David Cameron welfare reforms-no family will receive more than £25,000 a year.

[Hammy02]

Good idea? I think so. I can't believe a single family receives this much already in benefits. It is about the same as the average income so it would be ridiculous for any one family to have more in benefits than someone that works?

How many children shall we allow the poor to have then Happy?

Do we say that we are only going to pay benefit to support adults? Do we give benefit for one or two children? what do we do if the couple continue to have children? Do we recognise that the children may end up hungry and negelected and therefore we seize them?If so where do the children go? Or do we leave them at home hungry?

speaking of which...

HappyMummyOfOne, how about if a family with 4 kids falls on hard times we send you round with a lethal injection for the kids you consider 'too many''

Everyone, wether they are rich or poor should only have as many children as they can afford to support. I was speaking to a friend about this yesterday. She has three children and would really love a forth but won't as she knows she can't afford to give her children a nice and comfortable life if she has anymore- despite her and her husband both working and being relatively well off.

What kind of life is it for the children bringing them up in a run down sink estate and having to live on poor quality food and no life outside the estate? A mother that chooses to continue adding to her brood despite living like this is incredible selfish. And before anyone pounces on me for being right wing and patronising to the poor, would you choose for your children to grow up like that? I take my foster son to contact every week and believe me, many of these people aren't living, merely surviving. But yet they still manage to sustain their two packs a day habit and plenty of booze.

Twinkley I don't think you should dictate just give the set amount and leave it at that.Some families could make 25K(or less) go a very long way others wouldn't it's their choice.

I think giving money per child is wrong and has contributed to this sense of entitlement culture we live in today.I speak as somebody with 3 kids who very much relies on her CB,I still wouldn't have a problem with the gov limiting it to just 2 kids for all though.Why should the state fund our extra child when others are more prudent?

The net takers only out number net payers if you count children. Scrounging bastards, expecting 18 years of freebies. Send em back up chimneys and onto tje farms.

I don't think it's a case of "allowing" people to have children. Surely if you're on benefits, struggling to manage with 2 kids, then having a third is perhaps not a wise choice? I have 2dcs, would love another one, but can't afford another lot of childcare costs, therefore I won't have another child until I can afford it.

onagar, are you saying that supporting a 25K cap is supporting the poor starving in a gutter?

Nobody should be left to starve; families should be given the minimum amount they need to manage without difficulty. And, other than very expensive disability needs, no family is going to need more than that. So the cap won't be a problem. If people aren't given what they need then that is a problem but that's another issue and nothing to do with a 25K cap.

I think a cap on the amount of money people can receive through the benfit system is long overdue. 25k is still a very sizeable income and for someone in employment to receive this amount of money after tax they would need to be earning 30k+ so I don't see how its unfair in anyway.

So what do you do when people continue having children they cannot afford? Are we going to take these children? What if someone has twins or triplets when they are going for that second child? Again does the state say keep what you can afford and hand over the other child.

What if you did have a lot of money and very sensibly had the number of children you could afford but then lost your job? Do we support those children or again say this is the maximum you can have?

I think it is irrelevant how much of the 25k in cash in hand. It is a bit like working out a wage based on how much you have left after rent/council tax/school dinners/opticians/dentist/prescriptions etc.

I agree that a cap does sound intuitively sensible. I am just wondering how it will work.

Looking back to when I was on benefits I am sure I did not get anywhere near the 25K figure. I am cocerned this is a lot of hot air about a small group of people.

1. those with a disacbility
2. those living in expensive areas of London with large familes.

manicinsomniac, are you under the impression that the 25k is just tossed over the counter for whoever asks for it?

That is the minimum amount for whatever circumstances that families has. If it wasn't necessary they wouldn't be getting it now.

Cameron is tricking you into thinking he is sticking up for you by waving around these numbers and you are falling for it. Don't take my word for it. Go look into it properly. Find out how these things work.

One of the tricks is that someone who is working now and living in London with their 6 kids could be out of work tomorrow. The moment that happens they will be living in a place they can't afford with too many kids they can't afford. It's no use saying they shouldn't have so many kids or shouldn't be living in London. That is just where they were when it happened.

Onagar enough already with the hysterical posts re berating people pointing out quite nice;ly and sensibly that 1)we can't afford to keep this benefit system going 2)it's unfair 3) things have to change.

I'm sick and tired of posters saying anybody who doesn't agree with an open cheque book on benefits is bigoted or cruel.It's insulting, very wrong and slightly immature to be frank.

didnt you know david cameron is trying to make "benefit bashing" a national sport may just squeeze it in for the Olympics

form a orderly line

There is a lot of hot air about a small number of people because harping on about 25k gives the impression that that is the amount people on benefit get. It is nowhere near that, you would need a very large family. Meanwhile with the false impression that people on benefits are rolling in it they can chip away at the safety net while envious people cheer on.

Divide and rule. Wake up and smell the coffee.

Onagar it's the same anywhere,so you move where the work is,countless families have done it,do it and will do it.

MilaMae no it's not enough at all. For those demanding that the children of the poor, sick or disabled be allowed to starve there should be no let up in the criticism heaped upon them.

We're not talking about posters looking for a better way of making it work. We're talking about the same kind of people who thought the German economy would be better off without all those Jews.

moving due to benefits caps. hmm

Many working families have to move out of their preferred areas to affordably house their children. You might have a larger commute to continue working but that is a choice you made in order to have the family house.

"benefit bashing" has anybody said take away all benefits,no not as I recall.If you reread the thread people are just in favour of capping benefits at 25K-totally bloody reasonable.

It's 25K folks not 10K.

I was on benefits without working for a short time and have just worked out that including my dla which was at one of the highest levels as I had just left hospital where I had been for months I received £13.5K
I have tried to incude DLA, incapacity benefit, housing benefit, council tax benefit, child benefit, tax credits, milk vouchers. Most people would not get the IB and DLA and therefore would receive much less.

To recieve 25K I would have needed to have had quite a few extra children.

well said huckingfell. Hence the reason for commuter towns. I live in a village that is pretty average and certainly not my first choice, but I do it because I can't afford a decent family home in the city. That is life.

I beg your pardon Onagar soooooo people who are in favour of this are anti semite now

Yes but they are capping benefit in London where the work is. It is likely that the cheaper areas will have less work. Those on low incomes can't always afford the commute. Also it will move people who are sick/disabled away from their support networks. It will move many lone parents who rely on relatives for childcare away from their childcare and into unemployment. Misguided and counterproductive. It's nothing less than social cleansing designed to ensure London is left with the conservative voters.

I hardly think that people who claim housing benefit are living in dream locations. As someone who claimed housing benefit I know how hard it is to get a landlord willing to accept you.

Having said that as someone who cannot afford to live near her family, I understand the frustration. Although as I said before I could afford to live near my family in a high rise flat in London. I choose not to.