Government wanting to cap child benefit at two kids

(59 Posts)
Loveweekends10 Thu 25-Oct-12 13:23:42

Not sure what I think of this. More punishment to those who live on benefits. Or will it make people think and have less kids.

Am slightly surprised that no one else has pointed it out, but a section of "rich" parents are already due to lose all their child benefit next April. Some may not miss it, but many will. For those with 2 children they will need to earn approx another £2.5k to make up for the loss of the benefit....not easy in this climate.

I don't think this is about targetting the poor, so much as an attempt to make people think twice. Not sure it will work....but it certainly needs to looked at.

domesticgodless Thu 25-Oct-12 14:34:36

According to most tory types if you slept with an abusive man and got pregnant that's your own fault for being a 'victim'.

Once again the impact on the child is totally ignored. It is a product of 'irresponsibility' and can be left to starve.

WearingGreen Thu 25-Oct-12 14:37:03

What if the child is the first child of one parent but the 3rd child of the other? Can I claim cb for 10 different dcs just so long as they have 5 different fathers.

I don't actually have 10dcs, I'm just wondering

OneMoreChap Thu 25-Oct-12 14:38:04

domesticgodless
According to most tory types if you slept with an abusive man and got pregnant that's your own fault for being a 'victim'.

Wow, I've not heard anyone saying that.
Still, how would that impact the benefit for 3rd child though... or did you already have 2 kids before you fell pregnant to abusive man?

GimmeIrnBru Thu 25-Oct-12 14:39:04

People should be thinking in the long term before they have a family (worst case scenario, where they may find themselves out of a job in the future) before they embark on having a family.

We can only afford to raise two children. So that's all we can have whether we like it or not. Unless we win the Lotto!

domesticgodless Thu 25-Oct-12 14:39:44

OMC I got it from another thread on here today!!!

usualsuspect3 Thu 25-Oct-12 14:39:57

I've heard plenty say that, they usually bang on about women making poor choices.

GimmeIrnBru Thu 25-Oct-12 14:40:46

I am glad someone in Government is thinking along these lines...it's been a long time coming. So many people just go ahead and have X amount of children and don't give a toss about how they'll come when their children reach the teenage years and how costly it all becomes. Get those rose tinted glasses off!

domesticgodless Thu 25-Oct-12 14:42:33

Good point though OMC. You could have 2 dcs already, and be left (as most lone parents are let us not forget!!) or widowed etc. Then have child with abusive man who may well look like god's gift until you get pregnant (often happens with abusers I hear). And presumably said child will be considered by the state not to exist because you are feckless. You had sex and didn't keep your man!!!

the possibilities for making people's lives a misery on this are just endless.

freetoanyhome Thu 25-Oct-12 14:42:39

''Nothing seems to be the responsibility of the individual anymore - unless you are not in receipt of any sort of benefit whereas you have to take responsibility for everything - old age, child bearing and rearing, illness etc.'

We could starve pensioners who fecklessly didnt save. Deprive disabled people who didnt take out special 'it can happen to anyone' insurance. The possibilites are endless.

domesticgodless Thu 25-Oct-12 14:44:12

Gimme, 2 sounds generous.

on the tax credit threads the gist from several right wing posters was that if you even claim tax credits (ie you both work in low paid jobs and have to pay rent which is pretty often silly money in this country) you should not have ANY children. And certainly not more than one.

Return of the childless Victorian servant, imho. The poor must stay pure!!! good luck with that one :S

domesticgodless Thu 25-Oct-12 14:45:29

We could starve pensioners who fecklessly didnt save. Deprive disabled people who didnt take out special 'it can happen to anyone' insurance. The possibilites are endless

freeto, the pensioners are just about OK for now as they are the Tories main voter base.

As for the disabled that is precisely what is already happening with the slashing of benefit. No insurance = 'irresponsible'= can be left to rot/ put in the workhouse.

weegiemum Argentina Thu 25-Oct-12 14:49:17

It wasn't my choice to have 3 children.

I did the responsible thing after 2 - got a mirena which I was told was more reliable than female sterilisation.

I had a smear with it in place which dislodged it and pregnancy with dd2 resulted.

I was so ill in that pregnancy that dh managed to get a vasectomy when I was 30 weeks. But it wasn't my decision, or my fault. What do the Tories want? Me to have aborted my much loved dd2?

As dh is a doctor we're losing cb in April. But I won't stop claiming as I need the HRP that comes with it till dd2 is 12. They can get it back from his tax return.

2old2beamum Russia Thu 25-Oct-12 15:15:01

My concern is for children in care it is usually parents with 2 children who feel able to adopt children with challenging behaviour, abused children and those with special needs.These children will now languish in care costing the taxpayer mega bucks Our DS cost £5000/week in residential care prior to adoption

'According to most tory types if you slept with an abusive man and got pregnant that's your own fault for being a 'victim'.

Once again the impact on the child is totally ignored. It is a product of 'irresponsibility' and can be left to starve.

Now that's a bit simplistic. Having a child with an abusive partner does not automatically mean you will end up on benefits. I hate these stereotypes that anyone who is a single parent and/or has experienced domestic abuse is an emotional wreck who can't have a successful career and a happy home.

Also on a different note, if you need benefits to supplement your working wage then you can't afford to have another child. Why should taxpayers (who may or may not be receiving benefits) be paying more for you to have further children?

domesticgodless Thu 25-Oct-12 18:48:08

Being on benefits while you get your life back together and recover from abuse while caring for your children is NOT being 'an emotional wreck who can't have a successful career and a happy home', is it?

And yet again we value people only on their successful careers (if they felt they had to give it up for the happy home, they're to be condemned UNLESS they were clever enough to find a rich husband, I presume?)

And it isn't my assumption, I am reproducing it directly from another thread on MN today. Context is all...

Can you imagine the impact on Stamford Hill under this policy, it would turn into a slum!

meerkatmum Fri 26-Oct-12 14:02:50

I grew up on council estate in a single parent family. I've seen first hand people who have 5 or 6 children without a thought as to how they are going to pay for them. But this isn't typical.

Most people on benefits know children are expensive and require lots of love and attention so stop at two. So this new idea will only effect the minority who try and rinse the state of as much money as possible.

NAR4 Sun 28-Oct-12 10:04:57

We seem to be rapidly slipping back to the old days, when it fell to the children to care for (feed and house) their parents in old age. Clearly the best way forward is to restrict the number of children born, even to those that work, as much as possible. It surely won't leave a problem later when we have more elderly population than working people to take care of them.

It seems to have been largely forgotten on this thread that working families who support themselves, will also be affected by this cap, if they were 'reckless' enough to have more than 2 children.

laughtergoodmedicine Mon 29-Oct-12 12:12:34

"2 KIDS" idea being floated for after general election 2015

Wordsmith Mon 29-Oct-12 17:40:47

It shocks me that I agree in principle with a Tory policy confused. As long as this isn't retrospective, and the child benefit is not taken away from families currently getting it for more than two children (which I believe is the case as proposed), why should the state pay out for large families? Are there really people out there who say 'I'm having another baby for the £13 a week child benefit?'.

meddie Fri 02-Nov-12 08:05:30

So what happens if you have 3 kids because you are in a relationship and can afford them, then your relationship breaks up? Are you to be punished for that 3rd child, even though the decision was taken when it was affordable?
What if contraception fails you (my daughter is here because a condom split and the morning after pill failed) should women be forced to have abortions in this scenario?
It seems to me that this policy is more likely to punish women then men , after all he can go out and have multiple kids with loads of different women and will not be punished financially.Its usually the women who are left to raise the kids and support them.
If you are going to bring in policies like this then more should be done to chase up financial support from absent parents, as currently it is too easy for them to walk away from their responsibilities and play the system.

Xenia Fri 02-Nov-12 08:54:23

It seems a very popular idea with hard working voters which is presumably why it's floated. Most people not on benefits have the number of children they can afford. Those supported by the workers, who don't work don't have the same limitation.

In a sense we always had that. Right from the 1970s when it replaced child tax allowance child benefit gave and still gives more money for the first child than the second. That has never seemed very fair to me. The second eats as much as the first.

I am one of those si9ngle mothers supporting children alone who is about to lose all child benefit, the only benefit I ever got as I never haven't worked for 30 years, have never had maternity leave or pay for 5 children, never got a childcare voucher or help, never got a tax credit. The one thing I did get which showed may be I got something out of the system was that child benefit which is now going 100%. Obviously I willcope.

I agree with the comments above about men. I think they shoudl be forecd to have the children 50% of the time and split the child benefit, and child tax credits with them 50/50 which would also help the mmothers get back to full time work like many of us do despite being single mothers. The sexism engrained in women care for children and men work or just disappear scot free needs to be addressed.

OneMoreChap Fri 02-Nov-12 10:04:39

With some trepidation, I agree with Xenia

I agree with the comments above about men. I think they shoudl be forecd to have the children 50% of the time and split the child benefit, and child tax credits with them 50/50 which would also help the mmothers get back to full time work like many of us do despite being single mothers. The sexism engrained in women care for children and men work or just disappear scot free needs to be addressed.

I do wish people knew each other better before they bred; if a man doesn't want to be hands on raising his children, find a better father. Yes, there will be some failures. I'd also like to see far better male contraception, and men taking better responsibility. Pipedreams, I know.

niceguy2 Fri 02-Nov-12 12:10:11

How do you propose to force a man to have their children 50% of the time when they don't want to? Have police stand guard?

You are right though that there is sexism engrained in our society over the roles of parenting. I agree that in general women are expected to sacrifice and go without whilst men can swan off scot free. But I don't think this is something that the law can address. Instead this has to be taught at home. Mother's need to teach their sons to man up. In short this has to be a society driven change and not something you can address by a wave of the legislative pen.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now