Talk

Advanced search

IDS suggestion if capping child related benefits at two children.

(145 Posts)
JakeBullet Thu 25-Oct-12 13:39:00

Way do other people think about this?

I am assuming it means that new claimants after a set date IF it ever comes to fruition.

I am broadly in favour of this...not because I don't agree with child related benefits, I am receipt of them myself but because we appear to have a dwindling pot.

On the other hand IDS makes the mistake of thinking that everyone who claims for more than two children has always been a welfare recipient which is not the case....many families have gone under with the current recession and have children they thought they had planned for financially.

Or is this more propaganda?

I know we have had a lot of these threads too so sorry for starting another one but was interested to see there was not a thread about it.

knackeredknitter Thu 25-Oct-12 14:23:19

He is a sick and twisted man, I think....child-reated benefits isn't just child benefit, does that mean all child tax credits will be hit, what about single parents?

stretch Thu 25-Oct-12 14:28:57

He doesn't just mean non-working people. It means EVERYONE, if you work part-time and have TC top ups, if you are a lone parent that works and requires TC's. If you are currently claiming TC, it will change to Universal Credit soon, then you will be classed as on benefits. It means that only very well off people will be able to have children. And as for the deficit... read this

JakeBullet Thu 25-Oct-12 15:55:24

Yeah, just read that link stretch...good innit grin

Yes he means everyone but you wouldn't know it from his rhetoric

ReallyTired Thu 25-Oct-12 20:59:44

I imagine it will apply to child benefit, so it will apply to all parents who still have child benefit.

I worry that children will suffer with this proposal. Prehaps we need to look at ways to get money DIRECTLY to the children.

Xenia Thu 25-Oct-12 21:40:27

Don't we really only want well off educated high earning parents having children anyway as it's their chidlren who will do well and pay a lot of tax and give a lot back? We don't really need a lot of benefits claimants having children who will never work etc. We should be turning this all around and perhaps say if you earn over £100k then for every extra child you have you get a massive tax break. We certainly don't want the poor having massive families they and we cannot afford.

knackeredknitter Thu 25-Oct-12 21:56:45

Is that a joke post Xenia
shock
And who are "the poor"exactly

stretch Thu 25-Oct-12 22:26:43

Xenia, you've posted some shockers in your time, but really...?hmm

It says child-related benefits, until they clarify exactly, we have to assume all child benefits (CHB, CH tax credits)

You know what, for a government who want to 'simplify' benefits and make a smaller state, they sure are making a hash out of everything. They cloud issues, fudge details, then when everyone is good and confused, pull the rug out from underneath them.

Fucking bastards. angry

Cozy9 Thu 25-Oct-12 22:29:43

We need to look at what demographics tend to have children that contribute over their lifetime, and encourage people in that demographic to have children. Then we need to look at what demographics tend to have children that DO NOT contribute over their lifetime and encourage people in that demographic NOT to have children. There should be TV adverts extolling the virtues of child-free living, and saying how uncool it is to have children you can't afford to raise properly.

ivykaty44 Thu 25-Oct-12 22:34:10

Xenia - like this one?

Viperidae Thu 25-Oct-12 22:36:44

Xenia - look what happened last time somebody tried eugenics in Europe, it's really not a good idea

VintageRainBoots Thu 25-Oct-12 22:39:58

If I recall correctly, some states in the US did this in the 1990s. The idea was that limiting benefits to two children would dissuade people (read: single women) from having more children. Turns out that it did nothing to keep people from having children; it only sent more families into poverty.

ReallyTired Thu 25-Oct-12 22:42:31

Gawd Cozy you sounds like something from the Hitler Eugenics movement who assume that the lower classes cannot produce workers who can support themselves. Whats more depressing is that you do not acknowledge that people from a deprived background can do very well for themselves.

"There should be TV adverts extolling the virtues of child-free living, and saying how uncool it is to have children you can't afford to raise properly. "

You even want Hitler style propaganda. You only fallen short of suggesting complusory sterilisation of children whose parents are on benefits. Prehaps you will next be suggesting complusory abortions (followed by sterilisation) for teenage mothers.

Life is like a game of snakes and ladders. Sometimes a privately educated person with a good job can end up unemployable due to disablity. A lot of people who suggest these proposals don't know anyone on benefits. They don't realise it one day could be themselves or their brother or son or daugher who could need the safety net of social services.

SwedishEdith Thu 25-Oct-12 22:53:19

How do you define "contribute" Cozy? Or is that a joke response following another of Xenia's predictable posts?

Darkesteyes Fri 26-Oct-12 00:25:48

stretch if you think that post of hers was bad then take a look at this one.
Particularly the last racist line!

XeniaThu 13-Sep-12 08:48:58
SOme people will always be poor and make up excuses and say impossible. Others get on with things and improve their lives. I hope we can remain a country where there are sufficient people with the personal values to make something better of themselves whatever it take. I accept and have said on iother threads that there is a problem once you start earning in a new business in coming off benefits althoug the new single benefit is going to make it easier - there was a letter in the Times about it last week - you can work for a year to get your self employed business going so things are imjproving thanks to this Government.

Just look at those who have moved here from abroad to see what is possible. I advise them all the time. They are wonderful, hard workers etc I hvae so much more in common with them than the fat lumpen negative white benefit claimants of the UK.

crackcrackcrak Fri 26-Oct-12 00:34:42

Xenia is such a delight!

Xenia Fri 26-Oct-12 12:21:59

The French give you tax breaks if you have big families. No one could disagree with me that we need more people like I am to have children rather than those on my local council estate. How can you make a case otherwise? We don't need loads of uneducated young men for an army or legions of women to go into domestic service. We just don't have the jobs for the uneducated.

I was not suggesting sterilisation. I was suggesting that a system which pays the poor more the more children they have so they have more than the squeezed middle is a very silly system. Someone like I am who does not even take up 5 state school places and is in the 1% who pay most tax to keep those benefits claimants (and who never get an iota for thanks for it of course) and rarely uses the NHS as I don't eat junk food and I'm not fat is just the kind of person we want to have a lot of children who go on to contribute.

if people don't believe me take any benefits cliamant off mumsnet and tell me whether my daughters in their mid 20s pay more tax than her daughters of a similar age.

EdsRedeemingQualities Fri 26-Oct-12 12:26:20

Where to even begin.

PerryCombover Fri 26-Oct-12 12:49:45

I think I understand what Xenia is saying.

Things are becoming impossible for the truly poor to make a difference to their beginnings and therefore maybe she has a point.

It's harder than ever to escape your beginnings and lack of opportunity to access education via scholarships grants etc will perhaps see society shake out in a pretty grim way.
Without EMA school bus passes etc how will the poorest children stay on to A level let alone go to university.
The 10% who are deciding the benefits of the rest of the populace will never be included or affected in the same way as the poor and will not tax the richest 1% to make things "fair" for the fear they might leave...

Perhaps we will have the super rich, the professional drones and then the plebs.
If that becomes the case then maybe it is sensible to limit the number of children born to the lowest class as they will be ill fed, ill educated and left with hopeless prospects.

Or we could pay attention and have a huge public outcry when they remove our basic rights...

Xenia Fri 26-Oct-12 12:52:42

There is no basic right in law or morality to have large numbers of children you cannot afford to keep on the basis other hard working tax payers will pay for them.

ReallyTired Fri 26-Oct-12 13:01:45

Xenia
You and your daughters need the working poor. Ie. the dustman, the cleaner, the road sweeper, the waiter in the cafe, the postman, tescos check out lady, the shelf stacker or warehouse man. Most of tax is paid for by companies rather than individuals and companies need low paid labour. It is sense that companies are forced to support their lowest paid workers through taxation. British companies would collapse if they had to pay their lowest paid workers a living minimum wage. We would not be able to compete with countries where peopel are allowed to starve to death and there are no employment rights.

There is a world of difference between the person who cooks burgers in McDonalds and a long term welfare claiment.

Not all privately schooled children become useful citizens and we will always need people to do menial jobs. Prehaps the biggest issue is that there is a class of people who see low paid jobs as beneath them.

KidderminsterKate Fri 26-Oct-12 13:02:06

Well i think we may aswell give up all hope if only people like xenia should be allowed to have children. Be interesting to see which of the children of the wealthy would become the cleaners, bus drivers, carers, factory workers etc. not everyone can earn a 5 figure salary.

KidderminsterKate Fri 26-Oct-12 13:03:45

Oh and I am a benefit claimant and a taxpayer - where does that fit in Xenia???

EdsRedeemingQualities Fri 26-Oct-12 13:07:51

I've never understood how people on high incomes think the world would operate without people doing menial jobs.

Who is going to clean their streets?

I've also never understood why these people earn so little. If someone like you - Xenia - doesn't want to clean toilets or empty bins, well, someone has to - and yet they are barely paid anything compared to an office worker or your good self (not sure what you do)

Why is that? Shouldn't they be paid more for a job no one wants to do?

Iggly Fri 26-Oct-12 13:15:59

Jesus fucking Christ. I've seen it all now.

People seriously suggesting that only the rich should have kids?

What the actual fuck?

Xenia, having money doesn't make you better. What happens to the failed children of the rich who might end up disabled, unable to work etc? And their parents disown them?

What happens to people who might have fallen on hard times, are their children now worthless to the country?

Your post demonstrates just how selfish people have become. How transactional people have become, that we're only measured on the basis of our economic output.

I speak as the child of a single mum who struggled on low paid jobs and benefits.

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