This is hypocritical isn't it? I think I need a hard hat...

[Hungrydragon]

Ok, don't want to name change so I'll keep it vague enough not to get caught.

A "friend" of mine was moaning about rising costs in general.

However she then went on about child benefit and so forth and that she agrees with current reports that having a large family is abusing the system. Her dh then agreed with her. Saying that people were basically churning out "kids for cash" and that child benefit should be capped to two children as this is the normal amount to have and that they shouldn't be paying for other peoples children etc etc

But, but but...

The friend is her dh's 3rd relationship, he has had 3 other subsequent children before their two dc's. All of whom have been entitled to cb.

(I refused to engage in the conversation, leaving it to others)

He is a hypocrite isn't he? And technically so is she as add in 3 step children and that's a family of 5?

cat - I think it's fine for anyone, no matter how many kids they have, to debate the merits of it - but not to do as they did and say the other people are having kids for cash and are abusing the system, that they don't want to be paying for CB for other peoples large families - when we are all paying for theirs - a bit rich don't you think??

I think it's daft to think people keep having children for the extra £14 or whatever it is a week child benefit , so I don't think it should be capped.

I don't know what you get for each child in regards to child tax credits but unless they put a cap on that some people will continue to have children for the money, however I think it's the children who will suffer in the end if the government were to cut benefits .

He may be hypocritical or he may just have changed his mind over the years.

When I was young, single and foolish (two of which I no longer am) I believed that CB should only be paid in full for the first and at half-rate for the second child, and not at all for subsequent children. I no longer believe anything so bloody silly (and I only have one myself!) but that does not make me a hypocrite.

Having said which I think he is probably a hypocritical twat in the highest degree! :o

He wont be seeing any of the 'cash' the kids are 'churning' out will he? The women probably have the residency and the tax credits etc and he's probably paying maint. So I can see his POV that kids are a cash machine, for some. But not him,!

people come out with all sorts of illogical crap if it suits them.

I could use an extra £13.20 a week. Time for us to have another DC

He's hypocritical if he's actually claiming CB for his 3rd, 4th and 5th children, while believing that people shouldn't be allowed to claim for more than 2.

People forget that CB was called family allowance in the past and was a tax relief, in recognition that raising children is both expensive and of importance to the future wellbeing of the nation. It is not really a 'benefit', in a traditional sense.

My dh pays far more in tax than we get in CB, so I don't really 'get' this idea that poorer people are paying for my children's CB (we have 4 dc). My husband is paying for it in his tax contributions. The CB is just a discount on his tax and people get tax relief on all sorts of things.

Dead
it's the fact he seemed so against large family's, but it's ok to have more than two as long as its with separate mothers? I respect his right to an opinion, but it's like he had entirely firgitton about is 3 previous children , don't know whether that makes him a sexist prat, a prat or just the average daily mail reader?

Karma, we look at what we receive as similar, we pay outca lot more than we receive. Also surely if you have a large family you spend more than those with one or two so would be putting more vat into the coffers too?

Hadn't thought about the VAT, but that's true. We are losing our CB soon, as dh earns above the threshold. What I don't get though is how a family with 2 people working full time, but each person earning just below the threshold, will have a combined income of nearly £80k and be allowed to claim CB, but a family with a SAHP, who have just over the threshold coming in, will lose theirs.

Another well thought out policy by the tories bastards

Same here karma, dh is just above the thresh hold. What frightens me more is having read the relationship threads over the years for some women this is the only money they have. I think it will potentially allow for more domestic abuse if it is withdrawn too

Oh i would so have said,

"So would you be happy to give up your CB because your D first 2 children would be entitled to it before your 2?"

but then i'm not a very nice person [hgrin]

Capping cb would just cap the mothers, the feckless fathers could still be randomly impregnating women without penalty.

I'd have just said 'Do you receive CB for all your children?' in a straightforward, possibly butter-wouldn't-melt, way.

I would have had to ask if he'd stopped claiming after 2, or would have had his subsequent children if that had been force.

In theory, I think it's not a bad idea tbh, but we don't live in an ideal world as far as relationships are concerned and I don't see how you could police it.

The whole 'thing' of universal benefits is a bit daft anyway. My parents have retired friends with a mortgage free home, no kids and in excess of half a million in the bank but they can (and do) still claim winter fuel allowance !

But that's also why universal benefit works. If you consider how many other heating allowances their tax has paid for, plus they will largely pay for their own care as as they get older as they won't be entitled to it from the state. What they are claiming is a tiny drop compared to what they have contributed.

True enough, Hungrydragon.

Personally I don't get that strung up about it - sometimes these things don;t seem to make sense but on the whole what goes around comes around.

Will point that out to my DMum next time she's having a rant though !

It's good for people to get something tangible back, because it makes them less resentful of paying high levels of tax to support the poorest in society. The number of wealthy people who get a fuel allowance is probably relatively small compared to the number of people who get it because they really need it and is a drop in the ocean compared to the money the government wastes generally (the EU anyone?)

I think that the very wealthy in this country and the very poor are cushioned to a degree (although the poor won't be for much longer) and everyone in the middle are squeezed continuously. It's better for the psyche of the nation, if people feel that they are getting some consideration of their personal circumstances from the government (so fuel allowances, CB, child care contributions etc).