To think adding more child benefits is a pointless and futile policy?

I have to agree here.

I think there’s a lot of people in this country with undiagnosed SEN. People with chaotic lives and struggle with making good decisions/day-to-day life.

The number of kids who are in poverty in this country isn’t because the government cut £20 a week from their parent’s benefits. There’s a huge web of complex issues that contribute to poverty/deprivation.

Also, a lot of working families in this country are in rented housing paying ridiculous money just for a roof over their heads. More social housing is needed as it cannot be expected that all parents can get onto the housing ladder. Without owning property in this country (and having the finances for a huge upfront deposit) is just a perfect disaster for families living in poverty. The government should prioritise building practical housing - lots of countries have families living in apartments. Spacious two/three bed flats with good public transport/facilities and green spaces is what is needed. In this country they’re associated with antisocial behaviour, but an easy solution to that is any antisocial behaviour and they’re evicted. Two strikes and you’re out, you wanna trash your local environment and make life uncomfortable for others, go pay through the nose in private rent or abide by the rules.

So how would that work with a high needs child the non custodial parent might be working in a minimum wage job aa they have no qualifications etc even if they work all hours god sends and spends their entire wage on their child leaving nothing fir themselves
You then want them under house arrest because they can't afford what you deem meets the child ,s need
Yeah not sure thsts going ti work tbh

I agree. The payments can then be deducted from benefits.

This is certainly one of the least explored solutions to reducing the burden on the state. I think it’s time for a harsh system where non-custodial parents are court-ordered to pay support based on the needs of the child, not what they earn, with exceptions only for those deemed completely unfit to work. Then, if they refuse to comply, they need to be forced into work by their local authority, such as street cleaning and bin collection (I understand these services are probably contracted out, but there’s no reason for them to be) for no payment, until they find paid employment, or start paying support if they have been obscuring their income with cash-in-hand work. Failure to work appropriately should be punished with an ankle monitor and house arrest, lifted only for enough time to do a weekly shop, or go to a doctors appointment or for a job interview with evidence submitted.

We won’t have enough adults to be paying taxes in fifty years if serious action isn’t taken to incentivise childbearing. And no, increasing government funding of childcare settings so women can go back to work while their nine-month old babies are being looked after by teenaged apprentices earning four pound something an hour isn’t the answer.

Personally I think that the government should fund childcare rather than pay any child benefits.

If every child in daycare was given at least one decent meal, it would be a better way of ensuring that children are fed, rather than leaving it to feckless parents who spend the money on who knows what.

Not saying that every poor person is a bad person or a bad parent, but many lack intelligence unfortunately.

The ever widening wealth gap, the impact of new technology on the job market and the state of geopolitics in general are the real issues here.

There seems to be alot if cognitive dissonance going on about who should have children and who should fund it, the goal posts for which get shunted around depending on which ideological zeitgeist is being punted on the day.

On the one hand, the world is over-populated and the "poor feckless breeders" are to blame (never the death throes of end stage capitalism) but then the birth rate is dropping and we do need the lower classes for the jobs that are beneath the middle and upper class kids, because bin man isn't an option for them.

The cynic in me thinks this new proposal is to ensure we have enough bodies to fill the caring and service industries, which are the only ones we'll be left with as AI takes over and the ability to progress into "naice stable careers" gets further diminished for those without assets or inheritance or nepotism to fall back on.

That said, no child should, or needs to be living in poverty in the world we live in. There would be plenty to go round if the markets, and the greed of those who run them, weren't run like a rigged casino.

We've got billionaire pronatalists opining that the tech bros should be reproducing a superior generation at as speedy a rate as possible, and potential "cannon fodder" being nurtured at the other end, and it's all being framed like some huge moral crisis because everything's too expensive - by design!!

Most people just want a nice, relatively secure life, some want kids, some don't, but tarring poor people as defective parents simply because they're poor is extremely offensive and from a certain copy book that should never be revisited.

Keeps us all at each other's throats, dividing, judging and bitching, rather than looking closely at the true causes of the world's ills. Trust me, it ain't Wayne and Waynetta and their extra sprog.

That would be stupid, it's unworkable and self-defeating.

Benefits all get ploughed back into the economy, except housing benefit which is a state handout to landlords.

If you restrict benefits at that level, you'll pay out more in health, social care, police/justice and social.services.

It's a society. It's either modern or Victorian. Victorian was shit.

Of course it's not the argument at all, but it's not as dramatic and 'YOU WANT THE POORHOUSES BACK!!!' This argument always descends to!

And they don't because not all disabled people get DLA / PIP, it goes off need not diagnosis.

I think there should be a blanket benefit cap of no more than £24,000 per household.

Most families won't,
Those with disabled children, can get more.

So is commuting and paying a mortgage where Liz Truss’s incompetence means your repayments go up by £300 overnight. I’m also disabled and this costs me about £30 a week, so I do understand, but ultimately the taxpayer cannot level every single playing field.

This type of simplistic approach to complex societal problems is comforting, but useless.

Do you really understand so little of society and poverty?

Start by reading Seebohm Rowntree and follow the study of poverty and its impacts through to the 21st century.

Being poor makes life harder, but it doesn't make those who are poor less worthy of being alive or having a family.

I agree. Benefits are in many cases now far far far too generous for people with children. A family with 3 children, who claim DLA for 2 of them (a very common occurrence round here), with rent of £1,000 p/m would be entitled to £3100 per month according to Entitled To. That’s equivalent to a salary of £37,000 per year.

More than that. Take home of £31,000 is the equivalent of around 50k salary. I agree it's wrong that families on benefits get more than people who work. It should be equivalent of minimum wage at most.

And you also said benefits were far to generous, how much money do you think a family with two disabled children should get?

You don’t need research figures. Ask any teacher…it’s true. Why do you think the worst schools are in the poorest areas? They get the most money, often some of the better teachers as they can pay more. The common denominator is that there are a lot of bad parents - parents who were brought up on benefits with no aspirations, where bad behaviour was acceptable as was bunking off school.

if you do refer to research…why do you think that a child’s chances in life is most influenced by their mother’s education level? Because that is who they are most influenced by. A well educated woman is more likely to have had a good career, planned for children she can afford and married someone of the same standing., hence being better off.

Being disabled csn be very expensive
.

I don’t believe that being poor make someone a bad parent (unless they have more children than they can afford). However, statistically, bad parents are much more likely to be poor and reliant on benefits.

That's an authoritarian/moralistic attitude. Euthanasia and breeding control never quite go away as ideas - saw them in the workhouse, saw them in totalitarian states, saw them in religious organisations.

I do not accept your figures, they are not borne out by academic research.

No but nor do I think any family where nobody works should be better off than those who do.

And less than 37k is not ‘poverty’. I manage it fine with 2 kids; one in nursery

I bet this also led to a Mumsnet thread "why won't the povs come to our computer classes this is more evidence they deserve to be broke" 😂

I'm saying the statement is wrong, with or without your irrelevant follow up sentence.

Having a child when poor does not make someone a bad parent. Being poor or rich is not a measure of being a good or bad person or parent.

If you use wealth/income as a proxy measure for goodness/badness at anything, you've lost your humanity.

Right. Including you? Hence your disinterest in the impacts of the two child benefit cap..

No, it isn't true.

It is only by fundamentally not understanding what is valuable about people and society that such a statement gets made.

Being poor does not make a person a bad parent. Being poor/rich is not a moral issue.