to think that the state shouldn't be expected to pay out for more than 2 kids per family on benefits?

[rockermom]

I don't know if anyone agrees with me but, do any of you believe that the state shouldn't be expected to pay money to any more than the 1st 2 children if a couple on long-term benefits decide to have 3+ children. Am I also right in thinking that kids are a responsibility rather than a right.

Obviously there are exceptions like families with 2+ kids where the parent(s) have been in F/T work and been made redundant, and, families whose parent(s) have had an accident and are disabled etc.

Do you think it's a fair question

Been done to the death already this

I don't think the expense of having more then 3 children is alot (sorry if I offend). There's little need for a new cot/pram/clothes as they can all be handed down. I expect feeding them will cost more though.

We live in a free society where people can have as many children as they please. They restrict familiy sizes in China, it doesn't work well there, what with babies being left to die at the side of the road. What do you expect people will do here if they can't afford to feed another child? Accidents happen aferall.

That'll be because you think poor people do not deserve to reproduce I suppose....

so what about the woman in a long term relationship with three or more children, her fella fucks off for no real reason... she should be punished, because a LOT of those cases don't pay maintenance, either

or what about the woman with three or more children, trapped in an abusive relationship - she wants to leave, but is told "sorry, too many kids" so has to stay, to make sure her kids get the income they need to get food and clothes...

The claimants aren't all benefits scroungers looking for the easy life, ya know.

But a lot of them are.

are they? stats please.

Yes - you are (being unreasonable).

Why 2 children and not 3 or 1???? How did you come up with that number then??

Also, why a couple??? Why not a lone parent or other family set up??

remember, it's the CHILDREN who suffer from child poverty. In your post you seem to want to deter / punish irresponsible parents. I understant (but don't condone) that sentiment - but how would your policies affe4ct the innocent victims of the irresponsibility - the children?

YABU

yawn yawn yawn

NEXT!!!

Are we talking about those with plasma tv or without???

That was my first one. That felt good.

It's the children who always suffer from child poverty. They get abandoned or they are malnurished.

Why don't you just enforce forced sterilisation for people with more then 3 children if they are on benefits? It'll stop any accidents

YA obviously BU.

it would be nice to have stats on serial benefit claimants who can't stop having kids.

they exist. lets not pretend otherwise. BUT, i'd wager my arsehole ( and that's quite useful) that its a MINUTE proportion of those who claim benefits.

i have twins, i didn't plan 3 i planned two. ofcourse i would be exempt - of course the scenarios mentioned on the thread would all be exempt i suppose....sooooooooooo - how do you police it? you can't. unemployed never worked couple have 2 kids, then shes preggers again - but the benefits will stop according to your rule - so they say they split up, or he was violent towards her. and then still get benefits.

its unenforcable

if you really want to look at this issue you really need to ask yourself this

why are the people that do this - happy doing this and don't have any hopes, dreams or aspirations other than to claim benefits?

and then your train of thought will undoubtedly lead you to education, further education, adult education, parenting classes....further still onto childcare, minimum wage.

lots of issues here, most need addressing IMO through education and training.

agree with custy as usual

Away with you Custy with your liberal ideals of training and education! Pfft!

The answer is obviously national service, corporal punishment and finally capital punishment. In that order.

Next!

I am joking op, but tbh I don't want to punish children cos they have shit lazy parents. I don't want any child in this country to go hungry because of their stupid parents - if this means I pay some people to drink and sit on their arses, so be it. I don't like it, but it can't be helped, although I know they do their best to make sure the system isn't abused.

Why are there so many of these threads?

It's beginning to look like a weird brainwashing attempt.

I bet it is a weird attempt, there will be an article or 2 in the newspaper this week about this.

Maybe Matthew Wright's a bit bored on his hols and is stocking up talk topics for Sept

Bugger it, am on phone and don't have the right brackets for my very first biscuit.

bratnav does your phone do copy and paste?

Yes????

Sorry, insomnia and exhaustion are playing havoc with my brain, explain please?

Society will always have high fliers,people in the middle, people who through no fault of their own cannot survive unassisted and parasites. Has been the case since Socrates and probably earlier (cavemen sitting around just painting on cave walls all day instead of chasing mammoths)

The problem with benefits is that it provides no incentive not to do irresponsible things. I dont think many people think "I know I'll have another kid to get benefits" but there is widespread knowledge that the taxpayer will pick up the tab for your contraceptive failures. Undoubtedly if there were no benefits and child labour laws stayed, people would have fewer children BUT the state cant exactly starve the offspring of benefit claimants so not sure what the answer is. Think it's just one of the unsolvable paradoxes of an industrialised society.

However, comparisons with China are not really sensible, because in China the reason people want more children is not because they're feckless but because there is no welfare state (it's a rational choice- it actually helps not hinders their self sufficiency). Chinese people are in general extremely materially aspirational and once large families become a barrier to material advancement rather than providing manpower for the farm, family size falls dramatically. Birth rates amongst middle class and urban Chinese families are voluntarily low.