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?

keep your hair on. I'm not going to ome round and execute him, but ultimately I'm right. The planet is massively oerpopulated. All we need to do is replace ourselves (max). We can use immigration to top up if necessary.

Yes, I'm sure it's regional. But there is no point in saying that everyone made redundant would happily jump at the first job available because, as the case of DH's friend shows, many think 'menial' jobs are beneath them especially if theyve worked in highly paid jobs since leaving university.

I don't look at the unemployed and think scrounger or scum or any of that crap. I fully support the welfare state. I just don't think we should shy away fromn the glaring fact that a sizable minority don't work because they cannot be arsed. That problem does nothing to help those in genuine or temporary need as they are then perceived as scroungers when in fact they are in need of support.

People just want their money, though, because it's "the rich" paying and it's like, fair, innit.

Labour put so many people on benefits during their incumbency - nobody's going to vote for their own money to go. Turkeys and Christmas.

Yes I do. Do you have any intellect because your argument very much lacks it. On the basis of what you're saying we should all just breed to Kingdom come because every person benefits society, but that's just not the case, and you know it.

Everyone is on here every day bitching about how there are no jobs and no benefits and houses are too expensive and they cant get their kids into a good school, but they want to just have as many kids as they want (because it's their 'right'and expect some other person to foot the bill. Well, read the papers. Read about Europe drowning in government debt and realise that there is a major societal shift coming and no CB for a third child is probably the least bad thing that's going to happen.

I am in my second pregnancy and have just been made redundant, I am very highly qualified but won't be able to find a job for the next few months so for the first time in my life will have to ask for help. I have contributed in taxes for 17 years so that is fair enough. this could just as easily have happened in a third pregancy

. . sings, 'Who Let the Dogs Out?'

I think these days, EVERY family needs to think about how many children they have and how they would be supported should the worst happen. It's fine to say, "I am having 6 kids as I can afford to pay for them all at the moment." But it's not fine really, unless you have money in the bank/good insurance policies etc.

I don't agree with OP that we should cap the number of kids a family can have, but I do agree there should be a limit on the total amount one family can claim (maybe to average family income) There are working families who can't afford more children. If there is an accidental pg they have to suck it up. I see no reason it should be different for non-working families.

But willowstar, that's fine. Your case is one of the many reasons why a decent society has a welfare state.

nykxx - yes you should have chosen to have no more than two children, unless of course their Father is supporting them.

Nobody should have the right to have children they cannot provide for, disability or not, children have two parents.

And I will say it again for those that missed it the first time. This hypothetical ruling does not have to apply to children who were concieved when their parents were employed and able to provide for them.

It only has to apply to those who are already recieveing benefits (other than CB) when they concieve a third child.

Then the benefits system has some chance of being able to go back to being a safety net for those who have fallen on hard times, insetad of a lifestyle choice.

Having the government pay you for the pleasure of having two children is already pretty generous imo.

as deemented said having 1 or 2 children does not make those children necessarily loved or mean they are being raised by competent non feckless parents . likewise having 4 ,5 or 6 children does not mean children are being raised by incompetent , brainless parents who don't give a damn . if you remove benefits after 2 children you in effect penalise many competent caring parents while allowing the family with 2 children who are allowed to cause mayhem and run the streets continue to benefit .

maybe we need to make some parents understand that the right to benefits comes only in return for responsible parenting . is there some way to replace universal child benefit with some form of responsible parenting benefit which would need to be applied for yearly ? things that may be taken into account in an application would may be include a childs attendance record at school being over an acceptable level obviously always allowing or those with genuine illness etc or whether children are in trouble with the police ,drunk out alone after certain time which would be related to their age etc . with this new regime benefits would be paid to parents whose children were truanting etc so as long as parents were prepared to work with the authorities who would support them through responsible parenting classes .

there would need to be provision that children neither go hungry or unclothed maybe in the form of vouchers for basic school uniform and food but you would not receive money directly iyswim.

 i'm not denying this would be a difficult , expensive and time consuming process but surely it's time to make those parents who do not seem to  understand  that  parenting means being responsible for your children and setting boundaries and not just letting them run feral terrorising their communities feel the effect in their pocket  .

if you remove benefits after 2 children you in effect penalise many competent caring parents while allowing the family with 2 children who are allowed to cause mayhem and run the streets continue to benefit.

It's not penalising anyone. It's expecting parents to provide financially for their own children. Whether they are good parents or bad parents is irrelevant.

zukie . Well he sounds like a right cunt nice!

Zukie- I was harsh, and I apologise to you. Just at the moment I am getting wound up by the naivete of people in the Uk who believe the current benefits situation is sustainable. It's as though people think that because the UK is (by global standards) a pretty compassionate country which doesnt let kids starve or end up in the workhouse, we have right on our side and so someone (not sure who) will make sure that we will win out in the game of 'global economic smack down' that is coming our way, but we won't.

Our children are inheriting a fairly terrifying, almost entirely globalised economy, so far removed from what we saw that I'm still watching replays trying to catch up if I'm honest. When we grew up, political issues and communication/logistical difficulties stopped a lot of jobs/ manufacturing from being outsourced to places liek China. Those barriers have now gone. As an example, I know someone (SE asian lady) who can barely write English and cant use a computer, yet she's managed to contact a Chinese factory which is now manufacturing and sending her stock (wont say what as it's genius and she'll kill me if anyone else starts doing it ) which she sells in Hk. I asked her how she found the factory. She said ' i asked around and got a mobile number'. Unbelievable. Unthinkable 5 years ago, never mind 20. It's an anecdote but it really set me thinking how these changes have just caught the west on the back foot.

Anyway, I am now ranting, but hopefully you'll understand that I'm not just trying to be a psycho bitch. I don't even think it's a case of we need to shape up and slim down if we're going to compete globally . I actually think that choice will be wrested from us by the developing markets and we'll be buggered

Unfortunately I think child poverty would still exist no matter how much some parents got in benefits. I work in an area where we see deprivation on a daily basis but, sadly, some parents will always prioritise their own interests, whatever they are, ahead of their children's needs.

These parents are irresponsible enough that even a system of food stamps/clothes vouchers, or even directly supplying the items would not work as they would just be sold for alcohol, drugs, nights out, etc

JONATHAN PORRIT HAS SAID:

COUPLES who have more than two children are being ?irresponsible? by creating an unbearable burden on the environment, the government?s green adviser has warned.

Jonathon Porritt, who chairs the government?s Sustainable Development Commission, says curbing population growth through contraception and abortion must be at the heart of policies to fight global warming. He says political leaders and green campaigners should stop dodging the issue of environmental harm caused by an expanding population.

?I am unapologetic about asking people to connect up their own responsibility for their total environmental footprint and how they decide to procreate and how many children they think are appropriate,? Porritt said.

?I think we will work our way towards a position that says that having more than two children is irresponsible. It is the ghost at the table. "

I agree with the principle but wince at his mention of abortion. Typical bloody man stuff.

I'm not sure if this is true but John Gray (Wrote 'Straw Dogs') said that if we follow the population trends of most other species, we'll have a massive population crash c. 2150 and about half of us will get wiped out and then the population will stabilise around those levels

"Not that it's any of your business, QueenOfAllBiscuitsAndMuffins, but i am having DC5 because manshape and i chose to. FWIW, i'm due to have a major op on my back next year and once that happens i'm hoping that i can return to work, at least part time. That together with the fact that manshape is working will mean that you no longer have to support me or my three children - good news, eh?"

Demeneted when you posted in a thread about limiting benefits to only 2 children with I'm pregnant with DC5 AND on benefits, I don't think there is anything wrong with me asking well why are you having a 5th children if you are on benefits. Nowhere in my post did I say I objected to supporting people that needed it or that I supported the OPs suggestion (which as stated I don't), you are the one who got snippy about that. I also queried whether people really got that much extra cash for extra children.

Sorry deemented I spelt your name incorrectly.

Capping child benefits is not much short of state sanctioned abortion. So op, pro-life or pro-choice?