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

[SuzysZoo]

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?

CY and I for one would not begrudge them getting benefits if one/both lost their jobs. Sometimes bad luck happens to hard working people, that was why the system was set up after all.

Loudlass there are huge numbers of people for whom BC works perfectly well, it's pretty unlikely that you have 7 friends who accidentally got pregnant while properly using BC.
I don't understand the argument "my own Co2 footprint is smaller than all these MP's flying everywhere so my own 4 kids are comparatively irrelevant" unless you plan on telling your 4 kids they have to share the footprint of 2 (and your grandkids, and so on). Which would obviously be ridiculous.

The patient information leaflet is there for a reason. If people can't read, surely they could get someone to read it to them? If you tell the GP or pharmacist that you can't read, I'm sure they'd give you the information verbally. I don't understand why you wouldn't do that, not just for contraception but for any medication - it's for your own safety as much as anything. Can't understand the mindset of 'oh I won't bother finding out whether this is safe for me to take, if anything bad happens it'll be someone else's fault'.

I have dd1 who is 3 and am pg with twins - should I have aborted the pg?

I do think people should only have kids when they can afford to support them but situations change, redundancies happen etc. We timed the 2nd pg so dd1 will be at school once I return to work but twins in nursery costs more than I earn. Money will be tight and we will actually be entitled to tax credits for the first time. I didn't plan twins (altough I'm delighted).

I'm not sure you've thought this through.

But Saski, if you've got MPs who fly all over the place, take lots of foreign holidays, protect big, polluting businesses from being accountable for their actions and have a couple of kids, then obviously they are doing more damage that the parents of 4 dc (who can't afford foreign holidays 6because^ they've got 4 dc).

Just think that parents are a soft target when their are people/organisations whose behaviour is a much bigger problem. But they generate lots of lovely money, so the powers that be will just gloss over that.

Their, should be there.

I've not read all 12 pages so if someone has already suggested this then fair enough.

Surely there's a sensible compromise here. Benefits are there for those in need. They are not a lifestyle choice.

So based on that, my suggestion is that the benefits you get are fixed based upon the number of children you have when you enter the system.

So say I get made redundant and I have 3 kids. I get the benefits due for 3 kids. If I then go on to have another child, that's my right but there's nothing to say the government should pay me for my choice. So I STILL get benefits for 3 kids. Yes I understand that my other kids would suffer financially but that's NOT the government's fault is it? Surely it would be mine for having another child whilst being unable to afford it. Surely I am responsible, not the government?

The way I take it, what the OP is implying (correct me if I am wrong OP), is that having a CAP on the amount of child benefit a family receives will result in people being more careful.

I think there are plenty of people out there that have children on purpose because they will be entitled to bigger housing support, more child benefit. It is unfortunate but true.

Not read the whole thread but can I just point out that as a society we don't want people to reduce the number of children they are having. It will make our pensions problem even worse as we are getting older and older as a group with not enough working age people to support the old.

So it makes sense for us to invest in the children that are getting born and give them a start that will mean they can get jobs and contribute to our pensions when we are older.

We either have a reasonable number of children or up immigration of working age people or drastically reduce the state pension.

Take your choice.

I can't believe that people still think that having a child gets you social housing. It doesn't. It is extremely difficult to get social housing even if your needs are more than the average person.

When my marriage failed my children and I had to go and live at my parents house and I was very ill. I also have a child with autism. Living there was extremely stressful and my doctor wrote a letter to the council telling them that I needed to be rehoused and that living with my parents was affecting my health. It made no difference at all.

If you're potentially homeless with a child the best you can hope for is a bedsit, possibly for years.

My father was made redundant when I was 12. I was one of five. We had a hard time, had to adjust. If anything, it taught me that I need to be careful for rainy days.

It is one thing to need government support because of an unfortunate change of circumstances in your life, it's a different thing to expect this support from the outset without moving one finger.

niceguy, I see your argument is for personal responsibility. Fair enough, but the other side of the coin would look at the new child's rights and that society has a collective responsibility to take care of that child, as after all he/she did not ask to be born.

example

timetoask-It's unfair to say people who expect support don't move one finger.Plenty of families have both parents working and still have to rely heavily on tax credits.

and time to ask, if you have savings you don't get benefits!

I think it's a ridiculous argument to say that inability to read a patient info sheet means that an unwanted pg is inevitable. If you cannot read the info you ask for help.
Also you can't just say it was reasonable to have another baby because you were both working full time not without thinking through what would happen if one of you lost your job. I don't know how anyone could consider having a third baby without the back up of savings to help protect the other two.

Oh and what's wrong with the man helping to make extra sure of contraception by using a condom? My dh is the only man I've ever had sex with without using a condom and I was certainly no nun before I met him and had been on the pill since I was 16 too.

There is already a consultation paper out on Benefit Reform that is proposing that benefit "universal credit" is limited to £450 per week. Sounds a lot until you realise that it includes - housing, income support, tax credits, CB and many hidden benefits such as council tax, school dinners etc. The section on reducing benefit by 10% after 6 months has been dropped after pressure from housing organisations, amongst others, because they would have been in financial difficulty with rising levels of arrears, putting all HA tenants in a difficult place.

Part of the "reform" is to limit Local Housing Allowances to the 30th percentile and the amount payable to family size, capped at 3 bed house. Anything over this level will have to be paid for out of the household income.

The pension argument is ridiculous - by that argument, we should have a super qualified 18-25 year old population who pays in bucketloads of tax. Instead we have soaring youth unemployment because they aren't qualified for anything when they leave school nor have they ever been taught how to behave properly.

What we need is LESS children as a country, so the kids we do have get the very best start in life. Interaction with their parents from a young age, fantastic nurseries who encourage learning, enthusiastic and dedicated teachers who pick up when a child is struggling and actually have time to deal with it in the classroom because they aren't having to potty train/install basic discipline/explain the rudiments of manners to the rest of the class.

That way the kids we do have would actually end up being a credit to the system rather than a drain.

Carpetlover: I'm with you - accidents happen, but if you're prone to them, then for god's sake double up on contraception.

Ilove Tiffany - Ok so what is the answer? I stopped at 2 children because we would not have been able to afford what we wanted if we had more.

What gives a single mother who has never worked and has child after child with some waste of space the right to not think about her responsibilities, to expect others to pay for her 'right' to have children.

And do you think the feckless spend their benefits on the children???

Karmabeliever, there's 2 issues here; first is a parent's footprint and second, that of the children. The net impact of parent who is extremely "green" but has 4 kids will by far outstrip that of even the most profligate consumers who have 2 kids UNLESS the parents of the 4 kids say: hey kids, you've got to have only half a footprint AND have only 1 kid. Which, as I mentioned before, is ridiculous. The net impact of having 4 kids is actually really ruinous in terms of growth rates, which I think most people will agree have to slow.

The pension argument is just unsound. I can agree that a drop in birth rates in one particular country is extremely damaging to a pension structure, but surely the need for people to have WATER has to be prioritized over a diminishing pension pool.

^^I'm assuming here that the kids of the 2-child high-footprint family have the same number of kids as the kids from the 4-child low-footprint family. Which might in an of itself be a generous assumption, given that kids from big families tend to idealize big families (because I'd agree from a kid's perspective, they are more fun - all other things being equal).

Completely agree with northerngirl.

Except Saski, that I am one of 4 children but the only one to have any children out of my siblings. Some people will have lots of dc, others will have none. My dc may go on to be parents or they may not.

I still think that big business causes more pollution and is a more immediate concern. Focussing on the carbon footprint of generations not yet born is an easy target.

And, of course, there are people who think that global warming is a natural phenomenon, that has been occurring since the world began and the govt have siezed on it as a way of increasing stealth taxes.

I agree with NiceGuy2 - I've heard this idea a few times and don't understand why it isn't seen as a fairer option than just paying for a set number (which hurts people who'd had a large family they could afford then fall on bad times).

However many DC you have when you make a claim is the maximum you as an individual parent will ever be paid for, if you go on to have subsequent children, you are paying for them yourself. This also means if 2 single parents who are each individually claiming for their current children get together, they will still get benefits for those children, just not for any more they have as a couple. Seems fair. Benefits are supposed to be a safety net, not an alternative way to fund a lifestyle you want but can't afford.

And there is also good evidence to support less benefits:

USA said they wouldn't house single mothers and the teenage pregnancy rate dropped by 36% within a year.

And in Sweden/Norway where they have a very low birth rate, they have superb support for early years/maternity leave because it's not an undue burden on the state.

We need less children, born to people who are prepared to be better parents.