Advanced search

to think capping benefits at 2 children is a good idea

(1000 Posts)
moogstera1 Thu 25-Oct-12 13:44:36

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

DameEnidsOrange Thu 25-Oct-12 13:46:47

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.

MadameCastafiore Thu 25-Oct-12 13:46:49

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.

cheekydevil Thu 25-Oct-12 13:47:01

Oooo, you're brave grin
I agree that working people do have to make a decision about whether they can afford another child though

ClippedPhoenix Thu 25-Oct-12 13:47:56

In essence it's not a bad idea.

GhostShip Thu 25-Oct-12 13:48:10

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...

givemeaclue Thu 25-Oct-12 13:48:11

What about those with triplets or more?

SlipperyNipple Thu 25-Oct-12 13:49:15

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.

GhostShip Thu 25-Oct-12 13:49:50

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..

moogstera1 Thu 25-Oct-12 13:50:06

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 Thu 25-Oct-12 13:50:22

No, its number of children

GhostShip Thu 25-Oct-12 13:51:37

givemeaclue - they would make allowances for twins and triplets, of course they would. It's beyond the parents control.

KenLeeeeeee Thu 25-Oct-12 13:52:11

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.

hhhhhhh Thu 25-Oct-12 13:53:20

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

frisson Thu 25-Oct-12 13:53:30

"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).

FrothyOM Thu 25-Oct-12 13:53:39

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.

honeytea Thu 25-Oct-12 13:54:52

What about the patents that go ahead and have children anyway regardless of if they can afford them? Should those children live in poverty?

Fishwife1949 Thu 25-Oct-12 13:54:55

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

moogstera1 Thu 25-Oct-12 13:55:10

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.

AuscreemaAscare Thu 25-Oct-12 13:55:56

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.

Goofus Thu 25-Oct-12 13:57:57

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...

Bramshott Thu 25-Oct-12 13:57:59

Read this. Sums it up pretty well I think.

CassandraApprentice Thu 25-Oct-12 13:58:45

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?

Fishwife1949 Thu 25-Oct-12 13:59:14

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

Mosman Thu 25-Oct-12 13:59:29

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

This thread is not accepting new messages.