to think capping benefits at 2 children is a good idea(1000 Posts)
Child-related benefits may be 'capped' at two children"
*Iain Duncan Smith said the current system, where families get more benefits the more children they have, was among changes being considered.
Families on benefits were often "freed from" the decision of whether they could afford more children, Mr Duncan Smith said, and must "cut their cloth".*
yes yes, before I get jumped on, if both your arms fall off and a previously hard working wage earner is jobless, there should be ( and I imagine would be)a safety net for those who then need benefits and have more than 2 chidren; but, in principle, I agree that working families seem to have to make much more difficult decisions regarding how many children they have than long term non working do, and it's mostly about finance.
The suggestion is that this would not be happening till 2015 and then only to new claimants so no comments about which children should be sacrificed, please.
The idea seems to be to only factor in 2 children wrt tax credits, child benefit
YANBU unreasonable in so far as people really shouldn't have more children than they can afford. For example me,I can't afford any children,so don't have any.
However YABU to think that capping it at 2 will stop feckless people who can't afford these children having more. And them the question is,what happens to the extra children? They will end up suffering even more because what little money their parents have (for whatever reason) will be spread even more thinly.
It isn't right to essentially pay people to breed but it also isn't right to punish the children for their parents irresponsible actions.
I think it's one of those situations where everyone simply cannot be happy with the solution.
It's a good idea and will obviously reduce the welfare bill.
All it means is that poorer people will have to work out whether they can afford 3 or more children. Just the same as everyone else.
They don't take twins or multiples into account, just as tax credits doesn't pay the increased sum for a child under one more than once if multiples are born. It is definitely per child, not per birth.
I just don't see how this will help. Those who will really suffer are the children, not the adults, who if they are really that feckless will simply prioritise their own needs over their children and not go without while the children suffer more anyway.
Maybe the answer is better social care, education, training and employment opportunities so that every child is really given the chance to make something out of their lives and not rely on the state in the first place.
What about lone parent families?
Is is right that the resident parent is now restricted to two children while the partner is now free to go off and have two more with someone new, and perhaps two more with yet another partner?
It would be far more helpful to sort out the CSA system and drop the plans to charge people for using it.
Someone with quadruplets is knackered!
The whole contraception thing is an issue I guess. As a 30 + married well educated women I find my access to good contraception advice very limited in my current area.
Plus I know several people whove gotten pg with coils in and in at least two cases they found out very late 5 months plus and while they love the DC its not what they planned.
Bramshott to ill to go and get the pill and all the usuall exuses as to why peopel wont have the amount they can afford but never to ill to go a claim the £500 bouns you get when pregnant ay
In my local council they have a section were you collect the uniform grant its mext to the bit were you give the forms in when choosing a school
I never seen a que so long in my life
Maybe they should put more money into cheap/free childcare that way working families would have an easier time when deciding how many kids they should have.
Too many unknowns.
What about changes in circumstances? Some who could well before 6 kids but things change, then what? What if the main earner dies, leaves or looses their earnings capacity through illnesses?
Frisson, what planet are you on? Saying the following....... If you can't afford to keep your own kids, don't have any (or at least don't take the piss and have more than two).
I have 3, my husband works full time, I am a SAHM trying to set up my own business. I do not think I am taking the piss. At all. We can afford it now, but I am very sure we will be in trouble when all the cuts are implemented. How is that taking the piss?
YANBU. I totally agree. Child benefits should definitely be capped at 2 children which is the replacement rate. People who aren't entitled to benefits have to think carefully about how many children they can AFFORD according to their after tax salaries and don't get a payrise from their jobs for having more children. Children are financially the responsibility of their parents, not the government or taxpayer. By all means have as many children as you like but benefit should only be paid for the first 2.
Its a hard one
on paper I agree, as on paper I am MC and have stopped at 2 as I cant afford more. So , why these all the benefit scroungers get to have 4/5/6 babies! when they cant afford them! rant rant rant
I think though, as froth says, its wont save that much (remember next year many of us wont event get CB any more, fair enough)
So think they have gone far enough
and anyway who will suffer most? children
Um my ohs boss wont give a fig if i am having twins so why should the tax payer
That's not going to be wtc cb ect in 2015 universal credit will have been rolled out everywhere by then. Ah sure it will please the DM Tories cunts.
In fact the more you think about it the more ridiculous it becomes.
I agree in essence but it's not fairly workable.
It does seem a ploicy based on single relationship, single birth and no accidents.
Interestingly all the families I know that are large 4 or 4+ have at least one parent working currently if not both doing shifts round each other though they may receive benefit to top their wages up i Don't know.
Most of the long term unemployed families I know seem to stop at max 3.
Not sure how representative that is nationally though.
So essentially it's not just those currently on benefits this affects, anyone with more than 2 children could suffer if their circumstances changed and they found themselves in need of support. Which is potentially everyone.
fromparistoberlin and sadly thats the sadness of having bad parents the children suffer but we cant be held ransom by the feckless
We cant have people sayig let me countine have countless children by diffrent partners and never gettig a job or else?
There children are suffering already and by giving the parents the means to add to there number you make there plight worse
I never understood somone who would have 10 children when they only have. A 3 bed council home then accuse the coucil of makeing there chikdren suffer ect
CassandraApprentice REALLY because the stats show the less Educated a women is the more chikdren she is likey to have also
The amount of children a workless haousehold has compared to a working household is much less
I think this is a good idea that needs to be phased in so that future generations ie our kids don't go on to rely on benefits if they have 5,6,7 kids. I personally know someone with 7 kids that bragged she had never worked a day in her life. I would love a third but we can't afford so we won't simple as that really.
There should be a safety net for illness and disability and exceptional circumstances and like I said it should be slowly phased in and people made aware of it happening years in advance not suddenly sprung upon people
Is this going to drive up abortion rates?
Or am i being dramatic?
This thread is not accepting new messages.
Please login first.