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:
BooyHoo · 10/08/2011 15:01

pintof are you reallynot understanding how someone can be a lone parent and become pregnant? really?

bubblesincoffee · 10/08/2011 15:01

Lola - don't worry, it was just me being a bit thick then! Smile

ThisIsANiceCage · 10/08/2011 15:02

Nope, elsewhere in Scotland.

It's true of the big things. Which is why Scotland hasn't gone the way of England wrt university funding, for example.

And by the way, as someone without children, i'm paying the child benefit of those of you who have two, never mind ten. So can anyone whinging about "why should people expect others to support their children" explain to me why I'm doing that for you?

(I don't mind, btw, I've always thought universal CB a good thing.)

Cheria · 10/08/2011 15:02

YABU. Plenty of people are on benefots for all kinds of reasons. The vast majority are not having kids just to get the benefits, whatever you may have read in the Daily Mail.

The people who would suffer most from reduction in benefits would be the children. People who rant on about people with large families on benefits either forget that the children involved would be the ones to suffer, or are just not very nice people.

HPonEverything · 10/08/2011 15:02

If your first pregnancy results in triplets how do you decide which one to abort or get adopted? That would be tough :(

Overall I see where the OP is coming from tbh, but couldn't see it working in practice.

Nancy66 · 10/08/2011 15:02

twinkly, that's a good point - but only if they could prove that they hadn't earned the vouchers by buying:

Tizer
Findus Crispy pancakes
Turkey Twizzlers
Wotsits
Lambrini

twinklypearls · 10/08/2011 15:03

I do think there is an issue with men meeting new partners and then having more children and then forgetting their financial oblligations to the existing children. My dp has always wanted children but he knew when he met me that we could not have a child together if that meant our existing daughter went without. The same goes for women starting relationships with men who have children from a previous relationship.

bubblesincoffee · 10/08/2011 15:03

Booyhoo, then he would have to be able to provide for it. Surely that's not too much to ask? Hmm

Or he would have the option of finding someone to have children with that doesn't already have children from a previous relationship.

BooyHoo · 10/08/2011 15:04

saski, my problem withthe OP's post is the mention of onlypaying for 2 children. why pay for any if you think people should be in a position to support their dc then let them do it from the start. ifyou want one child, go for it, but there will be no government assistance. youhave nomore right tohave 2 children than the family next door has the right to have 7.

zukiecat · 10/08/2011 15:06

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

tethersend · 10/08/2011 15:07

So, what happens to the third, fourth and fifth children of parents who refuse to work?

BooyHoo · 10/08/2011 15:08

bubbles you are missingmy point. it would mean that the first time mother would be missing out on a benefit for her first child that other first time parents were recieving.

zukiecat · 10/08/2011 15:11

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

spookshowangel · 10/08/2011 15:12

what if you have 3 kids and your partner leaves you and refuses to pay maintenance? do you only get benefits for 2 of them, do you pick which ones to feed and clothes you logic is flawed for people that find themselves genuinely in a shitty position.

Fifis25StottieCakes · 10/08/2011 15:13

most of the people who go to our school with 3 or more kids live on the private estates, most of the ones on benefits have 1 or 2, same goes for my council estate. Only 2 of us have 3 or more kids.

I think half the stuff on here is urban myths about people on benefits TBH.

They have blackberries - yes as its cheaper than paying £300 to have a landline installed plus line rental

They have massive teles - yes if your tele breaks you cant buy a huge one with a back on anymore

deemented · 10/08/2011 15:16

OP, how dare you insinuate that all people who have more than 2 children whilst on benefits neither want their children or let them run feral.

I am on benefits. I have previously worked, but back problems now mean that i am limited with what i can do. I am currently pregnant with DC5. All my children are incredibly loved and very very much wanted. They are also well behaved - of course they have their moments, as do all children - but they are in no way feral. I am bringing them up to be confident, happy, productive members of socitey that know the value of working for a living and paying their own way.

I can assure you, living on benefits is not something i would have chosen for myself. I do not have luxurious things like flat screen tv's, ipods and the like. I would much rather go out and earn an honest days wages, but i simply can't.

Pendeen · 10/08/2011 15:17

Some of the replies are so silly.

"Eugenics" and "fascist" and so on.

The OP was not suggesting that people should be prevented from having children, just that the rest of us should not have to pay for other peoples' decision to have large families.

DioneTheDiabolist · 10/08/2011 15:18

So to answer the OP, the reason that the government doesn't limit benefits to two children is because it is a silly, unworkable idea that runs the risk of damaging children.

PintOfStellaAndBuckfastChaser · 10/08/2011 15:18

zukiecat, are you claiming everything your entitled too? Should you not be getting housing benefit and council tax benefit as well?

If you don't get anything for your DD1, should she not be supporting herself? i.e part time job, student loans e.t.c.
When I was no longer treated as a child for child benefit/family credit (nearly 14y ago), I earned my own money and gave my parents money towards my keep, ok it didn't cover what they lost, but I bought all my own clothes, lunches, busfairs e.t.c.

zukiecat · 10/08/2011 15:19

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

PintOfStellaAndBuckfastChaser · 10/08/2011 15:23

Sorry zukiecat, I've just saw your last post, your DD1 does have a part time job. Blush

Kewcumber · 10/08/2011 15:26

I can see the attraction for CB declining not just after your first child but after every subsequent child as well to a point that eventually CB becomes minimal. But trying to have a no benefits above 2 childrne ust isn;t workable, you know it isn;t really.

And Britain will cope because benefits cuts will happen and people will work until they are older and public services will be cut. Because there will be no choice. We may not like it but those are the facts and any opposition govt trying to convince people otherwise are fooling either themselves or the potential voters. They may dabble around the margins with different approaches and they may be more optimistic about growth etc but in the long term we need to come close to a balance of how much we tax and how much we spend and we have learnt from history that taxing too much just results in an exodus from the country of those companies and individuals who pay the highest taxes.

BooyHoo · 10/08/2011 15:29

"the rest of us should not have to pay for other peoples' decision to have large families."

for starters, being 'on benefits' is not a permanent state of being. people do come off benefits and contribute to the pot themsleves therefore repaying anything they may have received.

secondly, why should 'the rest of us' hav to pay for other people's decisions to have any family never mind large ones.

zukiecat · 10/08/2011 15:29

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

mrsmon · 10/08/2011 15:29

i think its a bit unrealistic tbh

A lot of families with 2 or less children work hard and still struggle to make ends meet!

Also the points about parents who are popping out a kid every year and that they are unwanted? how could you possibly know that? yes of course there are some exeptions but that is like tarring families with say more than 3 or 4 children that their kids are unwanted!

the china thing got mentioned a little a few posts away, not really a good example as that country has one of the highest rates of children in homes and foster care! also children get sold to childless families all around the world and i actually think that limit is in place as the country has a high population? might be wrong?

i have 2 kids and due my 3rd but we were happy as a family of four and took the descion to have another on other reasons other than extra CB (which is £11) for each child after the 1st.

Has the government not already put in place that higher earning families dnt receive CB?