MrSmith Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 Do you think that the young girl has more disposable income after they've had the child or before they got pregnant? Some had no income before the child and others couldn't afford to move away from home whilst on JSA. Under 25’s don't get housing benefits unless they have a child or are pregnant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 Some had no income before the child and others couldn't afford to move away from home whilst on JSA. Under 25’s don't get housing benefits unless they have a child or are pregnant. So do you believe that the young girl has more disposable income after they've had the child or before they got pregnant? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ms Macbeth Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 So do you believe that the young girl has more disposable income after they've had the child or before they got pregnant? A young single person on benefits will get more money if they have a child. A two person family will get more if it consists of a parent and child than an adult couple. However, the answer to your (twice asked) question, is surely if the parent is responsible, and uses the money meant for the child on the child, then they won't have more disposable income. On the other hand, if the child isn't their priority, the child may have very little of the household income spent on his or her needs and the parent will have more to spend as they see fit. Depends entirely on the parent(s). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 A young single person on benefits will get more money if they have a child. A two person family will get more if it consists of a parent and child than an adult couple. However, the answer to your (twice asked) question, is surely if the parent is responsible, and uses the money meant for the child on the child, then they won't have more disposable income. On the other hand, if the child isn't their priority, the child may have very little of the household income spent on his or her needs and the parent will have more to spend as they see fit. Depends entirely on the parent(s). The example that Mr Smith was suggesting was one of a girl who lives at home with her parents, compared to someone who now has to support a family and a flat. I'd still suggest that it'll close run thing in the disposable income department. That's ignoring all the hassle, stresses and hard work that comes with having a new home and new born child. It may be short cut time wise, but it is certainly not an easy option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Cid Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 A child is the easiest way for a young person to get a house, many young girls want to leave home but can't unless they have a child. Some people judge success by possessions, maybe a house, some judge success by a couples children. If you haven’t been able to carry on the family line, then you have not been successful. A person/couple should not be allowed to be successful in expending a family whilst not working and producing more children. Should tax payers really be giving people houses and the means to produce more children? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 So do you believe that the young girl has more disposable income after they've had the child or before they got pregnant? What's the point in asking a question I just answered? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 What's the point in asking a question I just answered? Was that meant to be an answer!?! Perhaps you can paraphrase your answer for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evildrneil Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 a comment has been made in regard to the mick phillpot case where as he only regarded his children (17) as meal tickets and this rather than a love of children is why he had so many, to enable him not to work etc, whats peoples opinions on this, is there any way to stop people using having children in this way, maybe only being given family allowance fot the first three children and if you have more you pay for them yourself, or would they simply not bother and then the children suffer as a result of no one funding them, not quite sure what i think yet, what about you? A comment has been made is not the same as it happened - why look for a way of stopping something that may or may not be happening? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plain Talker Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 A child is the easiest way for a young person to get a house, many young girls want to leave home but can't unless they have a child. not these days! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Cid Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 not these days! It worked within 12 months for one of my inlaws. It was brand new too, off a bus route, but very nice little development. A mix of private and social houses/flats. That was around 4 years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.