Advanced search

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.

noisytoys Thu 25-Oct-12 13:27:13

More cuts for the poor. Nice one Tories angry

Katiebeau Thu 25-Oct-12 13:28:55

It was stated it wasn't to be retrospective. Which means those on low incomes wouldn't have "perceived" advantages re larger families than the average working family.

I'm not sure either!

EdithWeston Thu 25-Oct-12 13:31:07

Well, when Family Allowance was first introduced you didn't get it for every child either. Equally nice one Labour!

TiAAAAARGHo Thu 25-Oct-12 13:31:46

What if your second pregnancy produces twins?

Bramshott Thu 25-Oct-12 13:33:14

Reading this today, I think they really think this will mean fewer children born in chaotic low-income families. Sadly those who work with these families probably know very well that it won't at all, so all it will mean is more children living in poverty.

whistlestopcafe Thu 25-Oct-12 13:34:00

I don't think it's a bad idea nor do I think its a particularly good idea and I'm a labour voter. I think there should be an exception made for families with multiple births.

MadameCastafiore Thu 25-Oct-12 13:35:03

Why is it more cuts for the poor - the 'rich' will get no child benefit.

I think it is good - so much child poverty and overcrowding is due to people having more children than they can afford and in a country where contraception is free and as available as it is here then there is no reason to have more kids than you can afford.

And those kids won't be paying my pension as many people love to point out - they will prbably folllow in the footsteps of their parents and be one of the families - over 50% I think in this country who are in receipt of more from the state than they pay in.

Katiebeau Thu 25-Oct-12 13:35:22

I'm sure multiple births would be catered for. Claims based on number of successful pregnancies/living children etc. Not too Dickensian.

domesticgodless Thu 25-Oct-12 13:36:50

Poorer people have more kids as successive generations slide further into poverty/despair/ignorance.

one look at any third world population stats could tell you that. I frankly doubt that birth rates have gone down in the USA since similar measures came in (although I stand to be corrected here?)

Once child labour gets brought back maybe governments will reverse their ideas... and the poor will be 'useful' again. But that's a way off.

Meglet Thu 25-Oct-12 13:37:33

The children will suffer won't they. (On lunch break so haven't got time to rant about this)

domesticgodless Thu 25-Oct-12 13:38:08

Unfortunately MadameC I don't think contraception will be free in this country for much longer. The Health Service has been privatised under everyone's noses.

And the same politicians who want the poor to stop 'breeding' too much also want to limit abortion.

Good luck with that then.

usualsuspect3 Thu 25-Oct-12 13:38:30

I'm sure the 'I'm all right Jacks' amongst us would positively love this too happen.

Their glee will become very apparent on this thread.

domesticgodless Thu 25-Oct-12 13:41:28

Yes usual, as elsewhere.

I cannot even get angry about this any more. I just feel so sad at what we have come to. A nation of spite and short-termist idiocy, frankly.

Mind you as the overall aim is to create a desperate pool of cheap labour a la currently developing world, it's quite pragmatic policy. Create an underclass of real paupers, bring back the workhouse and the resulting fear may discipline the working poor quite effectively as it used to pre-1950s.

My father (71) remembers his mother's intense fear of the workhouse. Children were kept in line by angry mothers with the threat 'keep going on that way and it's the workhouse for you!'

niminypiminy Thu 25-Oct-12 13:41:37

Great idea, let's punish the children! If you have the misfortune to be born into a family that needs benefits and has several children, hard luck!


FrothyOM Thu 25-Oct-12 13:48:13

It won't even knock that much off the welfare bill.

It will just please a few small minds.

usualsuspect3 Thu 25-Oct-12 13:50:36

YY, It will please the ones that are stupid enough to believe the spin.

JuliaScurr Thu 25-Oct-12 13:50:43

all based on individualism - the Welfare State embodied the idea that childrearing, ilness, old age were not the sole responsibility ofthe person dirctly affected
now all up for sale

MadameCastafiore Thu 25-Oct-12 13:50:52

This country needs to save every bloody penny so how ever small amount it cuts of the welfare bill I'm for it - shame they aren't touting the idea of stopping paying benefit to parents of children living outside of this country too..

Sadly though I don't think this will ever happen and people will continue to have children that they cannot provide for adequately for.

MadameCastafiore Thu 25-Oct-12 13:54:20

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.

It's not making people responsible for their life choices - such as not working at school or having more children than they can afford that has got us to the stage where such a huge proportion of society actually cost the state more in benefits than they will ever pay in tax and this will carry on more likely with their children and their children's children unless someone has the guts to do something about it and stop the sense of entitlement which pervades this bloody country.

domesticgodless Thu 25-Oct-12 13:59:16

'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.'

The majority do not receive benefits, so you are in fact saying that in fact we all have TOO MUCH responsibility for everything and I agree. Despite paying higher rate tax on what is not a massive salary (400 times what Amazon and Starbucks pay in tax! grrr!), I expect not to receive a pension or any free health care when I am old.

Starving a few more poor kids to death so we can bang them up in prison later will make sod all difference to that although it will allow rightwingers to indulge in vengeance fantasies. Carried out, let's not forget, on children.

PandaNot Thu 25-Oct-12 14:05:46

This is actually the only Tory policy I have ever agreed with. Working parents have to make decisions about how many children they can afford to have, money is always a consideration when planning for new babies is discussed on here. People on benefits should have to make the same sort of decisions.

Graciescotland Thu 25-Oct-12 14:22:47

I know lots of people who can't afford to have two children and have stopped at one. I don't see why the welfare system should fund someone's choice to have a large family.

I did see someone on another thread suggest that benefit should be paid out on the number of children an individual has when they start receiving benefits which seemed quite sensible.

noisytoys Thu 25-Oct-12 14:27:04

There is a common misconception that benefits are only paid to those out of work. The majority of benefits are in work benefits. And child benefit can be claimed in work.

knackeredknitter Thu 25-Oct-12 14:28:55

what about single parents? What if you have children when you can afford it, you then have to leave your abusive husband, and become a single parent?

Join the discussion

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

Register now »

Already registered? Log in with: