Would YOU have a child if you were unemployed?
lalaland
Posts: 11,882 Forum Member
✭✭
Watching a lot of thought provoking programmes recently on TV on the subject of benefits, housing and the usual hot topic subjects I've been wondering about parents on benefits.
I'm not someone who has a massive issue with benefits. In all truth I believe if someone genuinely needs them then give them to them. On the other hand I don't like the thought of some people choosing benefits as a way of life or refusing to work - although I accept this certainly isn't the way it is for all benefit claimants as I know people desperate to work who are struggling to find any.
My recent thoughts were about having kids. I have a child and I love being able to provide for them. I work hard, as does my wife, and we both work full time. We buy our child food, clothes, toys, take them on holiday when we can afford it (not often sadly) and generally see to their needs both financially and emotionally.
My wife hates working full time as she can't spend as much time with our child as she'd like. I also have times where I hate my shifts as it can result sometimes in me not seeing my child for a couple of days and I miss a lot of weekends with my family due to work. That said, we both continue to work to provide for our family and we do still get quality time together which we value even more.
If I was ever in the position of not being able to provide for my child I'd feel horrendous. I really feel for parents who are in this situation without choice, it can't be nice at all.
When we decided to have a child we were both working. We saved up to ensure we had enough cash while on reduced income and a while after my child was born my wife went back to work. If we'd not been able to afford to have a child we agreed we wouldn't have had one. This is the bit that gets me. I can't understand how people who have no intention of working at all then go on to have children. I can accept that accidental pregnancies happen, but it appears there are many who decide not to work long term who also decide to be parents.
Is it right to choose to have kids if you never intend to support them yourself? Is it right to bring them up teaching them to claim for life and not to work?
I'm not suggesting that we control childbirth or look to China's system with laws about population increases etc. this is more a question of morals and attitudes I guess. I'm trying to understand the thought involved where people can be parents without ever providing for their kids. I accept that it's not only financial provisions we must give our children, there's also love, safety, protection, education etc. but throughout nature the provision of the basics such as food, shelter, warmth etc. is comparable to working. If people chose to have kids but refuse to work is that right?
I know one or two people who have children of a same age, or younger, than mine who don't work and never have. One person in particular states she never intends to work and looking at her family, only one of her entire family wants to work. The rest share her view. They all have kids and despite being on benefits none of them ever seem to struggle for cash. I'm not sure how they manage on low incomes, but the fact is they do. They have plenty of time with their kids and never have to worry about work taking their family time up and yet I miss out on such much with my child because of work, as does my wife - are we the mugs here?
I'm not someone who has a massive issue with benefits. In all truth I believe if someone genuinely needs them then give them to them. On the other hand I don't like the thought of some people choosing benefits as a way of life or refusing to work - although I accept this certainly isn't the way it is for all benefit claimants as I know people desperate to work who are struggling to find any.
My recent thoughts were about having kids. I have a child and I love being able to provide for them. I work hard, as does my wife, and we both work full time. We buy our child food, clothes, toys, take them on holiday when we can afford it (not often sadly) and generally see to their needs both financially and emotionally.
My wife hates working full time as she can't spend as much time with our child as she'd like. I also have times where I hate my shifts as it can result sometimes in me not seeing my child for a couple of days and I miss a lot of weekends with my family due to work. That said, we both continue to work to provide for our family and we do still get quality time together which we value even more.
If I was ever in the position of not being able to provide for my child I'd feel horrendous. I really feel for parents who are in this situation without choice, it can't be nice at all.
When we decided to have a child we were both working. We saved up to ensure we had enough cash while on reduced income and a while after my child was born my wife went back to work. If we'd not been able to afford to have a child we agreed we wouldn't have had one. This is the bit that gets me. I can't understand how people who have no intention of working at all then go on to have children. I can accept that accidental pregnancies happen, but it appears there are many who decide not to work long term who also decide to be parents.
Is it right to choose to have kids if you never intend to support them yourself? Is it right to bring them up teaching them to claim for life and not to work?
I'm not suggesting that we control childbirth or look to China's system with laws about population increases etc. this is more a question of morals and attitudes I guess. I'm trying to understand the thought involved where people can be parents without ever providing for their kids. I accept that it's not only financial provisions we must give our children, there's also love, safety, protection, education etc. but throughout nature the provision of the basics such as food, shelter, warmth etc. is comparable to working. If people chose to have kids but refuse to work is that right?
I know one or two people who have children of a same age, or younger, than mine who don't work and never have. One person in particular states she never intends to work and looking at her family, only one of her entire family wants to work. The rest share her view. They all have kids and despite being on benefits none of them ever seem to struggle for cash. I'm not sure how they manage on low incomes, but the fact is they do. They have plenty of time with their kids and never have to worry about work taking their family time up and yet I miss out on such much with my child because of work, as does my wife - are we the mugs here?
0
Comments
Your not mugs, your showing your child that you have to work hard for nice things in life which is a bloody good lesson for most kids. At least your kid wont be want, want, want without a thought of where it comes from.
If I accidentally got pregnant then I would keep it of course. But I wouldn't plan it.
I need to stop watching those programmes. I hate seeing parents using their kids when complaining about how a change to their benefits or a requirement to move to cheaper accommodation will affect their kids but in the same program we're told how some haven't worked for 12 years. Or we see some saying they won't work as it's not worth it.
I think planning to have a child when you are on benefits is irresponsible. What if they stop? How would you feed your child - by looking through dustbins?
I'm not suggesting people abort pregnancies when they lose their jobs, but before we had a child we made sure everything was right. That included providing for them. If you can't provide for a child then it seems irresponsible to plan or start producing one when on benefits.
4 comments is not "most on here"
I think alot depends what you mean being able to afford children, as the biggest increase in people needing to claim benefits are in work. Also one of the biggest problems is when people think of benefits they first think of unemployed people. When the facts are that 25 million people in the uk claim 1 or more benefits, so just under half the population. And remember anyone can lose thier job any time.
I would have one if i was unemployed BUT my other half earnt enough to support us all.
I wouldnt want to be working full time and have someone else doing most of the child raising. Nor would i want to be unemployed and single so relying on benefits.
I don't see a problem on this thread that explains the entire country, all I see is common sense, people would tend not to plan a child if unemployed but also would not abort because of it.
Unless you mean not planning to have child whilst unemployed is the problem ?
How much money do they get?
exactly, and don't forget the newspapers constantly pumping out stories of scrounging benefits thief's having twenty kids on the dole. It is incredibly upsetting to see so many people fall for it.
I think the exact figure for income support is about £70 a week if you are 25 and over, less if you are younger. i know JSA is the same. Due to her babies father being an utter arsehole, my sister ended up on benefits as a single mum and it is a real struggle to survive. Anyone think it is a way of being flushed for cash needs a reality check
But it doesn't mean i expect the world to be perfect, and that i'm going to put my head in the sand and expect those children to suffer for the mistakes of their parents. It's very clear what the government is trying to do and i totally disagree the way they are going on about it. But the benefit system does need an overhaul.
As an example, in the Netherlands were teenage mothers get little or no benefits , they are till 18 or sometimes 21 they are the responsibility the of parents, any benefits, if the parents are not well off, are paid to the legal guardian of the child, minors to not get any right to housing benefits, you any income paid directly to them. This stops parents to having cavalier attitude to teenage pregnancy. Minors are the responsibility of the parents, regardless if they are parents themselves, they are still minors, and anything that happens to them is still their parents responsibility, even childbirth. This seems logic to me, why it's not applied in this country is baffling.
In a thread of six posts, which is what it was at the time, it certainly didn't seem like a minority.
This is why I made a point of stating I was referring to those who choose not to work and still have children by choice.