Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To wonder why all benefits are not limited to two children only

425 replies

SuzysZoo · 10/08/2011 13:59

Ok. I know that this is going to be a bit contentious. I don't mean retrospectively either. I just wonder why, in these cash strapped times, the government doesn't just say that all benefits, child benefit etc should be limited IN THE FUTURE, IN AT LEAST 9 MONTHS TIME, to 2 children per family only...... My point being that if you have more you should support them yourself. AIBU?

OP posts:
GypsyMoth · 10/08/2011 14:00

why is 2 the magic number??Hmm

BooyHoo · 10/08/2011 14:01

why 2? have you got 2 or intend to just have 2?

BertieBotts · 10/08/2011 14:01

Because reducing benefits has no effect on birth rates, but massive effects on child poverty.

Because some people lose everything after having 2 children.

worraliberty · 10/08/2011 14:02

YABU

I know it's frustrating to see the permanently entitled in our society, go on and on to breed with no intention of getting a job...but you can't take it out on the innoccent children and push them into extreme poverty....that would be disastrous for society as a whole.

You also can't force people onto contraception of force them out to work unfortunately.

GypsyMoth · 10/08/2011 14:02

would you also make it compulsory that they must have a mum AND a dad in the home (mortgaged) too....make it all nice and tidy and 'nuclear'??

LolaRennt · 10/08/2011 14:02

I think 2 is fair numnber because if you want more, you can still afford them.. You just have to make cut backs. Food gets cheaper, clothes get cheaper, rooms can be shared

BooyHoo · 10/08/2011 14:02

hell, why give CBfor any children if that'syour line of thought? if people want any dcs they should support them themselves eh?

Pootles2010 · 10/08/2011 14:02

Have you got 2 children by any chance OP?

Thistledew · 10/08/2011 14:02

Because you shouldn't punish and deprive children for the decisions of their parents.

BertieBotts · 10/08/2011 14:03

Because what happens if you have children from a previous relationship and enter into a new one where there are more children, or you decide to have more children with your new partner?

Because why should only the rich be allowed to "breed"? (Since that will be your next argument, I'm sure)

Memoo · 10/08/2011 14:03

What if you are both working and can easily afford 4 kids and then you are both suddenly made redundant?? How are you then surpose to support 4 children whilst looking for a new job?

LolaRennt · 10/08/2011 14:03

Also I think it might encourage only families who genuinely want children to have more than 2. Not those who just can't be arsed to used protection so they have 6 and let them run feral.

BertieBotts · 10/08/2011 14:03

Also, what happens if you have triplets? When you already had one child?

BustySinclair · 10/08/2011 14:04

yes i agree OP, and even the labour MP canvassing looked shamefaced when i asked why we pay for 6, 7 and 8 kids in a family.

if you think the benefits in some of these families all go for the benefit of the kids, you are a bit naive

more like fags, booze and sky telly not to mention ipods and iphones

VeronicaCake · 10/08/2011 14:04

Last time I checked third children don't get a lot of choice in the matter of being born. If we give benefits to families to support their children then either all the children should count or none of them should.

I agree that people should generally consider their resources when family planning. I just don't think this is the way to engineer that outcome.

GypsyMoth · 10/08/2011 14:04

all benefits op??

so a family has the nerve to go on and have number 3? its ok though,they will pay for it themselves,thats ok isnt it?

til that child turns out to have SN or a disability,and will need a benefit to reflect that......but oh dear,no,sorry,we dont DO benefits for child number 3!!!!

seeing flaws in ou plan alreadyHmm

Original poster
SuzysZoo · 10/08/2011 14:05

Does it really have no effect on birth rates though? I thought in countries where there were financial incentives to have only two children, it did have an effect on birth rates. Two is not a magic number, no. Just that most people think two is reasonable and anything more a bit over the top, maybe? Yes, some people do lose everything after having more than two, that's true, but I'd say that was probably only a very tiny minority maybe.....

OP posts:
BooyHoo · 10/08/2011 14:05

nice ignorantattitude lola Hmm

because all families with 6 children let them run feral dont they?

naturalbaby · 10/08/2011 14:05

Angry what a load of rubbish

YABU

LolaRennt · 10/08/2011 14:06

memoo wouldn't make more sens to have an emergency fund in those circumstances? Say a year of benefits? but not unlimited

BustySinclair · 10/08/2011 14:06

im not saying for people who are made redundant, i am saying for people who have never worked a day in their lives and keep on having unwanted kid after unwanted kid a la Karen Matthews and the like

LolaRennt · 10/08/2011 14:07

Did you read what I said?? I said it would make people who wanted children work to have them. SO fuck off before you misquote me.

BooyHoo · 10/08/2011 14:07

3 children is overth top? are you for real? [shocked]

GypsyMoth · 10/08/2011 14:07

crap idea op......off you go,think up something else,we could all do with a laugh!!

naturalbaby · 10/08/2011 14:07

just get them sterilised after the 2nd unwanted kid then bustysinclair ?!

Swipe left for the next trending thread