supposed to do with the 3rd/4th children if they fall on hard times? Put them into care, which would cost more than giving them enough benefits to keep them? Sell them to the gypsies?
Your question demonstrates why the welfare state has failed so miserably.
What the parents do is up to them, I would not be responsible for their decision to have so many kids
They were clever enough to know circumstances changes but still had several kids. They took the gamble they would be self sufficient, and we have to pay because they lost.
Which is the point of having a benefits system in the first place - because life doesn't always go the way people hope or expect and sometimes they need the help of the rest of society because of that.
Which is the point of having a benefits system in the first place - because life doesn't always go the way people hope or expect and sometimes they need the help of the rest of society because of that.
A system no longer fit for purpose. I am happy to give help to the children of the first two pregnancies. No more, anything else and you are on your own.
Well she apparently claims she has £20 quid per child, per week to "struggle" on. 7 x £20 is £140. Times that by 4 weeks, that's £560. Add to the £725 rent, that's £1,285.
That leaves £715 a month - obviously just going by what little is in the article.
I would suspect her gas and electric are quite high, but even if she allowed £25 quid a week for each, that still leaves over £500 a month.
I doubt if her gas and electric are as low as £50pw. Just think how often she needs to run her washing machine and how much hot water that lot would get through. We pay £100 a month for a small 2-bed house with 2 people in it, and we're out at work all day. We pay £35 a month in water charges too, hers are probably a lot higher. I wouldn't be surprised if her utility bills came to £100 pw.
If she spends £40pw per head on food, toiletries, cleaning materials, nappies etc (debt advice agencies work on £35-45 per capita per week for budgeting purposes), that's £320.
Add the rent, and that comes to about £2.5k a month, and makes no allowance for clothes for growing children, replacing shoes or any household items, repairs to appliances, fares, haircuts, tv licence, phone/internet, replacing furniture, linens, school trips and so on.
I can see how it's a struggle as it is, never mind after the cut.
Having children is a choice - a lifestyle choice. This woman chose to have 7 of them, and as with all choices you have to accept the situation that life throws at you from making that choice.
It seems to be clear that this country can no longer afford the benefit bill that it pays out - and it isnt going to get any better as these benefits come from the taxes of those who work, and at the moment, there are less of them.
If you add the amount this woman has to pay for rent and the amount she says she has for each kid there is a gap of £715 up to the £2,000 a month mark. She now has to start making some decisions about things (smaller home, any what might be called luxuries if she has them (TV, Mobile Phones, Sky)) that she may be able to let go, though I understand that some of this will need to fund household essentials. The important thing is she keeps a roof over her head. And they need to pursue the fathers of all the kids to contribute - they cant just walk away from their responsibilities.
At the end of the day, she has to make the choices that ALL of us have to make (whether working or not) when we have kids, and I feel that the benefits system we have in the UK, in a number of cases, tends to fund a lifestyle choice for some.
Comments
Well presumably the husband was working and providing for all the six older children. How else would they have got a mortgage?
But please, don't let a little thing like that put you off your outrage.
Would she get a bit more sympathy if the husband had died rather than left I wonder
Clearly not in this case where she was giving birth every two years ..
But then I suppose she'd still be vilified if she was living in council accomodation as people would complain about the size of the "palace" she was living in.
It's the cuts, It's the governments fault, It's not our fault!
Blah Blah Blah!
Good Grief, i'm sick to death of hearing about these poor little benefit claimants, living in their 4, 5 or 6 bedroom houses, and how life is so very hard for them to survive on their pittance.
In her case, why isn't her ex supporting his kids?, Why isn't he being held to account for the children he helped bring in to this world.
There are a hell of a lot of people in a damn site worse off position than her, it's the people in real dire straits that the benefit system should be helping, not some silly couple who didn't know when to say "I think we'll need to stop having kids"
Welcome to my world.
She expects the taxpayer to pay for her children's designer clothes? :rolleyes:
How does £725pm rent, from £2,000 benefits, amount to "most of that"
Even if she was working, I wouldn't be surprised if the cost of childcare for all that lot didn't end up taking all her wages. And how on earth would you find time to cook, clean and do the laundry for 7 kids if you were at work?
If they could afford to care for and house the children when they had them, I can't see that she's to blame really. If he hadn't buggered off and ducked his responsibilities, we wouldn't even have heard of them.
He's the one that should be being vilified in the press imo.
My SiL does and it costs her £3.5k a month in rent. But they are millionaires, so can afford it.
That leaves £715 a month - obviously just going by what little is in the article.
I would suspect her gas and electric are quite high, but even if she allowed £25 quid a week for each, that still leaves over £500 a month.
Council Tax for a 6 bedroom house would also be high, but I would imagine the benefits would take care of a good chunk of that, so even if you were overly generous, that could bring it down to £300-£400 a month after bills and after the £20 per head is taken into account.
I know childcare isn't cheap, but if she's not working, how much childcare does she actually need?
Clothes do not need to be 'designer' to fit well.
I agree. I don't understand why there is so much blame being thrown at the woman when it is her ex-husband's refusal to contribute to his own children that makes the benefit bill so large.
Perhaps he wanted a really big family? Some men do. Some men stay with their big families for ever, too, because they love them.
Years ago, families of 6 or 7 kids weren't that exceptional. At my primary school, there were several families of that sort of size and my S2BX is one of 6. We had several neighbours with big families too, the people next door but one had 8 kids and my brother had a friend who was one of 7. The council had knocked 2 3-bed houses into one for one of these families.
I'm not talking Victorian times, either, this was the 60's/70's.
And what are parents of larger families supposed to do with the 3rd/4th children if they fall on hard times? Put them into care, which would cost more than giving them enough benefits to keep them? Sell them to the gypsies?
What the parents do is up to them, I would not be responsible for their decision to have so many kids
Which is the point of having a benefits system in the first place - because life doesn't always go the way people hope or expect and sometimes they need the help of the rest of society because of that.
I doubt if her gas and electric are as low as £50pw. Just think how often she needs to run her washing machine and how much hot water that lot would get through. We pay £100 a month for a small 2-bed house with 2 people in it, and we're out at work all day. We pay £35 a month in water charges too, hers are probably a lot higher. I wouldn't be surprised if her utility bills came to £100 pw.
If she spends £40pw per head on food, toiletries, cleaning materials, nappies etc (debt advice agencies work on £35-45 per capita per week for budgeting purposes), that's £320.
Add the rent, and that comes to about £2.5k a month, and makes no allowance for clothes for growing children, replacing shoes or any household items, repairs to appliances, fares, haircuts, tv licence, phone/internet, replacing furniture, linens, school trips and so on.
I can see how it's a struggle as it is, never mind after the cut.
You seen the price of gas.
It seems to be clear that this country can no longer afford the benefit bill that it pays out - and it isnt going to get any better as these benefits come from the taxes of those who work, and at the moment, there are less of them.
If you add the amount this woman has to pay for rent and the amount she says she has for each kid there is a gap of £715 up to the £2,000 a month mark. She now has to start making some decisions about things (smaller home, any what might be called luxuries if she has them (TV, Mobile Phones, Sky)) that she may be able to let go, though I understand that some of this will need to fund household essentials. The important thing is she keeps a roof over her head. And they need to pursue the fathers of all the kids to contribute - they cant just walk away from their responsibilities.
At the end of the day, she has to make the choices that ALL of us have to make (whether working or not) when we have kids, and I feel that the benefits system we have in the UK, in a number of cases, tends to fund a lifestyle choice for some.
Bob doesn't know what he's on about if he thinks school uniforms are 'designer'