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
You're doubtless going to get ripped to shreds for saying it, but we had to wait til DS was school age to have DD as paying £650 nursery fees doubled was not an amount we could afford.
I'm all for this - it pisses me of how we are supposed to care more about the children than their parents - if it really is going to be so hard for the kids then it is something the parents need to take into account before having the kids not the rest of society.
Oooo, you're brave
I agree that working people do have to make a decision about whether they can afford another child though
In essence it's not a bad idea.
I think, in theory, it is a good idea. As long as it is taken into consideration that circumstances beyond people's control can change their financial situation (ie accident, made redundant) AND that children already born aren't effected.
But, I don't trust this government to organise a piss up in a brewery so...
What about those with triplets or more?
It doesn't save a lot of money so what is the point? It seems to me the Conservatives are once again 'solving' a problem that isn't really there.
Givemeaclue - obviously that would be different. It would be more like number of births not number of children? In case someone does have triplets or twins..
Oooo, you're brave
I know, and pleasantly surprised at the first couple of comments ( has only been about 30 seconds though, plenty of time for people to scream that I'm bashing disabled people and goat lovers!)
givemeaclue - they would make allowances for twins and triplets, of course they would. It's beyond the parents control.
I can see the logic behind it BUT it once again fails to take into account that lots and lots of benefits are actually paid to WORKING families as a means of topping up their income, because the price of living is so absurdly high without NMW having been raised enough to meet it.
How are they actually proposing to implement this? All the families with more than 2 children will suddenly have whatever they received slashed? So what do they do about living costs? Be made homeless? Have to give up work because they can't pay the childcare anymore? Be made homeless?? It's not as easy as saying they should downsize to save costs because the rental market is so expensive and there are next to no spaces in social housing at the moment.
I can see it being yet another piece of Tory rhetoric aimed at making the poor poorer.
Sounds like a good plan to me. If you've been on benefits all your life, never worked,then you'll only get benefits for 2 children (unless triplets etc) you're not stopped from having more, either just get yourself a Job or live on the same amount you currently get
"It doesn't save a lot of money so what is the point?" - How do you know it wouldn't save a lot of money? I think it's a great idea and should be implemented asap. 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).
Making children suffer, even though it won't save much money, just to get votes from small minded twats who believe everything they read in certain papers is vile.
What about the patents that go ahead and have children anyway regardless of if they can afford them? Should those children live in poverty?
givemeaclue my sil had twins most people who have mutilpuls in there family are highly aware of this
There is a 78% chance that any females will have mulitipules in my ohs family so if you cant afford the chance of two then have none
If i decided to have 10 children my husbands boos will not give him a raise every time i am pregant and the mortage comapny wont give us a bigger home so why am i supplementing others to do just that
It just seems to be the only people anle to have large familes with out thinking of the cost are the very rich and those living off the state
Also is it not aout pride my on would rather die than allow somone else take cre of his family
I should imagine that it would only apply to future children iyswim.
They wouldn't suddenly slash people's money who already had the kids.
I agree that ots of benefits are paid to working families too, and assume the same criteria would be used for them wrt credits, child benefit etc. which is fair enough.
Attractive idea in theory because no employer gives you a salary-increase (child benefit, child tax-credit, extra housing benefit premiums) for extra children but it's unworkable. Some people will always have more children than they can afford by choice or not. Family circumstances change. Death, disability, unemployment - none of us are immune unless we have millions in the bank.
In theory sounds sensible.
I know there is no cap on how many children you can have but more people would be more inclined to stop at 2.
I hope that doesn't see a rise in the termination of baby girl pregnancies...
Read this. Sums it up pretty well I think.
As long as it not retrospective ie people with currently more than 2 are penalised - and multiple births are considered it sound reasonable.
What would happen with blended families - parents who have different DC with different partners and step families that might merge DC from different households?
FrothyOM do you really think the type of people who would have 6 children in a row are thinking of there children
Even if you gave these type of people 50k a year to live on there children would still have nothing
The people who make children suffer are there foolish parents AND WE MUST NEVER FORGET THAT unless you are suggesting the goverment are forceing these poeple to have 5,6 and 7 children they have no means to take care of
I have four and I agree completely. As for what happens if you have twins/triplets etc well that has to be considered before trying for number 2 as well, I've net people who had ivf, 2 eggs put back in and still seem shocked to find themselves with twins they couldn't afford fgs
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?
In essence yes I agree. Having said that my 'second' baby turned out to be twins which financially hit us like an express train.
But yes I think there needs to be a cutoff point.
I questioned that earlier in the thread, fluffy but wondered if it was a bit dramatic too?
It does annoy me that my neighbours have three children, and don't work as far as I can see. But I know that is meanspirited of me. How can I possibly know (that I want to) all the details of their lives and how they decided to have that many? They need support.
No-one ever gets pregnant by accident, or has twins instead of DC2, or has triplets, or gets made redundant after having three children, or ends up in a blended family with more than 2 children...
Because thats all the tax payer is willing to pay for
You can give people the benfit of the doubut with two acident, whatever but get into 3 children and yur taking the piss
I listened to IDS on the radio and he said the saving would be £1bn. Not sure how he calculated this, but it included fewer CB payments and presumably a reduction in the CTC element of the new Universal Benefit.
He says the average no of children per family is 1.8, so offering help for 2 children seemed the right level of support. "Large families" (no definition given) were clustered at the top and bottom of the income scale.
People are rational. That is why the average family size has shrunk so much - because parents know if they want a certain lifestyle, they have to limit their families. For those parents who decide to have more children at least partly on the basis of the extra benefits they get (rational) the equation will alter and they will make different choices (again, rational).
However a minority of parents will always take a short term view of their own and their children's future and the real challenge is changing their behaviour.
And yes, why 2?
An 'unreasonable' amount of children surely starts around the 4 or 5 mark in most peoples minds doesnt it?
Personally i feel uneasy about it. It sounds like a good idea at first - but then smacks of controlling the poor.
I don't like the proposal at all.
People who are feckless about having children and assume that money just falls out of the
government sky to pay for things, will continue to be feckless about having them and assuming that somehow it will be paid for. They never have children for logical reasons, anyway.
Children who didn't ask to be born are the ones who will suffer in poor, disorganised households.
The children of feckless benefit scroungers should go cold and hungry.
That'll learn 'em.
Fuck me, not even IDS sounded convinced this morning on R4. Still, anything to make resentful DM readers happy I guess
Fishwife1949 - that how it is with the people I know.
Having said that education here isn't prolonged here but that doesn't stop them finding and keeping work.
So I think you may be confusing education levels and actual work levels. Local economy here is based on low wages.
Plus some of the larger familes started very young think teenagers and have spaced the DC out. Some of them even have the same two parents. So perhaps they don't meet Daily Mail norms.
it's not controlling the poor. It's about people having to take financial resposibility for their own offspring.
What mrskeithrichards said.
Just a load of unthought out shite designed to have people going 'yes! Punish people who have too many children' 'I stopped at two' (because you wanted two, maybe?). How can that be the answer?'
Let's put more children into poverty and take cash from people who can't afford to have it taken away (including those who work hard but get paid a pittance by greedy private employers who use 8hr a week contracts + overtime to reduce their maternity/holiday pay bills and get the government to pick up the tab. Or families who chose to have children because they could afford it and then lose their jobs, all their savings get used up because they're not entitled to any help because they're 'too rich' and then further down the line they have to claim benefits because they've got no money left! What about single parents whose ex partners pay nothing?)
Still not addressing the main issue: low wages, high living costs.
These idiots need to stop looking for sensationalist short term solutions that wouldn't be out of place in the Daily Mail comments section and look for real, sustainable ones that don't single out one particular sector of society.
Next time you read a suggestion like this, think to yourself 'is this a Tory idea?' If it is, you have your answer as to whether its a good one that will benefit all and not penalise people who can't afford it.
so people on benefits are bad parents? you people are disgusting and yes op yabu.
abortion rates would go up, child poverty would go up, more children ending up in care.
then we have the working people because we all know they would not stop at people on benefits, people on low incomes are just as bad.
what about blended families. this idea is ridiculous and smacks of the chinese ban no more than 2 children if you were the wrong sort.
believe it or not unlike the tories want us to believe not every thing in life is about money.
No people who have 5,6&7 children are bad parents if they do so in the hope the tax payer will pick up the bill
Call it a daft analogy, but this is like dog licences ...
The people who it's aimed at aren't the ones who are going to take any notice of it. And yes, of course children will suffer because of it.
You would get pregant then knock next door and ask them to buy your baby milk ect thats effectivly what these people are doing
Where did I say people onbenefits are bad parents? The proposal puts the non working on a level playing field with the working wrt planning how many chilsdren you can afford. How is that saying it makes them bad parents?
Why don't we restrict free schooling and free NHS care to any family with more than 2 children, if you want a 3rd 4th 5th you have to pay yourself. No one really needs more than 2 children surely?
Ofcourse that is not a good idea as children would suffer, nice middle class children. But it doesn't seem to matter if children from poor families suffer.
Oh we have a ticking time bomb in terms of the elderly, a burgeoning mass of surplus labour, ie people just surplus to the requirements of businesses, forget the fact that people consume......what the hell do we want children for, ban them I say. Let them eat worms and send their parents to work at poundland for a dollar a day.
Really saddened by so many of the responses on here. Seems like the Tory propaganda is working and everyone thinks everyone else is scrounging.
What would this achieve other than drive poor families further into poverty? People will want, and have, children regardless of circumstance.
In France you are (or at least were) financially incentivised to have a 'famille nombreuse' (3 or more children) as it is expected these children will grow up to become productive members of society and be an asset to their country. Why can't we expect the same? It is these children who will be paying taxes towards our pensions, and looking after us when we are old.
Honeytrip yes we do
Those who dont behave of follow school rules are asked to leave
Nhs: people who are overweight have to loose it before oprations are given and people who drink wont be given transplants unless they stop
We ask things of people all the time
low wages, high living costs
Indeed. Even they know that, which is why IDS sounded so uncomfortable on R4 this morning.
Please don't speak for me Fishwife
I am 'the taxpayer' and I think this stinks.
"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?"
Because you're being subsidised for your choice to have three children. The Beckhams for instance have what I consider to be too many kids - in terms of overpopulation and the harm we do to the planet, etc. - but at least they can afford to keep them.
How come us who work have to figure out whether we can afford another child?
But those who live on benefits shouldn't have to?
Our employers don't rise our wages when we have another baby. So neither should the benefit system pay out more.
honeytea I think some people would actually do that...
This thread started off quite well, people making good points but has degenerated into a benefits bashing thread. Again. I've got 3 DC's. Me & DH work, him FT, me PT at home, we claim the benefits we are entitled to, such as they are. I think I may need to hide this thread now...
By the way YABU and represent quite a lot of what is wrong with this country at the moment.
I don't know the answer as both sides to the argument ring true.....
but I do think that if you are already without a job or income then go on to have dc 3/4 etc it is you the parent that has caused these dc to be in poverty and no one else.
PinkMilkIsMyFavouriteAndMyBest are you joking please tell me you are
We have whole familes who have never worked so all we done under labour is encouraged people who dont work to have children who will grow up not to work as a result of the EXTRA time on there hands more likey to be involved with police ect
moog do the proposals not include in-work benefits then?
Because there are thousands of working, tax paying families on those.
"Ofcourse that is not a good idea as children would suffer, nice middle class children. But it doesn't seem to matter if children from poor families suffer."
YY It's like poor kids are sewer rats or something. Our class ridden society is sick.
They'll be offering money for sterilization next.
This is going to be a bloodbath, this thread. It's a very emotive subject.
It's just going back to the workhouse mentality for me. I cant do clever arguments, but i know how i feel. The well fare state was set up for everyone. Once you start denying help to the ones who have least you're going backwards. Really.
I think if you put in in this way. Do people want to keep subsidising other folks choice to have larger families. A lot of people don't. And as for multiple births. People have twins and triplets. And there will still be free schooling, free healthcare and so on.
And your boss wouldn't give you a rise if you were having twins or triplets. It would be up to you to support them on the money you had. People struggle with nursery fees and so on. And sonme decide to only have one child or even none for this reason. Should they be subsiding people who choose to have more than two children. No I don't think they should be asked to.
We don't need more children we need less aging population if we are being honest. Nobody was meant to live to 90 and spend 25 years being I financially productive.
A lot of people have their nursery fees subsidised. That's the state subsidising your choice to have kids...
This isnt about people having too many children.
It isnt about the planet being overpopulated.
They have got quite got to the point of being able to kill the poor in cold blood.
There's is an incremental strategy.
It started a few years back when they started the propaganda. Its working well so far.
I totally disagree with a policy like this. These children did not choose to be born! They should not "bear the sins of their father", so to speak.
I believe as a society we have a responsibility to ensure the most vulnerable, which includes children, have their basic needs met.
I think this is a good policy.
It is putting the same pressure on benefit recipients that taxpayers already face.
I know that we didn't have children until we could afford them. We never ever considered getting the state to bail us out.
Pink that's an interesting point. We (as a society) are writing of the kids born to people on benefits before they've even been born. We are assuming they will never amount to anything other than claiming yet more benefits. We aren't even considering the fact they could grow into hard working contributing members of society and we need plenty of them to support the ever growing elderly population.
Perhaps that should be the focus. Perhaps it's worth supporting children and nurturing them to grow into fantastic adults. Some are capable of doing so without external support. Some aren't.
What are we suggesting now? Bump off the elderly?
mrs devere I think they do include benefits paid to working people, which I've already said I think is fair enough. Both working and non working people will get extra help for the first 2 children. After that, you have to decide if you can afford another one yourself.
Do you pay income tax, Fishwife? No? Then shut the fuck up.
Does that sound reasonable? Of course it doesn't. Just please stop rabbiting on about "the tax payer". Everyone pays taxes of some sort. Even benefit scroungers and civil servants and teachers and all those other people "the tax payer" seems to loathe so much.
Frothy everyone gets subsidized nursery from 3 years old so I am subsidizing people who earn 10 x what I do.
But that is ok apparently
The problem is that the assumption is it is be those with less chances in life that will go for more kids. IE kids make up for brains, because if you had brains you would be working, you would be earning a very decent salary, you would be choosing to live somewhere better, with better education and more of everything.
Its the sheer arrogance of that I find toe curling. People have twins, triplets or contraception mistakes, divorces and new partners. Having a degree and a decent start in life to start with is not a certain thing. Mostly now its luck. People also have very different starts in life and to assume, because lets be truthful here its all an assumption, that you would have more kids to claim more benefits is quite patently ridiculous.
Its an argument made by those richer than others about those that are poorer. Its not an argument based on fact, statistics or anything but prejudiced opinion.
I wont be having more than two but thats because Im nearer 40 than 30 now and cannot imagine how Id cope. Two is scaring the pants off me I dont have the stomach quite literally for more. And nothing about that decision is at all fiscally based.
After all, what's 18 years of support to ensure a healthy, tax paying member of society who hopefully won't need support again?
Or just ignore them. Let those 3rd born babies bare the brunt of their parents poor decisions.
Children are people in their own right. Citizens.
As a country we have agreed that we will do what we can to make sure that children should
- not go hungry
- not be cold
- be clothed and clean
If this bill goes into law then many more children than are currently doing so will go hungry, cold and dirty.
It will happen.
The least educated and most disadvantaged women in the UK will not just stop having babies because they've been told they won't get more benefit.
Women in very impoverished countries who get no benefits continue to have large families they can't feed or clothe.
The only PROVEN way to stop poor women having babies they are unable to support is to provide them with a good education and opportunities to earn a decent living.
We have a tory elite who are making backwards moral judgements about the poor whom they despise as immorally inferior. We have a shrinking state because neo-liberalist economic policy dictates that ONLY the privatisation of all money/property and profit can be achieved through syphoning money out of the real economy.
You have Cameron telling us we must shrink the state so we can compete with China?????? do they have a small state? The worlds third largest economy is a state capitalist state with over two thirds of it's business in state ownership. I think that speaks volumes about what the Tory scums real agenda is. And it is nothing what so ever to do with debt or strengthening the economy. It has everything to do with old Tory class war antics.
It is certainly not right that people who live independently of state help have to carefully consider the number of children they have, whether they will all fit in their house, can they provide for them, while those who live off the state just procreate at will in the knowledge that their income will increase and they will be entitled to a larger house to accommodate everyone.
Someone upthread said that it wouldn't save much money. I don't think that the immediate reduction in the benefit bill is where we should look for the cost saving. It is in the ongoing costs of the state supporting a child growing up in a house where no-one works, and where the likelihood is that those children will also not work, and therefore be a financial burden on the state for significant proportions of their lives - expecting a house to live in, money in their pockets - and in 18 years time, children of their own that the state will also have to support.
I know I sound very harsh, but things cannot continue as they are.
fishwife as many have pointed out here, many families on benefits do work. Why would the third and subsequent childre. Of these families not go on to work?
I have been fortunate enough to have always been in paid employment and never had to claim benefits (except universal child benefit) and of course I am happy that 'my taxes' are going towards helping those less fortunate than me just as I would hope to be taken care of to some extent should I fall on hard times.
you can be a good and loving parent and have 5 or 6 children i dont really understand the correlation between having more children and not being a good parent to them. your ability to be a good parent is not determined by how much money you make. i know some shit awful rich parents that think they can buy their childrens love and some awesome parents on benefits. so the whole the children suffer already in big families oddness is a very strange. people's mentality on this whole thing to do with welfare is very strange to me. so long as i am ok then fuck every body else.
Personally Id rather shoot the over 70s. This ensures a fast paced inheritance line. Gets rid of elderly and associated health issues. Id remove pensions and have everyone working til they day they are taken out the back and shot.
Sounds daft doesn't it but these kinds of arguments if taken to their enth degree all end up in ridiculous places. No common sense involved.
Our class ridden society is sick yy frothy and what is more working people who at present are fairly comfortable do not percieve that the tide will rise until they are also in it up to their necks, standing right next to these scroungers they find so disagreable.
Fishwife people have a certain level of control over their weight/drinking/behavior at school a baby born as #3 into a poor family has no control over the circumstances of their birth.
Here in Sweden you are better off having kids than not having them regardless if you work or not. Daycare is pretty much free (small cost for food) you get more child benefit the more kids you have, university is free all school trips and hot school meals are free for everyone, 18 months parental leave at full pay, the decision isn't a financial decision when thinking if you should have a baby it is a decision about what would work for you and your family.
Amazingly the population growth here is extremely low, I have not met w family with more than 4 kids, the vast majority of people have 1 or 2. The culture of wanting loads of kids is the issue in the UK in my opinion, taking money away from poor families won't solve the issue it will just creat a generation who have suffered due to poverty.
mrsdevere and shagmundfreud YES!
Though am now stepping away from the thread.
Our employers don't rise our wages when we have another baby. So neither should the benefit system pay out more.
See that logic completely.
However having DC grow up in poverty has lifelong implications - education standards and health. Having an underclass with poor work prospects and poor health has big long term costs.
I'm not actually in favour of people having DC they can't afford - I'd love more but we can't afford that. It just this seems a very blunt and ineffective way of dealing with that problem which brings undesirable consequences of it own.
"I know that we didn't have children until we could afford them. We never ever considered getting the state to bail us out."
So you don't get child benefit then?
That's tax payers money.
Do you not need this money? I assume not, given that you're saying you can afford the children you've got. In which case, give it back.
Please stop saying this implies I'm calling larger families/ families who don't work bad parents. That's not what I've said at all ( as well you know!)
The system is open to abuse - yes, but it's a system born form a society becoming civilised enough to not want to see kids out on the street FGS. This policy is unlikely to stop the least responsible people/couples/families having children. When these people/families/couples have the children and there's no money what will happen to the youngsters?
What about all the people/families/couple caught in between, as mentioned up thread, who have fallen on hard times? Abortion? Adoption? Sell the bloody kids? What are they supposed to do?
(If the tax payer gets to decide where their money goes i vote not to fund MPs expenses.)
Its about when will it come to an end. We've had it rather cushty for quite a while which has put people in this comfortable stage of, we'll have more babies, we'll get more money it'll be ok.
If people who work can't afford another child, they don't have one.
People on benefits should have to have the same mentality. Why the hell should someone who doesn't work (i mean through their own choice) get a better deal than someone who does?
Shagmund this policy would apply to ALL receiving child benefit etc. Do you not think that's fair?
Shagmund - women in very impoverished countries are generally not able to access contraception as easily as we can here - where it is free and freely available to any who want it.
If housing cost and childcare were more affordable many more people would have more freedom to have the number of DC they actually want.
I susppose this is easier to implement.
I was just waiting for someone to link to the Guardian so the uneducated silly folks can be taught the error of their ways by the wise unbiased words of the world only newspaper written especially for left wing people who already know everything.
In theory it sounds a good idea, but there needs to be support in place for the children in 'chaotic' families so that they don't suffer from the parents having more children than they could afford.
For me (and I've thought about this a lot!) I would say one or two (happy!) accidents after needing to claim benefits. So, someone in an expensive area, working, needing top up benefits would have the support for two pregnancies (whether that's single births or twins, triplets, etc). Someone with say four kids who loses their job/partner but hasn't claimed before gets support for their whole family.
One big point I would make is that any disability support should NOT be classed as being on benefits. DLA is there to support people to have a more level playing field, so whether this is paid to a parent or a child I think it should be seen as an 'equalisation payment' not 'being on benefits'.
Well, I think it's a good idea in theory. However, it couldn't take into account large families already in existence.
I just wish they'd scrap CB completely. The way they are currently working the changes is completely unfair (based on the highest earner only rather than joint income) and needs to be addressed.
I think the IVF example you give is a bit different tbh Mosman. I don't know if you've been through it yourself, but it is an extremely difficult process and I don't blame anyone for putting 2 embryos (not eggs btw, that would be pointless) back if they feel it would increase their chances of conceiving.
I understand that completely.
I think it's sad that the argument here is 'we cant let children live in poverty'
No we can't, but the parents shouldn't want this either. But continue to have children. The system is abused so much because THEY KNOW we won't let a child starve.
But the benefits system is designed to pay out what is needed when so the argument is a bit flat really.
Or should we move to a system where x amount is given to everyone regardless of how much you earn, how many kids you have, regardless of how much your childcare or council tax is. Only then would it be fair to say to people 'here are your means, live within them' as a non claiming worker does.
I don't know a lot about politics and didn't read or hear what IDS said but from reading the outline on here I just don't see how it would work, there seems to be a lot of variables that a blanket bill doesn't cover.
What happens if you meet someone in 2016, it's all good, he has a good job and you can afford to have four children together. Until he buggers off with his secretary leaving you holding baby number four and taking a huge drop in income. You go from being comfortable to living in poverty in a day. How is that fair.
You can't have anymore children as you can't afford them but your ex and his secretary can now go on to have three children. Doesn't seem very fair to the parent residing with the child. It's not like the csa have an ounce of sense and really manage to keep tabs on who should be paying what either.
If I got pregnant accidentally I would have to decide between having an abortion or feeding my existing children. I'm not sure what affect that would have on me mentally and emotionally.
I am one of the benefit scroungers people like to slag off. I'm pregnant with my fourth child. I claim benefits. I'm a single parent. It wasn't through choice, I didn't know in advance that my relationship would end and I'd be left pregnant and alone. But I am very grateful that the safety net was there to fall back on, my children have a roof over their heads and food in their tummys, but under the proposed bill this wouldn't be the case.
Well sorry to be all crappy and bring the dreaded disabilities into it moog but the reason we are on a low working income is because my OH is disabled and so is my son.
So we both work part time.
Our disabled son is actually our great nephew. We took care of him.
So we now how three dependent children.
If you think the new system would be sophisticated enough to work out who is 'deserving' and 'non deserving' you are nuts.
Thousands of kinship carers will be affected by this. People who have taken care of their grandchildren and nieces, nephews etc. It is causing huge panic among this group.
This will result in families being unable to afford to take on children and those children will end up in care.
Care costs thousands per child, per week and the outcomes for these kids are poor.
But hey - if it stops Keileigh and Kevin popping out little MacKenzeee its all good.
I dont know why some cant see allowing people to have 10 children condems the children to poverty
You defo wont beanle o ever work if you have 10 chikdren are unlikey to be able to rent or buy a big enough house by limting the amount people can have your giving them a chance 2 children on a low income is just about do able if you say end up working in tesco
If this goes through, will it not be in breach of the erous goal to reduce child poverty? I i don't think this government risk make these changes because at the moment it would be, which is why there is going to be a delay in implementing it until after 2015.
The Europe 2020 project has so far failed to promote coherent anti-poverty strategies, campaigners say. And the UK is ranked below the average on its approach to most poverty and social exclusion issues. BUT _there is nothing in this new policy about reducing childhood poverty_ which leads me to conclude that even if labour were to win the next election, these cuts to benefits plunging children into poverty would still go ahead.
How many people have ten children fishwife?
What is that phrase? Straw man argument?
And your last paragraph makes no sense. Perhaps the prejudice that is clouding your judgment is affecting your typing too?
I'm sure I said previously that this policy would not apply to exisitng children, so to the hysterical posters, no, you wouldn't have to choose which of your children to have put down.
Wonder if the response would've been so in favour if they'd said 'one child only'?
No, I don't think so. After all, two children is often considered the 'norm' or the 'ideal' and it would affect a heck of a lot more families, including those who have decided that two children is the 'right' number and any more is excessive (while (possibly) happily claiming their own tax credits etc. for their two children)
What about people who don't have children? Remember, some people don't!
With Grammar like that.....do you work in Tesco Fishwife ?
Why does people's spelling and grammar have to come in to arguments
" what about people who don't have children"
What about them? Hardly a policy that's going to affect them is it.
How long before the workhouse comes back?
Threads like this depress me. Capping benefits will lead to higher child poverty. My family are not entitled to any benefits as we now earn well enough - but I do not begrudge my taxes going into the welfare system. What goes around comes around. In the past I was one of those dreaded, feckless teenage mums who had a child with no income. If it hadn't been for benefits and (then) free University I would probably still be penniless. God knows how people are expected to help themselves nowadays.
I want to live in Sweden - honeytea society there sounds light years away from the UK.
I also think there's a tendency for some people
who have bagged high earning husbands to forget what could be their lives. Things can change in k heartbeat.
I have been through ICSI and do yes I do completely understand why you would put back two eggs if allowed to do or had that luxury but it can't then come as a shock when two children are created, especially if you already have 1.
As for abortion v's feeding existing children I am pretty sure if that was your choice you'd make damn sure you didn't get pregnant and if that meant obstaining then so be it.
Mumsnet has a disproportionate amount if accidentally pregnancies or bullshitters not sure which but I don't know anyone in real life who has had one accident never mind two.
What's the issue here cutting welfare or stopping the poor from breeding 'fecklessley'? Prephaps if we made benefit for children one and two very generous so it could comfortably support more children if that was what the mother and father choose to do but in a more 'basic' way. If you just have two you have more money to spend.
However policies like these won't work with the chaotic families that it's aimed at where fathers are transient and multiple.
Constant but how many children did you have whilst not working? Did you expect to be able to have as many as you like? No, you used the system the way it should be used, as a safety net, not as a means of producing as many kids as you like with no thought as to how you were going to pay for them
GhostShip I suppose it depends what causes the poverty - losing a parent or sudden ill health of parent of DC that massively impacts ability of family to work - such ill luck shouldn't be lumped with fecklessness.
You'd hope parents would want better for their DC I agree but substance abuse and poor mental health in parents can and does cloud this - and then there are the others who just don't give a fuck which already isn't fair on their DC.
Exactly moogster. Why should it always be families that are penalised? Far easier to go out and work when you don't have dependents.*
But then you don't seem to see the bigger picture.
*disclaimer - I personally don't want to see anyone poor penalised
I actually think it should be capped at 1 child. No one really appreciates the cost of a child until they have one and so if it is an unplanned pregnancy the state will support you. Now you know what happens when you have a child and what the costs are and how it all happens you take full responsibility as to whether or not you can afford another one, planned or not. I do appreciate that multiple births would need to be taken into account somehow.
I'm all for it.
I don't care if parents are working or not working, on benefits, off benefits or whatever.
Bring it in - if it has to be 2015, so be it but 2014 would be better.
Existing child benefits (for existing children) should stay as they are but people would be in a position to make their own choices regarding future, potential children.
Fo me it's about encouraging people to take responsibility for their actions and choices.
And while we're at it - I'd change the way that child benefit is paid now.
I'd remove the money element and pay it in vouchers which can be spent in shops on food, formula feed, children's clothing, nappies etc.
Since it's meant to be for the benefit of the child, it should be spent on the child and not Mum's/Dad's fags, booze, drugs etc.
I'm going to open a workhouse and win Govt multi million pound contracts now. Get in ahead of the crowd cos I bet A4E have thought of it already <off to make money out of misery>
Ironically, some of my ancestors died in the workhouse.
I don't know anyone in RL that has the mythical 10 children families. That the Tories like to bang on about.
The Conservatives are very, very good at creating moral panics.
And there are a lot of people who are stupid enough to buy into them.
Ironically the very people who seem to see themselves as superior in intellect and morals to the feckless fuckers down on the estate.
Doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out we are being manipulated by a government who knows little about the lives of ordinary people and care even less.
People tend to believe what suits them. It suits a lot of people to believe that poor people are to blame. That way they can absolve themselves of any responsibility and justify the fact that they do not give a shit about anyone else but themselves.
I'm sure the Torie party have people posing as posters on MN.
why do you assume all non working people drink, smoke and take drugs winged harpy?
Excellent Winged Harpy. My thoughts exactly, though I can't see it being too popular on here as the ethos seems to be That there are no people who play the system, no bad parents and nobody who actually prefers to be on benefit.
I'm a little disappointed that only one person has taken it so far out of context as to bring disability into it, but I live in hope...
I don't spend the CB in fags or booze - it goes on school trips, music lessons.
It is also going on paint and stuff for the house because as soon as this house is in a fit state to sell we can moved to where DH now works saving travel and his week accomodation costs - leaving us massively better off.
Despite having DC I am capable of making decsion about where best to spend CB for my family.
She didn't say non workers all smoke and drink, she made the point that all benefits whether to workers or non workers should go directly towards things for children.
You sure, usual ? You don't know any of those families that sit on their arses while they get pissed and make babies while getting the state to pay for 'em 'cause it's a great life and 10 kids = 10 times the benefits.
Why aren't we all at it, eh? It's so lucrative.
Because Shiney Dave and the DM tell them that?
I wonder how much money will actually be saved? I'm sure having 6 kids on benefits isn't a bed of roses despite what the Tories would have us believe.
Maybe instead of doing this they should put a system in place which ensures every adult and company in the UK pays the correct amount of income tax, close the loopholes used by clever accountants etc.
I live on a council estate as well. You would think my area would be over run with these feckless families.
I don't know anyone in RL that has the mythical 10 children families. That the Tories like to bang on about
Living on councils estates in Wigan, I've seen many.
I prefer to tackle things a different way, we can not deny that many are in this cycle of living on benefits, expect a council property because their parents have one see the benefits system as a way of life we need to understand why, why their expectations are not higher keep kicking them down keep telling people they are scrounges and they will live up to it
I can not underrstand why quite a few who I study with have this attitude, they have no intention of working after they study or if they do they are not wanting to pay back the student loan so will only work part time. I really find it hard t understand where they are coming from, those I know feel very hard done but I I they key to understanding the attitude they have is the key to make changes
"cut their cloth"? Cut their cloth ?!
These sponging politicians make my blood boil
I get it. There are, whether we like it or not, a minority of people who take the royal wee out of the benefits system. They're not all single parents or doleys who have 9 children and live in 7 bedroom council house in Windsor for free though. That is a fallacy.
Want to talk about cutting cloth Mr MP? Then don't buy two houses if you can't afford them both yourself, don't re-furb properties at the taxpayers expense 'because you're entitled'. Let's strip your pay packet back to just a pay packet, make you pay for work expenses up front and then find you can only claim half of them back and see how you fare-and more to the point how much the country saves.
Don't see MP's on the fourth year of a pay freeze with impending redundancies and the pension you've worked towards for years in tatters.
But no, you're absolutely right, lets pitt the masses against each other based on 'number of children' and hope you can keep the cream while they're all busy fighting over who's more entitled and worthy of the milk.
moog in what way have I taken it out of context?
Disability does come into it if you are disabled parent. I am not talking about disability benefits, I am talking about benefits related to children.
People have children. They become disabled. Their earning capacity can therefore be limited.
I think it is rather that you do not like the uncomfortable truths and would much rather stick to your smug version of life.
How would it be fair to continue to pay benefits for over 2 kids in some families but refuse them for others? How does that fit in with your level playing field idea?
So someone on a comfortable income can have 5 kids and keep theirs but a low income family are told 'no, only the one for you'.
You dont really care about how this works do you? As long as you are ok.
I think this is a good idea simply because at the moment the propoganda/daily mail hysteria has made people look at all larger than average familes with suspicion and in some cases hatred. This policy would at least reduce that.
I have 5 and the last 2 years have steadily been getting more stick for it - for example just a few weeks ago i dared to get on a bus with them and a group of three women at the front started actually verbally abusing me for having children they claimed were by different fathers (they have different hair colours therefore that must be the case you know ) and relying on benefits which their taxes paid and that as OAPs they were losing out. It was like the dailymail brought to life.
Nevermind the fact that I am married, the children have the same father, we both work in fact we run our own business which employs others as well and we have never claimed benefits other than child benefit which isnt exactly what we live on.
I am really, really sick of being put in a group with people like karen matthews etc. We planned a large family, we built our own business so we could have it and so we wouldnt need to pay for childcare. I think people SHOULD have to plan for their own family size.
If you lose your job and you already have 3 or 4 or more children benefits should be paid for what you have and no more.
Mine you I have 3 children, so maybe I've been a feckless breeder all along.
10 children ghostship really? And many of them?
I'm sure there aren't many with 10 children, plenty with four or five though. I once sat in a supermarket in a very rough area by the ciggie/lottery counter and saw a woman with four kids cue for about three minutes and she whacked each one if them around the head at least twice in the time it took her to be served her B and H, what a sterling job she was doing thank goodness we all dragged our arses off to work do she could concentrate on what she's good at.
yes...lets not "free people on benefits from the financial pressures of having children " (as if £80 actually does that)..lets actually stop them from having more children.
Because that is what people are saying.
in the extreme
Not a rough area.OMG .
Where you slumming it?
FFS with the 'child beating fag smoking multiple children' anecdotes.
"I think this is a good idea simply because at the moment the propoganda/daily mail hysteria has made people look at all larger than average familes with suspicion and in some cases hatred. This policy would at least reduce that."
That is awful that you are made to feel like that..and is indeed how they want people to feel with their crappy propaganda.
Unfortunately I was visiting family what can you do
I don't know anyone in RL that has the mythical 10 children families. That the Tories like to bang on about
Just turn on jemery bile and there they are in 7 days a week and now state side
oh no Mosman, how terribly awful that you had to slum it like that temporarily
I think if you read my post again freetoanyhome, you would see that I said I was all for the proposal REGARDLESS of whether parents were working, not working, on benefits, off benefits or whatever.
I did not say that all non working people drink, smoke and take drugs.
Many people, from all walks of life have these habits - and many more do not.
I fund all my own bad habits.
Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.
mrsdever and Pochemuchka
Not quite ten but I've seen families with 6,7,8 children.
Mosman how do you know what benefits this woman claims?
It is, essentially, a policy to keep the 'undesirables' from reproducing.
At least in China it's a blanket rule - none of this 'ok for some but not others' rubbish and they've the honesty to say 'we only want you to have one child' and not dress it up as a benefits issue <tongue in cheek>
All those people arguing that there are some people who exploit the benefit system seem to be happy to punish all for the sins of the few. Brilliant. As long as you can carry on your merry way, never mind anyone else.
Tragically I spent the first 18 years of my life and 7 months as an adult surrounded by it all. If you've lived amongst it you have a whole different perspective
She must be on benefits if she lives in a rough area.
Everyone knows that <rolls eyes>
I don't care whether she was on benefits or not she was still out of her depth with four children. If she had two maybe she'd be better able to cope.
So mosman, you're basing your entire view of larger families in impoverished areas on one encounter in one place with one family.
maybe she had a crap day and was parent of the year at other times? As i assume you are if you are judging like this?
^It is, essentially, a policy to keep the 'undesirables' from reproducing.
At least in China it's a blanket rule - none of this 'ok for some but not others' rubbish and they've the honesty to say 'we only want you to have one child' and not dress it up as a benefits issue hmm ^
I dont agree. It will put people on benefits on par with people who work. Can't afford them, don't have more. For all people.
Not everyone with a large family is a benefit scrounger, I grew up in a house as the youngest of 3 with 2 parents neither of whom worked a day in their life, I left school at 16 to WORK and have worked since.
I had my 1st baby at 19 and worked right up till my due date , of my 6 children 3 were accidents OMG yes 3, having my tubes tied didnt stop my 4th being concieved , or my 5th , 5yrs later after they insisted it was now corrected and my 6th was born after both condoms and the pill failed. I have claimed benefits for a 3 mth period during the time when my husband (the father of all my children) left me while pregnant with the 6th.
so the safety net was a necessesity for me or else my children would have starved , but don't worry if i'm ever in that potion again i will let the kids draw straws to see which of them eat.
I'd like to address the point above about how women usually know if twins run in the family.
Firstly, the kind of twins that run in families are fraternal twins. Identical twins, on the other hand are random, and could occur in any pregnancy.
Secondly, I am not happy about the idea that women with a possible family history of twins should be expected to restrict themselves to one pregnancy, just in case, the next one is twins. Especially has the fraternal twinning gene occurs more or less in populations, according to ethnic descent. In tables of fraternal-twinning frequency, caucasian women are around the middle, but Yoruba women have the highest rate of fraternal twinning. Such a policy would disproportionately affect particular ethnic groups overall.
If you need to hit four kids around the head in public you are not going to win any parenting awards, any time.
The logic of all the arguments in favour of this is that we should stop giving extra benefits to people just because they have children.
My husband's() employer didn't give him a raise when any of our children were born.
What that should have to do with what we as a society choose to do with public money is beyond me, but it makes no sense to employ that argument only after two children.
If people need to only have the number of children they can afford without stare help then we need to cut
1 child benefit
2 tax credits
3 free maternity care
4 free schooling
5 free nursery places
That should save a fair bit of money.
Don't you envious, bitter fuckers get it?
The welfare state supports everyone.
One big point I would make is that any disability support should NOT be classed as being on benefits.
Or how about we don't think of people on benefits as scumbags?
I work with people in poverty, a large majority of whom are ethnic minorities, and for many of the women in receipt of benefits I see with lots of children, it is not their choice how many children they bear. Because of their religion and culture they are not allowed to access contraception, and many would not consider it their right to turn down their husband's advances. Many of them are victims of circumstances, and some of abuse at the hands of the men they are tied to. Nothing is black and white, no matter how much the government and hysterical media would like it to be.
This is also going to be a hard policy to police without making blanket decisions. This is what will happen.
How much extra money, above and beyond that received by everyone else, do benefit claimants get per child?
clearly that must be because of her huge benefit income then
Bugger, I shan't be able to feed the goat...
As someone with no children I've decided that there are too many people in the world.
It isn't necessary for everyone to reproduce, so I am hereby banning reproduction unless you have applied to the government, disclosing your earnings, education, health and all other relevant information.
If you earn below 500k, weren't educated at the right establishment and have ever been ill (apart from the common cold) don't bother applying as you aren't suitable to become a parent. IMO
Gah. I knew this thread would send me crazy.
"for many of the women in receipt of benefits I see with lots of children, it is not their choice how many children they bear. Because of their religion and culture they are not allowed to access contraception, and many would not consider it their right to turn down their husband's advances."
i agree that this is the case, cannotsee, but I don't see that the system should condone and support such a state of affairs. I don't know what the answer is, but it's clearly not to just carry on.
And sweetkitty, I agree completely- having proper systems in place which ensures that EVERYONE pays their correct amount of tax and closing those loopholes that enable multi-millionaires to avoid paying their share is vital.
But it shouldn't be an either or - it should be both.
(As well as looking at MP's 2nd homes. Why can't they build/buy a multi -storey block of flats near the Houses of Parliament which MP's then use as their London base for the time they are an MP and when they get kicked out, the incoming MP takes over that flat? The MP wouldn't own the flat so wouldn't make any money from being in it).
Even if we accept the ridiculous idea that each household should only have 2 children living in it, how does that square with blended families and step parents?
As an example, say you are widowed and left alone with 2 DC. At your grief support group you meet a bloke who lose his wife and has been left with 2 DC. Over a few years you get to know each other better, a relationship blossoms, your kids all get on fabulously and you decide to move in together. Except you can't, because you both work minimum wage jobs and are barely keeping your heads above water with state top ups to your frankly insulting wages. There is no way you can merge those households and make the money for 2 children stretch to 4, even with the reduction in housing costs.
Absurd? How about another one. You have 2 DC and work full time. Your partner becomes abusive so you take the kids and flee. In time he goes on to find a new partner and has kids with her because Hey! They are allowed up to 2 and he never bothers seeing the first two. What about the abused mother left on her own to raise 2 traumatised children? The dating pool when you have kids is small enough. This would reduce it to only being those who like kids enough to raise someone else's but for whatever reason don't want their own.
This change would mean that any person starting a relationship with a single parent would have to go into it knowing that they could likely never have a child of their own. They are essentially being penalised for being a caring person
I don't agree with it as it will punish the child for parents actions. There are also very few families on benefits with five or more if you look at figures.
As for twin parents knowing they have a risk of twins and thus should avoid having (comment from page one)- that is just silly. They are in my family but still risk is still small and I was stunned when told it was twins. Most twin parents I know have no twins in family.
a very rough area by the ciggie/lottery counter
DM bingo anyone?
Anyhoo - notice how all these arwewipe Tory cuntish Malthusian social-engineering polices impact on women? How many of these Big Ideas are going disadvantage men? What percentage of men are left clutching the babies when a relationship breaks down? How many of them take their kids along for the ride when they run off with a younger model? How many men are denied access to contraception by their families and forced to conceive children can't afford because of religious and cultural diktats?
Very good point cannotseeaway about religious and other groups with 'traditional' beliefs. What will happen to them?
pinkdelight I disagree, I think our welfare system needs to carry on keeping the people it is meant to protect, in this case, those with few rights and their children, away from starvation. This was what it was designed for. It is not a vehicle for judging, condoning or not condoning, the belief systems and cultural differences of different people in our society, but for supporting.
fishwife there you go again.
I watch JK regularly.
Its very rare that a family of 10 are on.
Its not that often that you will even know how many children are involved at all.
But you are stating that EVERY day on JK there are families of 10.
You do not do your argument any favours by simply making things up.
Any system that penalises people for having more children than deemed acceptable is, by default, going to disproportionately affect women unless steps are taken to hold men equally accountable. I see no sign of that being done.
Where is the investment in the CSA to make the fathers pay for all these unwanted children born by feckless single mothers on benefits? (let's forget the inconvenient fact that the typical single mother is mid 30s, has two children, is separated or divorced, and is in paid employment).
Where is the drive to get men to share 50% of parenting responsibility? Why is do we still here women saying "my wages won't cover my childcare"
Where is the access to affordable, flexible childcare so that no mother who wants to work is denied that through lack of childcare.
Where is the recognition that children need looking after and isn't it actually pretty normal to have a mother do that rather than a paid professional? Shouldn't it be the case that a single salary should allow a typical family to live to an acceptable standard bearing in mind that children need looking after. If both parents choose to work the extra money is easily available for childcare.
ROFL at people only having children if they can afford it. That'll be 75% of the population denied that opportunity then. Since children are the adults of tomorrow, I rather think children are a social issue affecting all of us, not just their parents. It's about investment in our future. The same principles apply to education and the NHS. It's not altruistic to pay for these things, it offers a tangible benefit to society overall.
The fault is not feckless breeders but a society that values profit and loss exercises above social ethics. Some things - such as investment in social care, better access to contraception, free education and training above a more than just basic standard, a welfare state for even the undeserving poor - all cost money. They are never going to be profitable in cash terms. But take them away and you'll end up with a return to Victorian slums and the massive social problems and crime that accompanied them that end up costing a price even for those in their nice comfortable ivory towers.
<waves to Jenai>
AFAIK the difference in benefit entitlement between two children and three is minimal. Most of the help available, either through WTC, HB or other benefits kicks in as soon as you have ONE child. You would get an extra dollop of CHB per kid, plus a small amount extra but frankly, anyone who genuinely has a 3rd child "just for the all benefits"
only exists in the DM really can't add up.
I completely agree with this in theory but in practice I am not sure at all how it will work.
When people decide on how many children they would like, they should not take into account the money the government will give them, they should take into account the money that is earned by each of them - its a very simple process, only have the amount of children you can afford on your OWN with no government help!!!!
I grew up in a country where there is no welfare at all, people plan and save for their kids and make sacrifices for their kids, they certainty dont expect the government to be topping up their bank account each month, if they are not working or cant afford to have children then they dont have any - simple as!
"arsewipe Tory cuntish Malthusian social-engineering polices "
catchy, I love it
So, why are all Catholics (and Orthodox Jews, Mormons, and fundamentalist Christians and Muslims) not up in arms about a Government policy which will act in direct contravention of their religious beliefs WRT contraception?
Are you really suggesting Hoping, that you would lose more money losing child benefit for 2 children than you would save giving up running costs and maintainance costs on a 2nd home?
Child benefit must be more lucrative than I thought.
Perhaps there would be more money to spend on affordable childcare schemes, effective CSA agencies etc if less money was being spent in asda. Perhaps women who do not want lots of children but are afraid to say no to their husbands for religious reasons might be able to direct him to a calculator and point out the bleeding obvious rather than be victims of such behaviour. You never know.
<simpers in a ladylike fashion and curtseys to Fangs>
A whole sentence went missing there, sorry iPhone
If you look back at British history in the days when there weren't any state benefits, having lots of children made far more economic sense because they could supplement the family income. I wonder how long it will be before the rules on child labour get relaxed... Of course, it will be presented under the guise of getting children to gain some valuable RL experience of the working world, while encouraging their work ethic and getting them to take personal responsibility.
As a taxpayer, I will say this.Children don't ask to be born.
Where's the evidence that there are loads of families on benefits who have more than two children AND who were on benefits before they had their third child? Where's the evidence that this is an actual problem, rather than a handy distraction from the omnishambles of this government? What's fair or ethical about punishing children because someone disapproves of their parents?
Ridiculous propaganda that punishes people for being unfortunate enough to lose their jobs, or for only being able to get low-waged, insecure employment (where you can turn up for a night shift only to be sent away with no work and no money, leaving you with less money than you started after paying for petrol).
Still, suppose it distracts everyone from asking why the government tolerates multi-billion pound companies like Amazon and Starbucks not paying any corporation tax on their UK business...
Yes, because a woman who's afraid of her husband should take responsibility for his actions. OK then.
And as for the shopping in ASDA comment...
Could you be anymore of a caricature?
I believe that the tax and benefit system should have a purpose of raising money but also influencing behaviour.
I like the UK system in as much that there aren't that many laws affecting your civil rights, but the taxation system provides incentives.
I don't think we should be encouraging chaotic lifestyles, including 4x4 families. If you want that - go ahead, but don't expect to be subsidised.
There is no reason to have three or more children that you can't afford. One oopsie is forgiveable, two is "there but the grace of God go I", but 3 or more is taking the piss. You might think that those first two children are a right, and you only think of the third as a oopsie, so shout get support - but working parents think very carefully about having their first child, and don't consider this a human right.
We are a civilised country with a robust welfare state. We need to absolutely protect those who struggle to support themselves - but this should not include those who rely on the welfare state as a lifestyle choice. I really don't understand when disabled people and carers support chaotic lifestyles of able bodied people. It just puts pressure on their very justified support. I find these attitudes absolutely bewildering.
And feckless men can't reproduce on their own.
Wingedharpy did you miss the part of my post where I said both parents were on minimum wage? So both morally decent tax payers, but suffering because wages haven't risen in line with inflation who have to rely on tax credits to top up their pitiful wages? It isn't just child benefit they would lose, but child care top ups, child tax credit, housing benefit allowance, council tax allowance... It all adds up.
"When people decide on how many children they would like, they should not take into account the money the government will give them, they should take into account the money that is earned by each of them."
So you are suggesting that people should make decisions based on less than complete information?
You seem to be advocating a very stupid type if decision making.
What two people earn at any particular moment is a very poor basis on which to make a long term decision about children.
Earning potential and actual earnings could vary.
Over time someone might significantly increase their income.
Or they might lose their job and find their skills in low demand.
Or they might stop working to care for family members.
Or they might get sick.
Or they might die.
Very, very few families are wealthy enough to decide to have children if they don't factor the welfare state's provision into their calculation.
WingedHArpy - And feckless men can't reproduce on their own.
No, but feckless women can certainly be expected to raise those children on their own it seems...
You might think that those first two children are a right, and you only think of the third as a oopsie, so shout get support - but working parents think very carefully about having their first child, and don't consider this a human right.
Are you saying that only those on benefits consider two children as a right and all those working parents don't? That's a bit of a sweeping generalisation isn't it?
What about blended families where each partner has two children? What happens when those parents get together. Suddenly they're two over threshold without anyone fecklessly breeding.
Women could choose not to spread their legs. How hard is it to say no?
But why would any woman choose to have a child with a man who has form for ignoring his existing child(ren)'s needs?
Blended families are a choice that needn't concern the tax/benefit system.
Knowsabit..You might know about education but you don't know much about not being a sexist git.
Oh dear Mosman, you have obviously led a very sheltered life if you believe that women who are in traditional patriachal
misogynist relationships just need to show their man the errors of their ways with a big "tut tut silly, do your maths" and they will change.
What a horrible post from,Knowsabitabouteducation.
A typical Tory right there people.
"Women could choose not to spread their legs. How hard is it to say no?"
Vile comment, but it epitomises what this policy is all about - hatred of poor women.
Why don't you address my opinions rather than attacking me personally, Fangs. I am all ears.
That is a sarcastic post, right? You're not poo-pooing the reality of abusive relationships, really, are you?
[waves at LP]
I only have one child. I'd have liked more, but we'd really struggle to cover the childcare fees we'd need to enable me to return to work. One salary wouldn't cover our outgoings.
Would I swap places with a woman struggling on benefits with 3 or more children? Of course I wouldn't. If it was that esay we'd all be doing it, surely?
Discuss why this is a vile statement. Don't ignore the elephant in the room.
I was just focussing on the child benefit element and had not taken into account the other elements you mention.
No, I'm ignoring the sexist in the room...
Why is it a vile statement? You said, "how hard is it to say no?"
Many users here know a) exactly how hard it can be to say no
And b) that "just say no" statements rest on the assumption that a No would have been obeyed, as opposed to merely cueing another beating.
Men could choose to keep their dicks in their pants. How hard is it to say no?
So are we now saying that people on benefit are wife beating rapists? Got a little off track I think.
I think there are very few people in this country who genuinely have no access to contraception and are also raped on a regular basis.
Let's have a hands up from everyone who personally knows someone in this situation.
It is a horrible statement simply because it takes two to create the baby, actually you might just as well speak Jeremy Kyle and say "why don't men put something on the end of it".
I have met families where the poor woman left holding the baby has been told by the idiot of a father that he is not giving her any money as she "gets money off the Government". Until ALL start thinking responsibly (both those n work and out of work) this will not go away.
I only had one child as it was all we could afford, my friend had three which she could afford until her wanker of a husband and ran off with his secretary....and had to be chased everywhere to get a minimum of manintainance money. She eventually met a widower with two boys...hey presto they were a family with five children. In fact they earned enough NOT to need benefits but they could have met the threshold if their jobs paid less.
This is a tough one.
Think of the millions of children growing up in households where no one has ever worked. Poor blighters.
It would clearly be a good thing if people were responsible for the size of their family.
But how do you encourage that without punishing the kids?
Why do women choose to have children with deadbeat fathers?
Again you are assuming that mothers on benefits are '4x4' types . You are conveniently forgetting that most children of mothers on benefits will have been born to fathers for whom these are their only children and therefore there is no proven track record.
But even if we address the small number of women who do have children by deadbeat dads, the reasons are very human and complex. A belief that this time it will be different because he really loves her and wants these children unlike the others. Yes, terrible naivety, but not necessarily recklessly irresponsibility. You don't have to look very far to see similar reasoning played out among all human relationships including people who work. Take away those benefits and you won't stop that kind of behaviour. You'll just have poorer mothers and children.
God I hate the Tories. For q moment they almost had me with this one as there is a certain twisted appeal. Because of course there are legions of benefit scrounging families out the with hordes of children and no tax payer in sight.
But really its just a nasty policy that will affect all those accept the rich.
Sorry moog, but you're wrong there. I can think of far too many women in my acquaintance who have been forced or coerced into sex. Luckily many had access to the morning after pill, but it isn't always the case.
Capping benefits to two children makes so much common sense that I cant understand why it hasn't been done before.
I think you will stop a lot of 4x4 bahaviour.
It's not as if we are dogs on heat. We have an intellect to compete with physical urges - and sometimes win.
It's like being punished for procreating/marrying someone with children/losing your job or getting ill with children. Stupid stupid idea.
moogstera I don't think that anyone is saying that all people on benefits are wife-beating rapists. And no-one is saying that loads of women are raped on a regular basis. But there are plenty of people in this country who do not have access to contraception, whose religion or culture frowns upon contraception, or who are in controlling relationships and are not able to stand up and say "no more children please" for one reason or another. A lot more than people who plan how many babies they are going to have around how much cash they can get out of it.
"I think there are very few people in this country who genuinely have no access to contraception and are also raped on a regular basis.
Let's have a hands up from everyone who personally knows someone in this situation."
I can't decide if this is nastier than it is idiotic.
I mean sure, it's a totally cunty thing to say. But it's also deeply fucking stupid.
Lots of the people who should have their hands up wouldn't even know that they should.
But then there is the spiteful need to make life harder for a perceived underclass that is uninterested in rational policy.
It's so tricky.
1 in 9 women has been raped. 1 in 4 women experiences domestic violence. Most women have experienced a sexual assault of a greater or lesser degree. And take a look on the relationships board and among your own acquaintances to register the number of women regularly having sex to 'keep the peace' or 'because he gets a bit moody if we don't do it for a while'. They may not be being held down at knife point, but it's still coercion and therefore very ugly indeed. The number of women who don't have complete autonomy over their bodies and therefore their reproductive choices is still shockingly high in the UK.
I despise anyone who uses the term "spread their legs" about women having sex. It is a truly hateful and graphic description that means you hate women. Know that about yourself whoever said it.
You Hate Women!
"Capping benefits to two children makes so much common sense that I cant understand why it hasn't been done before."
Classic illustration of the difference between common sense and good sense.
Fakebook Thu 25-Oct-12 16:32:30
It's like being punished for procreating/marrying someone with children/losing your job or getting ill with children. Stupid stupid idea.
It's sort of like being punished, but through the meduim of being given other people's money.
No-one is saying all benefit claimants are wife-beating rapists. I am saying that some benefit claimants are in their situation because they are or have been in relationships with abusive men.
That's quite a different statement.
So, no one with their hand up then?
The vast vast majority of pregnancies are either planned, ill thought out, or the result of being pissed ( I include mine here!)
. I still don't believe this means countless children should be subsidised
I would love to know the stats. for children born as a result of rape and subsequent inaccess to contraception because I bet it's a tiny number.
If having a large number of children and not using contraception is part of someone's religion, again, I don't think that should be subsidised. It's a lifestyle choice. I grew up in a very catholic family yet made the choice to use contraception.
I thnk it suffices to recognise that some people will find themselves with 3 or more children and no means to supoprt them through no fault of their own.
Going into the details of why is just a big distraction.
moogster, are you just choosing to ignore those who put their hands up?
What a ridiculous statement Fakebook.
You can't punish someone by choosing not to give them free money that they aren't entitled to.
I always planned on stopping at 2, DH and I had spent years scrimping and scrapping to get to the stage we are at now. I unexpectedly fell pregnant with my 7 month old twins, a shock but a lovely shock, this was after using the coil for 10 years (Oh and to the poster who was banging on about women who have twins should know they are at risk of having twins due to family history, there are NO twins in my family history at all).
We really had to crunch the numbers. We don't get tax credits etc plus we couldn't go to our bosses with cap in hand asking for a pay rise to fund our new babies. I decided to give up my job, no way can we afford childcare for two children plus my husband works overseas. I have had to set up a small business to bring in extra money as we have to get a bigger car. It does make me angry when I see people around us not having to worry about what cloth to cut when they have another baby.
My SIL has just had her 5th baby 8 months ago, shes 2 years younger than me, hasn't worked since having her 1st baby 13 years ago. Fell pregnant with this baby after being with the father (who is married) for a month. She got a community care grant and spent it on going to a music festival. I took her my travel cot as she didn't have a cot for the baby, he has been squashed in a moses basket since the day he was born. She has seems to have plenty of money to go on nights out every week and music concerts, spray tans and false nails. Her house is a shit hole, filthy, disgusting. Her mum (who is recovering from cancer) cleans her house for her once a week because SIL is 'too tired' <hungover>. She gets more than enough money to feed and clothe her children but the latest mobile phone and xbox game is priority in her house. Her eldest came to our house one night, he seen the fruit bowl and asked what that was. It was an orange. She owes us hundreds of pounds as she has came begging for money for electric and gas. She got a school clothing grant and spent it getting her hair done then sat panicking that she hadn't got the boys any uniforms for school. There are some people who even if you gave them a million pounds their children would still live in squalor and the parents would still plead poverty.
I really do hope she is a minority case and that the actions of people like her are causing the majority of families on benefits to be punished. One day any one of us could end up relying on the state, its people like her who make it so difficult for others.
For this reason I don't think there should a cap. I would hate for genuine people to have to suffer because of the feckless few. I am quite happy to pay tax for her to squander if it means other children can have a roof over their heads, food in their bellies and clean clothes on their backs.
Also moog, I'd really like to see your data on pregnancies, whether planned, ill thought out or pissed.
What's with all the 4x4 comments? Nice bit of moral relativism going on there.
In terms of health and survival, it makes much more sense to have children by different fathers - not just because of the mix up of genes, but because the provision of help is being provided by an extra 4 adults rather than just one. It is only our modern, westernised idea of morality that hates this. And the fact that statistically speaking 3 our of 4 of those modern-day fathers won't provide any help, but hey, lets continue blaming the mothers.
Truth is that if we got separated fathers to pay for their children, you wouldn't need as many benefits for single parents. But instead they're introducing charges for the CSA and encouraging people to avoid using it altogether.
And again, why are we assuming that large families must always be the result of several failed relationships where the woman has a new child with each new father? That smacks of prejudice rather than knowledge.
knowsabit..because i am sort of busy with DD at the moment, if you must know
Well, then, moogster I'm going to have to put both my hands up. Actually. Thank your lucky stars that no-one you know has been in that situation. Eh?
Like who? I saw someone who knew someone who'd been raped, but had access to contraception. I don't recall anyone who had been raped and then denied contraception. My point is that the numbers of those women are tiny.
"What happens if you meet someone in 2016, it's all good, he has a good job and you can afford to have four children together. Until he buggers off with his secretary leaving you holding baby number four and taking a huge drop in income. You go from being comfortable to living in poverty in a day. How is that fair."
You take that chance by CHOOSING to have 4 kids, knowing that your circumstances might change. Nobody is forcing anyone to have 4 kids. It is your responsibility to weigh up the pros and cons and to think about the future. If benefits are only paid for 2 kids you have to consider if at some point in the future you might lose your job and have less money when you knowingly had more kids than benefits provide for. This is your CHOICE. It is not for the government or taxpayer to insure your risky decisions. Why is thinking about the future rather than assuming you will have a job for life so difficult in making such a big decision of having x number of kids?
But what if they didn't take it into account? Do we say fuck the kids, we don't care you're mother isn't coping and dad's in jail it's your fault for being born.
We have free contraception in this country. There is no good reason why anyone should be having babies they can't afford.
How do you get access to contraception after the event? Until very recently it involved going to your GP. If you're in an abusive relationship where your every moment is accounted for, that's not a realistic option.
moogstera, I'm delighted for you that you live in a world where everyone has healthy, functional relationships and nothing like this ever happens (though in all honesty it probably does and you're just unable to see it).
The government are deregualating labour, taking away long fought for employment rights, bringing in a system that offers no protection to workers, will encourage businesses to offer worthless shares in exchange for the right to fire you at will. It is all very well thinking that this move to cut benefits won't effect you.....
At some unspecified time there will be a cut off when it will matter not whether your child was born 8 months after you lost your job or 2 months before.... only that your next child is number 3
These two policies are going to effect thousands of families, even those who at the moment like to think that they are insulated and morally superior.
You won't be seen as the worthy poor when you lose your job, just because you happened to champion these Tory bastards ideas.
You can't alter your choices retrospectively though can you?
Moogster, I think you need to carry out some further research before asserting that those numbers are tiny. Unless you'd like to share the basis for that assumption?
You could have an injection, or an implant, or the coil before the event though.
And if you are at the stage of having your third child, then you really should know that.
Outraged what contraception is 100% safe?
On the other hand, if there had been a cap in place, and if she had required a less chaotic lifestyle in order to make ends meet, then she might have made different choices. Who knows, she might have fewer kids, and she might have happier kids.
Not saying that would have been right, just wondering what effect it might have had.
A lot of people are like children: they'll take the piss and use every inch of slack you give them.
I will say this again
At some unspecified time there will be a cut off when it will matter not whether your child was born 8 months after you lost your job or 2 months before.... only that your next child is number 3
because it will soon be more than possible for your employer to sack you at will with little recourse and little incentive not to.
How about removing the wombs of women (because it's all her responsibility after all) on benefits after 2 kids? That'll solve it!
None, but they are pretty good. If they were used correctly by everyone that was claiming benefits, and couldn't say no o sex, and who had already had two children, then there would be very very few children who had to be brought up on the same money their parents already had.
Mrsbeth do you think the children should then be made to suffer because of the bad decisions made by it's parents?
Freddo, are you suggesting that only people with an assured income and a job for life can have sex?
Outraged, as I said before, I was using the coil for 10 years, I still got pregnant with twins. An aunt of mine also got pregnant whilst using the coil when her then youngest was 11 years old. Luckily for both of us our husbands both have good jobs.
I am glad to be single
I am glad to have just one child
I am glad I won't ever have to have sex again.....unless I choose to.
Women ARE raped or coerced into sex on a far too regular basis. Or they are sold a dream by some utter arsehole of a bloke who promises the earth then walks away when the going gets tough.
Then society castigates the woman for daring to need support. Horrible state of affairs.
This policy is about nothing except selling on a myth ...that all women left as single parents are worthless sluts who spread their legs and now want taxpayers money. That families where adults have lost jobs are somehow reckless..that children are not worth protecting if they happen to be a third or fourth.
Can all those saying, "I don't see why I should pay for others to have more than two children" explain why I (childless) should pay for you personally to have any children?
No, thought not.
(I can come up with good reasons why I should - but they apply however many children you have.)
You can have an injection, implant or coil if you're aware of how to gain access to those things and given the freedom to make that decision for yourself. An awful lot of women still aren't. And that's assuming that you can take hormonal contraception, which many women can't.
Don't get me wrong. I'm all for personal responsibility. I would love to see these sorts of messages pushed far, far harder - but to the young who aren't having to already pick up the consequences of these mistakes. Teach them the skills to say no to unprotected sex, to stand up to sexist bullying, to sport the signs of an abusive/irresponsible man...
Removing the safety net from those who have already fallen foul of not learning those lessons just penalises the already penalised and their children.
Well, if I was in an abusive relationship right now, that would mean me sneaking out to a drop-in clinic one particular evening in the week, due to my obstetric history's complexity. I'm not sure how I'd manage it. At present it's a case of "I need more tablets, you're looking after the kids after dinner". In fact, I dunno how I'd take the tablets secretly every day.
What about people who are earning a reasonable salary but have big families, that are going to lose their child benefit altogether. That could make a substantial difference to their budget. But nobody seems to be bothering that much. And they could have the same problems if they became part of a blended family.
Mrsbeth, you are of course right but who knows. She doesn't provide for the children she does have already, she doesn't go without, but her children certainly do.
No, on page 10 I said:
"It would clearly be a good thing if people were responsible for the size of their family.
But how do you encourage that without punishing the kids?"
I just think it's important to recognise that neither option is a no-brainer.
If you cap it, you punish kids. If you don't cap it, you discourage responsibility, and that creates more poverty.
And when you've done that, could all the ones saying, "But my employer doesn't give more money for extra children" please cancel all the state benefits you're receiving for your extra children. Since you've just said you shouldn't be getting them.
god lord I really hope no one rains on the parades of some posters here - like with pissy rain such as cancer or adultery
I have 3 children, born in marriage, planned and wanted - my husband had an affair when my youngest was 7mths old ...and fell in love so left us
He pays child support, I work and I get tax credits to help pay my £650 a month childcare bill
I would struggle to work without CB
I have fiends who are single because their partners died of cancer - feckless bastards hey
Life is sometimes utterly shit no matter how well you plan
people need to stop being so fucking judgy and nasty - be very careful of karma
MrsKeithRichards - what about telling woman you can have as many DCs as you want/can physically have, just if you need benefits, you will get a set amount for 1 DC and then a larger amount for more than 1DC, that amount has to cover however many DCs you chose to have.
That's not saying woman can't have more DCs, it's not saying that people are wrong to have 4/5/6 DCs, just that it's their choice to make on the understanding if they do need to rely on benefits in the future (or do right now) the amount they get will not increase with any additional DCs.
As others have said, the size of your family is a personal choice, it's not the state's decision to make, in the same way it's not by DH's boss' decision to decide how many DCs we should have, but he doesn't give DH a pay rise if we have more DCs.
It will be hard for the DCs who currently exist, but long term, the idea is that people will not have more than 2 DCs unless they can be certain they can support them without state help - so it probably will just be higher earners to take that decision, but anyone can take a different decision, just not expect other people to take responsibilty for their decision.
There is a widow benefit for those who are widowed Gordy.
I wonder if there is a way to hold the parents responsible, without punishing people who have just been unlucky, and without punishing the kids?
This thing about it only applying to new claims could well backfire though. If you have 3 or 4 kids and come off benefits and start work and then loose your job 6 months or a year later you would then technically be making a new claim again so would only be eligible to claim for 2 children. That's a massive risk and disincentive for anyone in that position to start working surely?
(BTW - when it was first brought in, CB was only paid for the first DCs, you didn't get extra for more DCs, I don't see anything wrong with going back to that, you would then get a set amount for having a family, regardless of the size of the family)
Freddo, are you suggesting that only people with an assured income and a job for life can have sex?
Clearly not, as that would be ridiculous.
What I'm saying is that if you already have two children, then you and the person you had sex with are 100% responsible for the consequences of the sex you have.
MrsBethel - no there isn't, not without massive means and 'morality' testing (and who decides that?).
The point is that any system is always going to end up with its piss takers. Such is life. However, as long as the minority of piss takers is less than the number of 'deserving' candidates who will be unfairly punished if cuts are made, it's a price we have to pay in order to live in a civilised society IMO.
"It is not for the government or taxpayer to insure your risky decisions."
When "risky decision" include having children, not being immortal, and not being independently wealthy, yes it absolutely is for the government to insure us.
That's what the welfare state is.
So, how far is this going to go? Will the third child of middle-class parents be unentitled to education at a state school? Or would that be a vote- loser?
* Cap benefits at 3 kids + 1 multiple birth (let's not be silly, you don't have more than 4 deliveries by accident). (exc rape)
* 'Test' benefits above and beyond 2 kids: if the pregancy was unforseen/unlucky you get them as normal. Tricky to define, but not impossible. Tough to prevent people sabotaging their own birth control, so you'd have to mandate that jonnies alone are not enough.
* If the pregnancy was planned, then for kids #3 and #4 you get the benefits as now, but they will be clawed back from you once the youngest reaches 16 through reduced benefits.
Its a really good idea, everyone knows that if you have too many kids at any point you can just take them to the child swap shop.
Then when you have more income you can pick them up again, just like apawn shop.
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".*
See, the problem I have with this is that larger families on benefits are already going to be hit by the 26k cap (unless a family member has a disability). If you live in an expensive area (aka daan saaf) and you rent privately, a huge chunk of that 26k could easily be taken up just from rent. Large families on benefits are already going to see a huge reduction in the amount they have to buy food and pay bills.
Or maybe the argument is just framed in a way that suggests jobless people living on benefits, but the real targets are the working poor. I should imagine an outright attack on the working poor would raise all sorts of awkward questions about low wages and limited job prospects and lack of training opportunities.
Yes, parents who have many children without the means to support them are feckless. It isn't the child's fault. It won't be the child's fault in 2015 either.
Wow, MrsBethel, that is some scary-ass totalitarian state you would like to inflict on us.
What about a new law saying that if a family's third child passes the 11 plus, the state will charge fees for attendance at the grammar? Could claw back a little bit of money, eh?
This all seems a bit dotty.
I agree that automatic child benefit for more than 2 children is a luxury we cannot afford as a society/economy.
Not looking after those in some/most of the circumstances described above would be unthinkable. IDS, as I understand it, just wants to take away the automatic element. This would save money but also free up money for more targeted benefits.
When child benefit was first brought in you didn't actually get it for the first child at all. Only for the second and subsequent children. That certainly wasn't fair. Called family allowance but basically the same thing.
widowed parent allowance
is about £100 per week. It is taken into account if you are claiming other benefits.
So basically it will disappear up the arse of Income Support
So even the 'deserving' will be screwed sideways.
I am being made redundant next year - by this government - so which of my 3 should I leave on Cameron's doorstep?
I think it's a good idea and it will save millions! so brave OP well done and glad to read the comments.
Good idea, TheBig <nods sagely>
How about if private schools that accept 3rd or subsequent children lose their charitable status?
When my OH's degenerative condition stops him from working....
is that when I will finally see what all that 'its for the best' shite I got when DD died really meant?
One less child born to feckless parents who neglected to look into the future.
And I suppose we could put DS back in care.
That would bring us down to the MN approved limit.
Its good to have a plan.
Gordy it's been said a few times now that the reductions wouldn't apply to existing children
i would be interested to hear if anyone proposing these draconian measures would be affected by these changes and also suffer financial hardship due to them.
I suspect not
The youngest. You only need a first-born hair and a spare. The aristocracy and upper middle-classes used to consign third-borns to the clergy, didn't they? Monasteries and nunneries? I'm sure the camerons will have contacts at the ready.
IDS has said that this isn't going to apply to current families (so those with more than 2 children now). So everyone who wants more than 2 will know (from a certain date) that benefits won't pay for their 3rd, 4th, 5th etc kids. So anyone having more than 2 children after that date will be putting their children in a situation where they suffer from financial hardship if they are reliant on benefits, not the taxpayer or government. That is their responsibility and they should be made accountable for making their children suffer in the full knowledge that they will have less money to go around.
IDS, as I understand it, just wants to take away the automatic element. This would save money but also free up money for more targeted benefits.
Again that sounds reasonable - yet I guesses many of us are cynical that would actually happen especially in the age of austerity.
I suspect this is yet another way of doing away with the whole concept. Yet another thing targeting DC rather than other sections of society - increasingly the wealth in this society is with the pensions or nearly pensionable age group who dont seem to be facing cuts cant remember who they vote for.
Probably not Fangs. People who are in support of policies like this tend to be people that believe in cutting their cloth to fit their means.
Going back to page 5, I'd like to know more about Mosman and when she had ICSI. Did you get it a bit cheaper because they put eggs back, not embryos?????
What a crock. Pathetic.
moog that doesn't help women in my situation in the future though does it
we really need to get away from the mythology surrounding the poor
Most single parents WORK, most women do NOT plan to be single or to have 46478648748 kids by different men, most benefit claimants don't have thousands of children, most people only claim when they need to and claim what they need
a lot of benefit goes unclaimed
the POOR and the working poor are not the problem or the enemy - stop believing the propaganda
seriously - I had to listen to en endless parade of tory apologists banging on about hardworking people paying for 'other peoples' housing benefit 2 weeks ago - all of them failing to grasp the 37% increase in the number of working people claiming housing benefit - HARD WORKING people - on shitty 0 hours contracts and shitty pay
Outraged..or live in some privileged world and just like to run off at the mouth about stuff they know nothing about
there was a reason the welfare state was created, post war no jobs rising poverty which was leading to a massive rise in crime. so it was brought in to not only stop people turning to crime and to raise the standard of living but to protect the rich from being targeted. so maybe when crime goes through the roof because people are turning to crime the tories will think oh maybe we should give them back there few hundred pounds a month to live on so we dont have to hire more police, nurses, build more prisons etc. its so ridiculous it is laughable and it makes me sad that people eat it up with a spoon. yes tory government tell us who the next evil group in society we need to hate is.
It's not just the poor it would apply to, though. It's everyone who gets tax credits, child benefit. Nobody is just picking on one part of society, just making people responsible for their own lifestyle choices.
it's the poor who would suffer for it though!
Oh dear, wankers out to play again?
This is all a complete smokescreen. Demonising the feckless over-breeding underclass and blaming them for all the ills of society and holding them responsible for the current economic recession - it's all COBBLERS. This is what the Tories do. It's what they have ALWAYS done.
So our current economic woes are all the fault of Labour encouraging the chavs are they? Do you know how many £billions have been spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and how many £billions have been pissed away by the international banking sector over the past decade?
Those who forget history are condemned to repeat it.
No Fangs, I expect they do know by the time they have had two children that sex makes babies thankfully.
mrsbethel are there millions of children growing up in households were no one has ever worked (or will ever work)?
yes...of course only right wing people know that
People obviously have strong feelings about this but what part of "don't have more than two children if you can't independently maintain that third, fourth, etc, child" is unreasonable?
Where is the suffering in only having two children?
my last post was to Outraged
But people only seem to want to tell other people how many children to have.
The important word being other.
Other = different = not us = less than.
Christ moogs I unhide the thread and it's turned into a rare old car crash!!
I actually agree in principle, it wouldn't actually affect any of our existing children or any born before 2015 so people could be prepared to a certain extent.
What's getting on my nerves is the constant Rich Tory twat bashing. I have never and will never vote Conservative, but do you honestly think that a different government would leave things as they are right now? In his last day in office Liam Byrne told his replacement that there was 'no money left' as a joke apparently... Ever thought it may have been true?
Politicians are politicians whatever their party colour. A simple truth is that many policies passed by any government would not ever touch the political classes in anyway, especially financial.
Yes many Tory ministers are rich. As are many Labour and Lib Dem politicians. Many of them went to private school, put their kids through private school and don't know the price of a loaf of bread until their SPAD tells them. They are ALL the same in my book
Btw, IDS is not actually a privatley educated blah blah blah. He left a Catholic school at 14 to go a merchant navy school, went to Uni then Sandhurst before joining the Scots Guards.
he is just a Tory twat then
Exactly. It's all in the details fangs
hahahaha yes everyone in society will be effected. except the people that dont need the money to live on. they will be fine the people that need the money to live on will be forced in to moral dilemmas, woman will still get pregnant. so then what, does she have an abortion?
what if she doesn't agree with abortion? so put the child up for adoption? right. or struggle with the prospect that you will get no extra money for this child even though the government will not cap stupid rents that are continuing to rise and will freeze pay rises. so you will have to stretch the food, the heating, the water, hand down the clothes a bit more, they will do another child and you make do because. lets face it family is about more than can you afford it it's about can you love and create a beautiful person that is going to be good in the world. it is pathetic that your worth is measured only by your ability to provide money and if you cant you are worth nothing. i lived on council estates a large portion of my life and lots of people there just getting on with life heads down raising families trying to get better for themselves. oddly didnt see many 10 kid families in fact I dont think I have ever seen one.
there are your stereotypical shitty families but they are about 1 in 20 if that, the loudest voice and all. i would rather the system got played by a few people and helped the people that need it than it blanketly screw everyone.
See for me this isn't really about money. The last 2 generations have been raised with this 'entitlement' belief and i think these kind of proposals will make people more aware of their own responsiblities. The welfare state in this country has been too generous for too long. Yes it should be there for those who genuinely need it (by that i mean those genuinely incapable of working) but the current system is far too easily abused and needs to change. There are way too many people who have kids just because 'they want them'. I would like lots of things including another child but i simply cannot afford them, i live within my means. Obviously there are other issues needing addressed such as high cost of living/low wages/childcare costs etc.
"There are way too many people who have kids just because 'they want them'."
I thought the majority of people have children because they just want them? Or have I missed something?
Aren't blended families better for the environment? One houseful being kept to 18 degrees is better than two. And there's a housing shortage.
Can the world afford the British government discouraging family blending?
why did you have kids then crazyhatlady did you not want them?
ok let me rephrase it 'too many people who can't afford them'
Now, now... Play nicely.
We ALL know what crazyhat meant.
I don't agree with this idea. Society is so utterly unfair, that as far as I'm concerned, if the rich (many of whom haven't worked for their riches) can knock as many children out as they like, so should poorer people. Of course it would be better if everyone had no more than 2 (ideally 1) children, but the same "rules" should apply across the board.
flob it is certainly relevant that we are being governed by people who have lived not just privileged lives but rarefied ones.
They have never had to worry about money, their feet have never touched the ground.
They cannot possibly understand the slightest part of being ordinary, let alone poor or disenfranchised.
And they don't want to.
They are like the posters on MN who truly believe that Jeremy Kyle is a documentary rather than a carefully staged exercise in exploitation.
I am not against private education but I think the two examples prove that it cant buy you intelligence.
It's going to have to become much easier to get an abortion. None of this 2 doctors signing a certificate crap, or having to prove that continuing a pregnancy is bad for your mental health.
How do people feel about midwives handing out abortion advice leaflets to poor women who have become pregnant with a 3rd child?
Or, pushitrealgood, people will just bring their third child up on the same money that they had to bring two children up on. The same as most people already do. This isn't going to plunge people into desperate poverty FFS. It will just mean that the money that had to provide for four people will have to provide for five. I really don't think it's that big a deal.
but if all the poor stop fecklessly having children who will mind the future children of the rich ...and clean their bogs!
seriously it is not the issue - the poor are not the problem
But life is unfair badger.
We're not on a level playing field to start with and then it carries on.
Jeremy Kyle could be a documentary of my area. Easy. In fact it's compared to Shamless, people seem to take pride in that fact
We should fight unfairness Wingedharpy and not encourage it via Tory policies.
"How do people feel about midwives handing out abortion advice leaflets to poor women who have become pregnant with a 3rd child?"
Outraged, shocked and offended, tbh
What about parents like us after having BC's and have adopted 5 DD4 was in residential care was costing £5000/ week and DD 4 £1000/week we have saved this country millions.
I fear for looked after children
SmellsLikeTeenStrop - I think your missing the point we are clearly not supposed to be having sex.
Once youre a mother clearly sex is inappropriate.
Have we pointed out yet that statutory maternity pay is a state benefit?
Cutting that would make third children completely unaffordable for a very wide swathe of two income (or lone parent) families.
Gordy, no ones stopping anyone else from having children. Have two children for free by all means. After that, take some responsibility.
Being able to have two children, paid for entirely by other people, is not really a bad position to be in.
Before you say it, yes, I know this will affect working people too, but still, having support to have two children when you can't provide for them entirely yourself, is not a bad position to be in.
Actually, that brings up another point. There have been discussions in government concerning the reduction of the gestational age limit on abortions. So women will face a financial pressure to terminate, and have less time to make a decision.
I do not want to see women feeling coerced into terminating.
Third children are already unaffordable for a large swathe of two income families! That's the whole point!
how gracious of you Freddos
' don't agree with this idea. Society is so utterly unfair, that as far as I'm concerned, if the rich (many of whom haven't worked for their riches) can knock as many children out as they like, so should poorer people. Of course it would be better if everyone had no more than 2 (ideally 1) children, but the same "rules" should apply across the board. '
Great point badgeroncaffeine
I thought so
If the ''rules'' are going to apply across the board, then the rich will be given free money too then, no?
Or the ones who can't afford their children will be given nothing right? Just the same as the ones who can afford it.
After all, the same rules should apply across the board!
Have listened, read and thought and have a simple solution.
All men have to have a vasectomy before second pregnancy goes to term. Enforced by custodial sentence. No buts, no excuses.
And here's the best bit, a universal policy, regardless of income
Having children isn't a right it's a right it's a responsibility. In the town near me I see lots and lots of young girls with babies in very nice buggies( much better than the second hand crappy one we had).
My own niece has 2 kids and she does work, feckless twat if a boyfriend does not and plays computer games all day. They get housing benefit, endless other handouts and yes it does stick in my throat as we both work full time to support our 4 kids, 2 in uni.
It seems to me that our country isn't divided into the haves and the have nots it's divided by the lazy feckless entitled grabbing clever ones and the hard working just surviving money managing ignored majority.
Agree with you op.
Haven't read all thread.BUT...what about people who have more than 2 children and then find themselves unemployed etc? It is happening to more and more people.
hilarious so if the money is already stretched then what is stretching it that little bit more, your right they will and good parents will go with out, or bills wont get paid. suicides will probably go up as well as people more and more just dont know were to turn or what to do for the children that they love.
or you know maybe they wont care because they are all feckless fag smoking, druggies that watch jeremy kyle.
you can't do that nametakenagain, human rights and all that, oh wait ... the ConDems want to scrap the human rights act. As you were.
and if vasectomy fails?
All men have to have a vasectomy
Brilliant idea, it should be rolled out in Westminster first to see if it will have the desired effect of stopping these nasty elite toads from spawning.
Interesting nametaken. So, what would that achieve then?
It would stop feckless men from breeding.
You're just not getting this are you? The rich have already been "given free money". How do you think they became rich? Mainly, it was at the expense of the rest of us, either now or in previous generations. There are one or two exceptions who have worked for it, but the majority simply shafted the rest of us.
I wouldn't use big words like 'totalitarian' umtil you know what they mean. Either that or you must think the jobcentre is North Korea. They asked me about pretty much everything.
Seriously, has anyone got anything useful/constructive/interesting to say? Bullshit tribal-politics may be easy, but it doesn't help anyone.
OP, YANBU - each and every one of us needs to decide whether we can have a child based upon affordability. And please tell me I'm the only one who's not gone in to a second pregnancy praying it's not twins because of how much it would've made things difficult.
I'd also argue frankly that if that few quid a week means you "can't have a child" then you couldn't afford it anyway.
Erm, yeah ok then. You know that about all rich people do you?
My own niece has 2 kids and she does work, feckless twat if a boyfriend does not and plays computer games all day. They get housing benefit, endless other handouts and yes it does stick in my throat as we both work full time to support our 4 kids, 2 in uni.
She won't get endless handouts. HB, CTB, CTC and possibly WTC depending on how much she earns and the hours she works.
Both you and your DH work, and you have 2 kids in university yet you're jealous of a poor young woman living with a deadbeat but still working and showing her DCs a good example.
How about not giving middle class and upper class children, why should these cuts hit the poor?? How about capping childcare costs , so that people can actually afford good child care for the children and go back to work.
and yeah outraged you know all the people on benefits.
how about not giving middle and upper class children child benefit?? is what i meant to say
Well wages have been in decline for the past 30 years, no wonder family size is shrinking.
Maybe we will all get to a point where none of us, even if in work can afford to have ANY children.
The capitalist has always paid enough to keep a workers at subsistence level and enough for him to reproduce........but now we have a labour surplus with a rising tide of unemployed people. So mr capitalist doesn't want his workers to have babies.
MrsBethel - you were advocating a system whereby the facts around a pregnancy would need to be investigated by the government and they woukd get a say in your choice of contraception.
That's not currently the kind of thing the job centre does at the moment.
Now is it?
I guess if you think "totalitarian" is a big word you should find someone dumber than you to patronise.
I'm to trying to pretend that I do! That's the difference.
That would include you too then Ghostship?
You are they.
They are you.
Dont kid yourself any of the pro cuts posters on this thread see you as any different.
They're already doing that.
They're already doing that.
Have we got a parrot in the room
Most people are one paycheck away from the dole due to the current economy and debts e.g. credit cards, so i hope none of you never have to claim benefits. Its funny because when the original benefit system was formed Beverage said there are two different types of people ''the deserving and undeserving poor'' basically what allot of posters are saying, its easy to resent people on benefits due to the propaganda by the current government, but i would hate this country to be like the U.S or China
The culture of jealousy of those with less is utterly bizarre.
'I live in a comfortable, 4 bed house with a garden but the single mother down the road gets a FREE two bedroom flat. Its stick in my throat' Why?
'My husband works hard so I can be a SAHM and we have to live on 150k a year and we are not entitled to any WTC, yet the family down the road who live on 15k get it! Its not FAIR' Why?
You don't need to know every rich person to know that most of them didn't work for it. In fact, even if they did, they were clearly being "paid" much more than is ever justified (such as bankers and footballers) and shouldn't have such vastly different wealth to most other people.
it really is beyond madding people are not money making robots, do you raise you children to think that all that is important in life is to work and earn money so that they are productive members of society? sure we all need some where to live and food to eat etc but after that everything else is a bonus. even people on benefits put back in to the capitalist society they buy products which they pay vat on, they keep business going there are whole things marketed just at them (bright house). i know i am going off topic but i find peoples mind sets on here so thoroughly depressing.
Dolomite I'm confused. Are you saying you avoided a second pregnancy, in case it was twins, or that you went into a second pregnancy without worrying about it, or something else that I didn't understand?
There are a lot of people that do work for what they have, that don't have anywhere near enough money to consider themselves rich.
Why do these threads always become rich versus poor without thinking of the vast majority of the population that falls somewhere inbetween?
Yes, a lot of rich people are rich because they are overpaid. A lot of poor people are poor because they are lazy. What about it? Not every rich person is overpaid, not every poor person is lazy. Generalisations are not helpful to a debate like this, especially when they are made about people who are irrelevant to the policy we are discussing.
Don't be ridiculous. If you don't want to fill out the form, don't claim it. A simple matter of referencing GP records.
I'm not saying it is without flaw, hence the framing as a suggestion for constructive criticism. Some of that would be nice, rather than glib slanging.
I find the constant Godwin's Law lite offensive. Think of people who actually have known totalitarianism before being so flippant.
What sort of income do mumsnetters define as rich?
pushit I hear you, I find it "thoroughly depressing" that benefits claimants bleat on about "blah blah what if you become unemployed yada yada can't meet the bills wibble wibble" and haven't understood the basic premise of the statement - which was, changes to child benefit will not affect any children currently born.
jessie Probably my crappy english, sorry. I went in to my second pregnancy thinking "oh please only be one", because if #2 had transpired to be both #2 and #3 it would've had a dramatic impact on our family finances and we'd have had to significantly change our lives. After #2 we opted for sterilisation because we cannot afford #3. (We both work).
Something which I have picked up on is this making the poor poorer, since this government has been in we have seen our income (no benefits given to us) stay the same but our money no longer goes far enough. We are 'well off' on paper but when the bills come in they eat everything, we don't go on holiday or have sky or get loads of takeaways etc. I think capping at 2 is a good idea, the welfare bill is just too high
Awful idea. And an obvious snidey attack on H.M Queenie, her children, all four of them, deserve to be kept in the style they've become accustomed to.
Seriously though it's all a bit "Hand Maidens Tale" for me.Mind you every pronouncement by this Government is bizarre.Odd fuckers.
Because it is rich v poor, anytime in history there are financial crisis's in a country the poor and vulnerable are always targeted and yet there are other places cuts can be made. Also if you really want people off the dole there are other issues rather than how many kids people have. If people are having more kids as a source of income, which i think is bullshit, why is that?
Actually I don't think it's going to make a huge financial impact whatsoever, the figures involved with CB are so small it's not really relevant.
I think it's the message contained within which is what matters: "stop buying/doing shit you can't afford", be it shiny tat for your house or children whose mouths you cannot feed. No longer can the bill for people's thoughtless actions be picked up.
i understand fine that it will not effect current children, what difference does that make to it being a horrible policy. i do not subscribe to the idea of i will be ok so fuck everyone else.
also it isnt about child benefit its about tax credits.
Out of my six siblings the youngest nineteen is the first never to have had a first time job, as there are none, he was looking for a job to help him pay his way through uni, there are none. The government has wasted ridiculous amounts of money on stupid scenes such as the A4E job scheme www.youtube.com/watch?v=9T-LQsuYBYs that flopped, how about that??
Smells, yes they boast about the benefits they get to all the family.
I love her but yes I am pissed off that he sits on his arse all day playing games.?
My older kids got part time jobs at 16 to help family finances.
Sorry but there are feckless lazy arses out there on hand outs. And I do vote labour btw.
though capping child benefit which is supposed to be a universal benefit for all who have children is disgusting the real impact would be tax credit.
just jumping in with some info. i havent got further than page 4 yet but so far
fishwife fyi. the £500 bonus changed some time ago so it is only now paid to families without any other children who qualify for cb and are resident in the household. so first child only.
and the other poster who was going on about the tax credit baby premium that was also removed either last year or the year before you no longer get any additional amount for a child under 1
""stop buying/doing shit you can't afford", be it shiny tat for your house or children whose mouths you cannot feed"
Yes. Because shiny tat and small, defenceless human beings are pretty much the same thing, aren't they?
Have just had a bizarre thought. Has anyone factored in the number of people who do not reproduce. Only 1 of my 8 offsprings has had DC's ( only 2)
I will have no more GC by their choice or unable. Perhaps this will redress the balance Sorry to be flippant but that is a 14 children deficit
So, with that in mind Dolomites, are you in support of a 2 child limit or a 2 pregnancy limit?
I know two families that had three children and ended up producing two grandchildren between them!
I suspect it's more about the overall cost to the system of troubled families, and the morality of a system that encourages so many children to be born into a hopeless situation.
Whether you agree with IDS's proposals or not (I don't, as it happens), I think he is doing it because he thinks it's the right thing.
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
It doesn't sound too complicated to make additional children ineligible for child benefit claims. Maybe it could help influence people's decisions but I sort of doubt it's the most effective type of cap.
comunity care grants are only availible to those who recive a limited number of benefits and also
are leaving or have just left an institution or hospital
nedd support remaining in the comunity instead of entering a institution or hospital.
are part of a planned resetlement program
or are about to become responsable for a young offender leaving custody on license
and help with making an none standered journey like to care for a sick relative or attend a funeral for a person whom you hold some formal responsability for.
you can claim for something called exceptional presure on families, however the liklyhood of being sucessfull for this unless you have documented evidence of essential equipment needing to be replaced as a direct result of a domestic violence incidence. or
significant breakdown with family resulting in you having to move (and you had no legal right to remain in your previous home)
you are disabled or have significant illness and you urgently require an essential bit of equipment that is needed as a direct result of the disability and illness and you have no other way of funding it.
your house falls down/floods/burns down/ some other disaster that renders your home unsafe to live in and you can prove it. (in very exceptional circumstances sever overcrowding will get concideration but not much)
you also have to be applying for funds to obtain an item/s that will activly remove the problem.
and no matter how important the item/s is/are to the claiment it only matters if the dwp agree. & that no other dept has an obligation to provide its not for daily living costs (unless its the young offender one)
sorry but your sil did not get a ccg because she had a baby your talking bollocks
Haven't read all the replies but I think it's a very good idea indeed!
Silly me Sock, of course you know my SIL and her circumstances better than her own family. If you would go back and reread my post I would like you to point out where I said my SIL got a community care grant BECAUSE she had a baby.
There's some dreadful comments on this thread
I think its an appallingly ill thought out idea that will in the future be devastating to children.
i have 5 children and claim CB and CTC. If this were to be reduced to just 2 we'd struggle. What i find odd is that people either see you as a benefit claimant or a taxpayer..........most benefit claimants are taxpayers!
I would love 5 kids... I can't afford them though!!
your info about cb is incorrect massivly cb (originally called family allowence)
started in 1946 it paid nothing for the first/eldest child but did pay for 2nd 3rd 4th + children
in about 1952 it increased amounts from the equililent of 25p for each additional child to 40p but still didnt fund the first child
it increased again in 1956 for each 3rd child + to 50p but still remained the same for 2nd child and didnt pay for 1st.
in 1977 family allowence was renamed child benefit and for the first time paid for the first child and all subsiquent children untill
1991 when it changed to pay a higher amount for the first child but kept the lower amount for all subsiquent children.
at no time in the uk has child benefit/family allowence ever just paid for the first child.
outraged widows benefit has not existed since 2001. we now have breavement benefit that has some very strange rules and fewer people qualify.
I don't think there should be a benefit cap on two. Mabe means test it...some people do get pregnant and don't want an abortion but benefit capping would force more women into aborting. Contraception fails etc. I think that we should stop giving everyone £500 towards the child trust fund. Abolish that for everyone. Anyone who has kids to claims benefits is bonkers imo. It's such hard work.
I am a single mum and I work but need tax credit top ups. I would love to get a better paid job in my profession but I have been rejected at a couple of interviews in favour of better qualified women with rich hsubands who want to go back to work after kids. Some of the women told me they had moved as their dh got a promotion. I am left feeling that thay are going for the jobs I want for a bit of extra pocket money whilst my financial and career survival long tem depends on it and goodness knows I would love to work harder, earn more and get less benefits.
Why the resentment peeps? I think middle class families in general have less kids as child rearing is hard work and most mums have in that group are better educated and don't want to waste their education by having more kids whereas mabe women from less well educated backgrounds are bought up to see motherhood as more normal than getting a career. I do generalise of course as nowadays we have the
yummy mummy career mums.
Well that just makes you look churlish and envious then doesn't it zombiebunny
Rather than consigning thousands of children to penury, it might be better to ask why peoples incomes are now so low in relation to outgoings that they can not afford to have children.
Yes I fully admit I'm envious. I love going to work and missing seeing my kids grow up to pay for others to stay at home. Love it.
Actually...how about making it financially viable for one parent to go to work whilst the other looks after the children they have chosen to have!?... concept I know.
One of the main reasons why we have two children is the financial cost of having more. When you work, more children = less money; certain parts of the benefits system means that more children = more money and / or a bigger house. I don't think that this is entirely fair
I love work; is it not possible for most people to get a balance between seeing their kids grow up AND working? Surely it's healthier that way? due to cuts a creche has been closed, bus services have been culled and shops have gone under, all taking jobs with them. Plus my job was paid a lot more before the recession and now is paid peanuts.
Missed part of my post whcih said that if the goverment want more people to work and get off benefits then they should stop cutting jobs. Therein lies teh hypocracy.
I do think that the whole thread makes children sound like commodities ; rather like cars or a new piece of garden furniture rather than human beings but that's just me.
Also, now I come to think of it many of the squeezed middle couples I know get benefits. They also work so it's not just the feckless council scum who get benefits y'all.
You know what, you're right. The feckless poor annoy me so much, we should punish them by letting them watch their children starve. Because historically, you know, that worked out really well.
These are children you are talking about. But because you don't approve of their parents, they can fucking starve. The lack of empathy and compassion on here is making me feel sick.
I don't give a fuck if there are people out there taking the piss out of the benefits system. A civilised society does not allow children to suffer, irrespective of to whom they were born.
And for those saying "it's not fair that I have to limit my children to my income when they don't," well it's not particularly fair that David Cameron was born into such wealth that he has never had to think about money, when others have to actually work to survive, but I don't hear you calling for higher taxes on the rich, no, I hear you suggest taking money from the poorest in society.
toptramp the payments to the child trust fund have been stopped. no child born after 2/1/11 will recive it.
the point you appear to have missed is, that for her to get a ccg. she is clearly in a suituation that qualifys her to recive one,most people who have an understanding of what that criteria actually is may have just a little bit of compassion.
as opposed to implying shes a feckless sponging scrounger whose rolling in it because of all the hand outs she gets.
unless ofcourse your trying to say she obtained it fraudulently? if thats the case report her.
Makes me feel sick too, TitWillow.
I hate these threads, they are full of posters rubbing their hands in glee at the thought of children going without.
I think it's a stupid idea from a party whose ancestors brought up the Poor Laws and are stuck in about 1850.
Finally we have a politician prepared to say, by all means have 10 kids but the rest of the tax paying community can only fund 2. If you want more, please do. But you'll have to support them out of your own pocket. Just like the rest of 'em.
Imagine the state we'd be in if all the middle classes started having all these kids? Most couldn't afford to do so and pay child care so guess what? On to state benefit they go.
I personally think it should be a slightly phased approach I.e after August 2013, financial benefit will only be given to the 1st 2 children. Not applicable to those born before this date. Therefore all the scroungers (well, it's not the kiddies' fault their parents are lowlife), partially working and fully working families who rely on this benefit will be untouched. It will quite nicely stop all those who are planning their third or more to rely on the hard slog of others to pay for them to have child after child. As someone who would rather not work but does, full time and hard, I am bloody delighted!
Baby, why do you work full time?
Seems sensible, although lots of things to consider:
- multiple births
- children by different partners
- whether for children already born
- what to do when people have 6-7 children and end up in poverty
However there is something really wrong with the current system where only the very rich or very poor can "afford" big families.
I have heard stories from my cleaner about her DD's friends who get pregnant as they can't be bothered to get a job, and this does not sound fair to me.
Horrific thread, with such a lack of care for children. Oh the rich can have what children they want; only the poor should be penalised (along with all the appalling stigma now being levelled at these already vulnerable people).
So many people basically want to bring back conditions of poverty for children who have no say in the matter.
We are not far from there being people here applauding the idea of workshouses for the undeserving, or God forbid, sterilisation. What about contraceptive accidents and Catholics who don't believe in contraception? What about those whose circumstances change?
My grandfather lived in poverty, pre-welfare state - in the 20's he was reduced to eating grass, like many people in the community where he lived. That is the route this kind of policy would heading down - families living in starvation situations or being bullied by the state into some kind of social control program.
This political party have not a scintilla of humanity in them, if this is what they recommend.
Middle class people don't have more tahn two kids generally as they are more educated and would rather get on with their careers than remain permanently sprogged up. Having said that that it is a growing trend for middle class families to have three or more because they can. It makes me feel like children are a bit of a status symbol for some; as long as they are nice middle class children of course.
what will be the saving doing this? a billion. isn't that what tesco's make every minute or something?
radical thought here, but why not make the people who can afford it pay
you know, like the bankers and massive corporations.
these cuts will only harm the most vulnerable members of our society - children.
i honestly can't understand why people can't see that.
toptramp I went to school with a lot of upper middle class offspring,they were all from 3+ children families. So it is
bollocks silly to say that educated people don't have larger families.
I have a friend married to her DH who went to Eton, they have four children. The upper middles have always had large families. It is the lower aspirationals who have smaller families. They can only shin up the pole if both work, that has been the case for 30 plus years.
Also toptramp careers aren't the be all and end all for most people. Having the ability to provide for their children is.
This thread is just so depressing. I really don't think that everyone can be happy with the solution. There has always been feckless breeders. They used to live in slums pre-WWII and the children suffered terribly. I don't think returning to that is the answer.
It may surprise many people on this thread to know that benefits played no part in my decision to have five children.
People limit and extend their families for many reasons. A lot of people stating proudly how they have stopped at two because they cant afford more mean 'we have two because we like expensive things'
So they berate other parents for not doing certain things e.g. out of school activities, adventure holidays, buying shoes from clarks , blah blah.
They start threads about how feeding your children cheap food is tantamount to child abuse.
Because they want to justify their lifestyles as 'decent and hardworking' and their choices 'as for the welfare of their children'
When really all they are, are choices. They do it because they want to.
I had my children because I wanted to. I took DS2 because I was asked to and he needed me.
Child benefit and working tax credit didn't cross my mind.
I do not think I am the only woman in the country on a low income who feels this way.
Minitheminx you're dead on with that observation. Agree completely.
why not make ALL work pay well so that a family can comfortably live on one wage, that will create less surplus labour because their will be opportunities for more families to have at least one working adult.
Oh dear.....that won't work, just imagine the boss making less profit.
Thankfully this cannot be brought into effect (it would bankrupt the country if it did) because of the UN conventions around child poverty and the rights of the child.
Lots of laws would have to be overturned to make this cost effective, including the Children's Act.
All that would happen is that poorer families would have their children put onto 'Child In Need' plans which would get them more money than benefits would.
The government would have to ensure that services are available for these families.
Either that or there would be mass protests in area's of high unemployment and rioting.
Immagration and foreign Aid would have to be stopped, also.
there obv, very tired! it's all that work. When you work, you work long hours, when you don't you get defamed.
"They used to live in slums pre-WWII and the children suffered terribly."
That was the general working class and exploited labour, once cannon fodder wasn't needed, in most industrial towns.
This thread makes me feel sick too.
This idea is wrong on so many levels. Most of them have already been mentioned: multiple births, rape, abusive relationships, people losing their jobs, spouses dying, blended families, disabled families, looked after children, accidental pregnancies, father who don't pay childcare.
It is morally wrong, and if so many people can't see that then I despair.
I think this new 2020 euro plan is replacing all other goals on poverty and the goals to reduce child poverty have been dropped from this.
We cannot drop the goals to reduce child poverty unless we opt out of parts of the EU.
This needs explaining to voters, what is being proposed cannot be done.
They are bound by the ruling that says that all those in the EU must have raised the living standards for families and made an improvement in child poverty rates by 2020.
It is tougher than when we had to introduce ECM.
The Children Act will have to have amendments to ensure this.
There will have to be a new Child Poverty Act and Strategy, put through the legal system to ensure that it complies with the EU directive.
I don't know what this rubbish is covering up, but it's like the policies put forward on immigration, they couldn't have done what they said they were thinking off, we would have been fined by the EU.
It was just a vote winner.
Birds no,the working class were poor but did not all live in slums.
I don't see how what you have said negates my statement that the children suffered because there was no support available.
talking about this on question Time now.
birds - so basically what is being suggested is actually illegal?
Some woman on Quesion Time "why do young women who get pregnant when they're single get given all this help when young people who pay tax and work don't". Because obviously,if you're young,female,unmarried (the legal definition of single) and get pregnant,you can't possibly have been working yourself. Lovely attitude lady from slough.
"birds - so basically what is being suggested is actually illegal?"
We would have to break EU directives, in lots of areas, around the Rights of the Child, welfare benefits, Poverty, deprevation and Human Rights.
Also the way that the Children Act 1989 and 2004, including ECM is written, those families that didn't get benefits and where experiencing hardship would have to have the LA (SS) step in and provide what is missing, at a much higher cost.
so it's just a big wind up then?
fucking tory wankers
stick to painting birdbaths or whatever the fuck you do
It would take three generations to get any sort of results just as the current situation didn't happen over night.
Those up in arms, what is your solution because throwing money at the feckless didn't work so you can understand having failed with the carrot why the stick is the logical next step, but if not that then what ?
I see schools in deprived areas that look like mini Disney lands and the parents still don't take the children in, obviously staying at home with mum if preferable (said sarcastically) with all the facilities school has to offer there is no way the children are staying away so what do we do to get the horse to water and make it drink because the current system is not working and we are still the highest rate in Europe if teen pregnancies I believe despite there being no council properties for the last 10 years.
i don't know mosman. who does? do you? does Cameron? does anybody?
but capping benefits that will directly affect children IS NOT THE ANSWER
There's evidence that the children don't receive the benign of the money now so what's the point.
Mosman tell me about your ICSI and eggs and stuff...
because however shit their lives are now they would possibly be even shitter with less money.
Perhaps we could start by stop giving child benefits to:
1) people who pay higher rate tax
2) children who view breeding as an alternative to work
What would you like to know Glue
About them putting back eggs
It's very short sighted. Look what happened with China's 'one child policy': they now have a social care crisis.
We already have a social care crisis. If you reduce the number of children you 'allow' each poorer family to have, you not only increase child poverty, you also increase the likelihood that the state will be paying to look after the parents in their old age...
Which why everyone who agrees with idea has clearly stated that it would not impact the children already here. There would need to be at least a three year "warning period" and can you imagine the birth rate spike in the lead up to the cut off.
What about it ? The medical proceedure involved ?
Yes, what eggs do they put back?
So basically birdsgottafly, the Tories are like my shitty ex. Loads of big promises but without the means to deliver on them.
Even they put back the ones that have survived the thawing process and look most likely to go to blasts in my case but everyone is different.
You don't really get to see all that it takes place in a laboratory
but mosman, come on. it wouldn't stop people having more children. so there would be the roughly the same amount of children with less money.
How do they get them out though? Is it an operation?
Yes glue it's an operation with a GA
And when the eggs are back, where do they put the sperm? Is that why you GA?
But with respect seal I think that's the aim less money from the state so if knowing that's the case you still have lots of children then so be it.
Decent families won't suffer, we were dirt poor growing up but we never really went without I'm sure my parents did though. I see the girls I went to school with who grew up in poverty spoiling their children rotten whether they work or not and I don't think the children are happier than we were quite the opposite in fact.
Glue it's all on google and explained better than I ever could by dr's
It's just interesting to hear off sleeked that's done it. Do you have to take lots of tablets before? I'm aful at swallowing tablets unless I crush them. Where do the sperm go ?
decent families wont suffer
what makes you think that?
"Sleeked" wtf ?! Should be "someone" who's done it. Did you gave to do it a lot?
No glue you inject the medication into your stomach, which is less traumatic than it sounds you get used to it I guess.
we will all suffer. indirectly. because this is not the way you run a country.
but the ones who will suffer the most will be children in decent and not so decent families.
Where do the sperm go tho ?
Inject into your stomach? Can't they do that for you?
Because they didn't before basking seals. I have friends five years older than me who were single parents in the early 90's and they could afford childcare and bought their own houses. Child tax credits sent the price of childcare soaring to the maximum level that the government will pay. So that screwed up things for those who didn't get all or indeed any of it.
The people who have done best out of government hand outs are those who've taken them off the people given them, land lords, private nurseries, tesco's etc
And I'm sorry to say I've seen it with my own eyes, the money doesn't go on the children in a meaningful way. An acquaintance of mine from the kids school was in Argos, bumped into her, she had just been back paid her disability allowance and the first thing she did was buy herself a treat and then thought she had better get the boy something so he was bought an iPod. He is three.
No. You know what? Those who suffer most will be the children in the not so decent families. The very children that welfare was brought in to protect. The same children who, left to grow up in poverty and with parents who care more for themselves than for their offspring are far more likely to end up involved in crime and needing SS intervention for their own families in years to come because they don't know how to parent properly.
So not only will this be a case of saving a fiver now and costing a tenner next year, when these children require intervention in early years but we are also increasing the future crime rates when the parents steal to feed them or they go out mugging for the gadgets their peers have and they don't.
Quite simply, decent parents will put their kids before themselves and so these cuts will affect the adults involved, those with more chance of having an informed decision in the process. Not so decent parents will continue to put themselves before anyone else and in those cases, it is the children, all of them not just numbers 3, 4 or 5, who suffer.
There is no way of slicing this that doesn't lead to already disadvantaged children being screwed over and creating an under class.
You see I think the strategy will be they take the benefits away to identify the children who are at risk because if the parents not putting the children first. At the moment the mild neglect must be quite hard to spit, the kids that do get fed but are fed rubbish so then once the parents have the choice of putting the kids first or not the ones that don't will become very clear and they need more help which they should receive.
Those children are already in need whether the parents have the money or not because it doesn't go on them.
Someone mentioned "when the welfare state was brought in..."
Originally benefits WERE capped. An out of work person (at the time it was generally a man who was the claimant) could only claim benefit to the equivalent of the pay of an unskilled labourer, which was effectively the at the time version of minimum wage.
This was regardless of whether he was married or how many children the family had.
It was done this way to ensure that noone claiming benefits from the system could have more money than someone who was working. It put a claimant on level footing with the minimum wage of the day, no more no less. And just as the labourer had to keep his family on his wage regardless of how big that family was - and cut his cloth as it were, so did the claimant. The decision to have and the responsibility to provide for any or more children lay solely with the families.
To me that is the fairest way to do it. Why should people on benefits have a higher income than those who work? THAT is not fair.
We all spout about equality... seems to me that we originally had it right, and it's been messed up by politicians on all sides over many years.
Yabu. As much as we all wish that people would act responsibly and with forethought there is no getting away from the fact that this proposal will HURT THE POOREST AND MOST VULNERABLE CHILDREN IN OUR SOCIETY. I am not willing to sign up to inflicting that damage. Not in my name.
Can you tell us what date you're choosing for "when the welfare state was brought in", Coola?
Because there have been state welfare systems since at least 1601, and many precisely tailored the benefit to the number of children.
They also, obviously, paid out to women, since widows were among the more likely to need support.
I don't know how anyone can think more children living in poverty is a good thing - but even if you can somehow accept that idea - this policy is bad for everyone.
Children whose parents can't afford to look after them properly will end up costing the taxpayer LOADS more than reducing spending on child benefits could possibly save.
Maybe it's not about saving money more targeting it correctly. The children this would affect are already disadvantaged, money is not the problem.
I think the whole thing will collapse because it won't be 'people' it will be women who will be limited to two children.
Women give birth so it is easy to find out how many children she has, much harder with a man.
So odd that this follows just weeks after the hoo-haa about halving the legal abortion limit. Because a rule like this is going to send the abortion rate rocketing...
Although I'd support this if I had no doubts that the right people would be protected, which they wouldn't so it's a moot point, wouldn't we have cases like in China were girls are killed when they're born because they want a boy? Obviously not to the full extent because there's not the social stigma here regarding having a girl, but I can't help but think there'd be idiots who'd want to get rid or shove the child of the 'wrong sex' in care.
Children grow up to be productive members of society, who pay taxes to support others. I would presume that each additional child generally adds a little less cost than the one before, so I wouldn't object to adding a progressively smaller benefit with each child.
I want good, responsible, loving parents who plan ahead to have more children because that is good for everyone, so a cutoff at 2 doesn't make sense to me.
But, I'm American, so my opinions need not affect anyone
We already have some element of the 'progressively smaller benefits' you talk of: £20 child benefit for the first child, and only £13 for subsequent children.
And you are absolutely right that "children grow up to be productive members of society, who pay taxes to support others". We already have an ageing population that our society can't afford, and a falling birth rate (down from 2.4 in the 70s to 1.8 now) that means there will be fewer workers to pay taxes in the future... There has been talk just this week of making pensioners "work, or have their pensions cut"... Frankly, we need as many children as possible in our society, and we are going to be stuffed if we do anything that leads the birth rate to fall any further. It's a stupid idea.
Where on earth have you got the idea that all children grow up to be productive members of society? Or have I missed the sarcasm?
Have you missed the pensions crisis, moogster?
The thing is, we have a system of general taxation in this country, which means we don't expect old people to be supported by their own children, but by society generally - and specifically younger tax payers.
This proposal will make families poorer now, and push some into crisis, and is likely to bring the birth rate down...
If more families hit crisis now, it will cost the state more now, and there will be (even) less money left for your pension.
If you make families poorer, the children are less likely to thrive and grow up to be productive, so there will be fewer children growing up to support you in your old age.
If the birth rate falls, there will be fewer children growing up to support you in your old age.
It's in your interest to support the children of this generation, not just your own.
Moog, ALL children have the potential to be productive members of society. Whether they are born into a family on benefits or into a nice middle-class family. Equally, being born into a nice middle-class family doesn't mean that your child won't end up on benefits. Therefore we have to support all the children so they have a chance of achieving their potential. Those from a family on benefits need more support than those in mc families, so they should actually get MORE money.
Throwing money at those families does not solve their problems. That's the crux of the matter.
Hmmm, well the jury is out on that one. But cutting off money from families that are already struggling does cause problems for the children, and for wider society. That's the crux of the matter.
YANBU but I have to say that I think it creates more issues.
Undoubtedly this will lead to a fall in birth rates which will see less being put into the tax pot in years to come. So you could be creating a potential problem in years to come.
The government would need to come up with a plan to dramatically reduce unemployment and redundancy
As someone has already said what would happen in the case of twins and triplets.
You also have the matter of immigration and what rules would apply to these families.
Potentially you could see abortion rates raise to the point where the strain on the NHS eclipses what is saved via benefits.
Why stop at future children ? We could save the country a fortune if we withdrew all state support to every 3rd or subsequent child that's ever been born. So if you have ever had two older siblings, you are surplus to the replacement rate - you cost the honest hardworking taxpayer millions.
To fit in with the new lean mean benefit cutting machine, all 3rd or subsequent children - even the ones who are adults now - should be entitled to no state help whatsoever. No NHS access, no pension, no access to education , no use of the transport system, no benefit of any kind for them or their offspring. Oh, don't come it with " I didn't ask to be born" or "those rules didn't apply then " - your feckless parents should have thought of that before they had HUGE families that they expected the TAXPAYER to support. Why should the hardworking beneficiaries of offshore trust fund millions have to support the children of layabout scroungers, even when they are adults, by just giving away luxuries like access to medical care? Naturally, the state is entitled to claw back any monies you have ever received.
(Disclaimer : of course I am being sarcastic, if IDS ' s political helper goblins are reading and think that any of the above might be workable).
Oh, or here's an idea - why don't we figure out that this is just another policy that will set the just-about-coping-financially against the truly poor ( for that read 'might vote Tory if fed enough Daily Mail bilge' vs 'will never vote Tory hence expendable') - and at 1 billion it will save less money than the Treasury's own error margins ? How about the Treasury get their figures right, and we don't make any children in poverty starve ?
The electorate of this country are bickering like children over how unfair it is that benefit recipients - the unemployed, redundant, people with disabilities, abandoned families, people who care for elderly relatives, kinship carers - are not actually destitute. Meanwhile Cameron and Osborne laugh into their offshore multi million pound tax havens, vote themselves and their fellow MPs a new pay rise, and let billionaires and multinational corporations off their tax bills.
I'm a third child.
Incidentally I am also the most awesome. It's not my parents faults they had to have a couple of test runs before acquiring perfection.
what's worrying me is what the government is really after.
it's a bit like a teenager asking for £50 when they only really wanted £10, and so you end up giving them the tenner.
so what's the tenner for then tories?
Ha ha mrs me too. 3rd ones a charm they say (or something)
Amazing how people kept on having kids in the olden days like wot when I was born.
Despite having no real financial incentive.
Apologies if this has been said, skimmed through but not seen it.
I have 3 children and I work so don't currently claim benefits other than child benefit and from next year family tax credits. DS1 has a disability and I receive DSA for him. But what if DS3 was the child who was born disabled, or had an accident that left him disabled, by the policy that benefits are only for the first two children then he wouldn't be able to receive DSA to cover his needs. Yet as a working parent I would have assumed when I decided to have 3 children I would be able to afford it.
I've not managed to wade through the whole 21 pages of this thread so apologies if this has all been covered...
I was just wondered which benefits it is that increase with the number of kids you have?
I know child benefit does, and tax credits, but aren't they paid to working people?
Might be of interest en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Duncan_Smith
There are a lot of seemingly contradictory ideas floating around on this thread:
- do some people struggle to scrape by on benefits?
- can some people on benefits afford plasmas, holidays, cars?
- are benefits too low?
- are benefits too high?
- do some people have more children to get more money?
Well, I think the answer to all these questions is yes. And here's why:
Situation - entitlement (exc housing and council tax benefit)
No children, seeking employment - £2,925
1 child - £7,216
2 children - £10,602
3 children - £13,989
4 children - £17,376
5 children - £20,763
Clearly, if you have no children, or just one child, the system will happily see you living in poverty. Proper poverty. Loan shark poverty.
On the other hand, if you have four or more children, you will have more disposable income than the average taxpayer.
IDS should shelve his harebrained scheme, his arbitrary cap, and simply change the amounts to make them fair to all. Duh.
He's got four children! Is that what you meant, nametakenagain? That really tickles me...
NameTaken- are you referring to IDS's 4 children?
Well, I'm sure he wouldn't want to be accused of hypocrisy. He should, therefore, provide evidence of the following:
- The mother of children 3 and 4 received no NHS funded medical care at any time during pregnancy, birth, or the post-natal period.
- No child benefit has ever been paid in respect of children 3 and 4.
- No state-funded maternity or paternity benefit has ever been paid in respect of children 3 and 4.
- Children 3 and 4 have never had any state-funded nursery provision, education, medical or dental care.
- Children 3 and 4 have never benefitted from street lighting, library services, waste collection provision, any access to roads or public transport.
- IDS has relinquished all claim to any future state benefits that children 3 and 4 might ever be entitled to.
Because unless he can prove all of the above, he's had more than 2 children and the taxpayer has funded them.
has anyone read that ya novel called the declaration where they take any surplus children and put them in
prison special schools and train them to be our servants?
they also are not allowed hot water because they are surplus to requirements and not allowed any of our resources the undeserving scum that they are
could be a plan stirring
NameTaken, and he's a Roman Catholic, so his proposal runs counter to his religion. Oh and yes, small insignificant item at the bottom of the page: his personal wealth is estimated to be £1 million, much of which has been earned working as a high end after diner speaker. Yup, bet he really understands the problems of the poor.
I think the idea is to deter those on benefits from having many children.
Parents who work are limiting the number of children they have- why should those on benefits be any different? People need to take responsibility.
Dd is 4 - we are only now ttc as we cannot afford to pay childcare for 2 children.
I understand that circumstances can change for large families I.e. Parent is made redundant, loses home etc. This is entirely different from someone who has never worked, will never work and continues to have children with no means to provide for them.
The fact that the IDS is a hypocrite does not surprise me.
The fact that he has earned a fortune from after dinner speaking has left me flabbergasted. He's a dull, boring, sanctimonious little prick. I really can't believe people pay to listen to him harp on.
Good god in Goven ! .
I can't believe the idiocy of those in government .
They let in hundreds of illegal immigrants , and pay them benefits ( I'm not talking about genuine cases who work and bring valued skills to uk ). They send our money to other countries who don't need it as much as wee do at the moment ( china ect) , they spend on wars , they pay cb to families who are living overseas ( not even in uk ffs ) If they didn't do this they would sort out the financial crisis without resorting to desperate measures . Increase the retirement age to 80 , unless illness requires earlier pension. Make childcare cheaper so it's more affordable to have parents working , only then they could cut cb and no one would miss it . Mainly stop high Hb payments to landlords , one standardised rate for housing £150 for one bed, £200 for 2 £ £250 for 3 £ £300 for 4 bed and £350 for 5 bed + . Stop the expenses for mps ....bus drivers ect can't claim for their houses to be decorated by the tax payer so why should I have to pay for that new kitchen or luxury dog mansion for a mp ?
Do not cut cb for people under 40k .
Personally , my first dh was an accountant , he worked in banks he made a fair bit of money , but my children would have starved and been dressed in rags if was up to that man to give " his" money for their benefit .The Cb fed and clothed the children when their father wouldn't . For what it's worth I also worked , but he would take my wages from me as soon as I got them , I was " allowed" £20 ...just enough for my bus fair into work . ( I wasn't allowed any cash for anything else , trust me I had to bed to be allowed to go out to work in the first place , and wasn't allowed any " friends" from their either .)
Abusive men withhold money , cb is usually paid to the person with care of the children ( mostly mother ) . It enabled me to leave the abuse , if it's cut , all those children and women will be forced into poverty and trapped into abuse forever with no way out..
Well done Torys , you really are a bunch of heartless bastards at times ,who really hate women ....increase tax for the super rich , and cut money that is leaving our country . The country needs someone who understands money a bit better than the glory boys from eaton .
If you recall the tuition fees debacle, they are ALL hypocrites.
Droves - illegal immigrants don't claim benefits. They're ILLEGAL, that means they're here under the radar.
Makes sense on paper.
People are not paper.
People will have babies, even when they can't afford it - hell they even have them when threatened with prison for doing so.
It won't work it will just result in desperate people and desperate people do desperate things.
Mrskbp ... That's they way it's supposed to be .
I do know someone who came here illegally and used the name of someone else to claim benefits and work under ( his relative btw ) . He got away with it or years , until eventually he was caught when his workplace was raided by police /immigration . The £10,000 fine , apparently wasn't enough to put off his employer from having illegals work for him . As for the man in question .he's been deported along with one of his children , his younger kids and wife are still here ( assuming because those children are school age and Some of them were born here ) . His wife was originally from the same country as the man , but I dont know her status she might offically be a British citizen now .
It was a big scandal locally .
Interesting figures Mrs Bethel
3 children - £13,989 does that include Child Benefit?
After I take out the money I pay for house and council tax from my wage (and my house if I were on benefits is cheap enough to be covered completely by housing benefit) my income is below that level. But if I add back in CB we are slightly above it.
Well I think the conservatives want to look after their own rich arses and the poor are slowly becoming the scapegoats for the UKs problems.
Its almost like "benefits" is a dirty word now whereas we used to be proud to support our most vulnerable members of society.
Yes some people abuse the system but I seem to recall a lot of higher earners abusing the tax system and bonus schemes and we don't seem to be baying for their blood.