Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

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:
cricketballs · 10/08/2011 14:08

I think you have been a bit nasty there BooyHoo; I can see the op's point of view that it might have an impace of making people think before they have another child rather than some who seem to think that the world and its dog owes them....however, rather than in 9 months time, those with more than 2 kids currently will still keep their benefits but for future families the cut off is 2.

BertieBotts · 10/08/2011 14:08

That is what I was told by a lecturer at university. Unfortunately I don't have a source to hand, but I believe it was part of the Labour government's findings when they were investigating child poverty as part of their action plan to reduce it.

Original poster
SuzysZoo · 10/08/2011 14:09

I have more than 2 children actually. I work so I can support them. However, I have to say that I would probably have thought twice about having more than 2 if there was not the Government "safety net". So, yeh, in my own case, if benefits were limited to 2, I would probably not have risked more than 2. So....

OP posts:
LolaRennt · 10/08/2011 14:09

BTW I am on benefits and pregnant with number 2. My Dh and I working to sort ourselves out so if/when we do have more children. We can pay for them, no one else.

BooyHoo · 10/08/2011 14:09

guess what lola, there are even parents who didn't plan their 6 children that dont let them run feral. it is possible you know to be a bit shit with contraception and still be a fucking amazing parent. i'm one of them Wink

Pootles2010 · 10/08/2011 14:09

Best get off mumsnet then in case you get sacked eh? You'd be in trouble then.

NasalCoffeeEnema · 10/08/2011 14:10

I have 4 children. After years of working hard in relatively secure jobs my dh has lost his job three times in just over a year. the first time we didn't claim. the second time we claimed some bits and by the third time we had to claim full whack. What should we have done when our hard money ran out? Culled a few?

cricketballs · 10/08/2011 14:10

impact

BooyHoo · 10/08/2011 14:10

nasty? show me where i was nasty?

LolaRennt · 10/08/2011 14:11

Who me? I'm home with my 6 month old. She can't sack me, thanks

electra · 10/08/2011 14:11

Yes, YABU. Fascist, much?

Would you like to live in a country that dictates how many children you are 'allowed' to have, like China?

LolaRennt · 10/08/2011 14:12

When I say we are working, I mean Dh is working. I do the hard stuff at home

Fifis25StottieCakes · 10/08/2011 14:13

Erm because loads of children would end up living in poverty.

What happens when you end up pregnant planned, OH buggers off then u get made redundant, should all 3 kids live in poverty as youu cant find another job.

The list could go on and on

Pootles2010 · 10/08/2011 14:13

No silly, OP says she works. Although what would happen if you dh was to leave you? Wouldn't you need more benefits then?

BooyHoo · 10/08/2011 14:13

scarily i do think this is something that the tories will try and do.

Deflatedballoonbelly · 10/08/2011 14:13

So if in a years time, and we have had another child taking the total to 4 and my partner lost his job, I would only be able tom claim for two?

Are you an idiot? A bonafide idiot?

naturalbaby · 10/08/2011 14:14

what is the op's point/problem - loads of kids, benefits or government spending?

LolaRennt · 10/08/2011 14:15

DH would pay maintnence (which is easier to chase in this country, I'll give you that)

electra · 10/08/2011 14:16

The tories have already done it - from now on the Sure Start maternity grant is for first child only.

ThisIsANiceCage · 10/08/2011 14:18

I have family in countries with zero welfare system where many people still have half a dozen children, even tho contraception is available (tho admittedly not always as available as here).

All that happens is the kids suffer.

spiderpig8 · 10/08/2011 14:18

Children don't ask to be born

Pootles2010 · 10/08/2011 14:19

Ok... if he lost his job?

bubblesincoffee · 10/08/2011 14:19

Yanbu.

Plenty of working families can't afford to have more children. Why should those on who are not capable of providing for the two children they already have be entitled to have more?

Any child born with special needs would be entitled to financial support in it's own right, whether it was the first child born to someone on benefits or it was the fifth. It's just that the parents wouldn't get extra money simply for having the child. They would get the same benefits as higher rate tax payers would get for having a disabled child. A parent could legitimately claim carers allowance if they needed to, because that would be different to being given more money just for having a child.

I actually think CB should only be given for the first two children.

i think two is a fair number, because you are not denying a child a sibling, but you are also not saying to parents that they can have as many children as they want when they can't provide for them.

You can scream eugenics as much as you want, but something has to be done to stop people having children that they are unable to provide for.

GypsyMoth · 10/08/2011 14:20

suppose a third child was disabled,or had SN?? deny the 3rd child benefits would you??

Fifis25StottieCakes · 10/08/2011 14:20

If op works is she willing to give up her CB?

Just a thought

Swipe left for the next trending thread