to be fed up of George sodding Osbourne and his Knobbish Ideas

[avivabeaver]

The economy is proving harder to fix than he first thought

Solution- suggest cutting £10bn from the benefits budget and "limit the number of children people can claim for". So- are you supposed to choose your 2 favourite and just feed them then? Or what?

surely most people think carefully before having lots of children and understand that there is a risk of not being continually employed for 20+ years?

You would think so. It's unfair to penalise the children though.

One child policy in China - similarities to this? Right where women who are pg with their 2nd child are carted off to hospital and forced to have a horrendous late abortion or have the child removed? Honestly - only on MN.

Have as many as children as you want - you just won't receive child benefit for say, the 5th.

I'm not a Tory - but seriously this "Tories are total bastards / facists / same as communist dictators" belittles any sensible debate.

The benefits system was always meant to be a safety net. It's not that any more and it has to change. Bleeding heart liberals / cold hearted policies : neither will work.

We need to find a way where benefits are a safety net but not one which traps families in a lifetime of dependency. And it has to be a joint enterprise - limit benefits, but encourage job training, education - social mobility. etc.

These poicies affect those who are entitled, autumn

Send them down't mine. Oh yeah, the last Conservative government closed them all and manufacturing has pretty much moved to China.

Do you know, I blame these children for their lack of initiative and work ethic. After all they should have thought of this before the asked to be born.

Celine plenty of kids with parents not on benefits aren't provided for as they should be.Should the state be giving money to these kids too?

At the end of the day when you have a child it is your responsibility,far too many people think when they give birth they're in a 3 way partnership with the state and look to the state first instead of themselves when it comes to responsibility.

If you make it harder to do that maybe this mindset will diminish and future generations will benefit .

Is anybody else seeing the parallels with the one child policy in China?

No, actually I'm not. In fact it's nothing like.

The government are not saying you can only have 1 child. You can still have as many children as you like. Noone is going to kick your door down and drag you off for a forced abortion if you have more than 1 child. Have ten for all we care. Just don't expect someone else to pay for it.

As for the "Oh what about the child who is born but no longer gets benefits." Erm...well the rest of the money they are given must stretch that bit further. That's the reality most of us face.

If my OH did get pregnant tomorrow, there's no additional benefits waiting for me. There's no magic payrise I can expect to help with the bills. I can't ask my bank for a larger house. We'd have to manage on my salary alone (whilst she's off) and probably reduced household income if/when she goes back on less hours. That would mean less money on food, entertainment, whatever.

niceguy, being rational on this thread is a waste of time.

Gosh slug... Seriously?! What Osbourne is poising is nothing like china's one child policy, it's ridiculous to even suggest it?

niceguy2 is making a very sensible argument IMO and I'm 100% in agreement with him.

Prairie I absolutely understand that. I pay for my children. I'm not claiming benefits (except child benefit until Jan). And no of course people like me shouldn't expect a state hand out when we can afford to raise children and not live in poverty. We should expect to support those who cannot support themselves: the sick, disabled and children sick of writing same thing I am fortunate my start in life has enabled me to do that. If I had had the start in life that these above quota children will have I would be extremely unlikely to be able to do that.

The point is there are people who will have children regardless and then we punish the children. It is morally WRONG to punish innocent children. It is abhorrant.

Poising? ...Suggesting!

Whether or not people take into consideration whether they can or can't afford to have a child, if that child is born then it still has to be fed. So what happens if the parents are unable to provide for it?

Also what happens if you feel you can never financially support a child? Does that mean that poor people should not have children? FFS

So your oh would not claim SMP or Maternity Allowance niceguy? Those state paid payments/benefits?

Charley see my earlier post about some women not so equipped to make rational choices about family size.

Fishwife Do you think people who have lots of kids on benefits really can "afford" to in a way that you can't? I'd say you probably have much higher expecatations in terms of a decent standard of living for your kids similar to Alurka.

Sinister Completely agree. This is a smokescreen, so that when the government says "Welfare cuts" we think, "oh yeah, that's stopping free money going to scroungers who have 12 kids", istead of "oh yeah, that's taking away lifeline benefits from disabled people, young unemployed people, poor 16 and 17 year olds trying to study, long term jobless because the economy's fucked etc etc".

Sorry, going to duck out now as I have to work!

grovel snort

I love how there is absolutely no reasoned debate on these threads and anyone who says anything reasonable is immediately misunderstood and misquoted.

Personally, I think niceguy2 should be an MP.

I don't think it's bad in theory. But the best way is to phase it in. Therefore people will know in advance that those restrictions are coming in. But it doesn't help people who have twins or even triplets. But I agree it will hurt a lot of genuine people to get at the few who will not take any responsibility.

I find it a bit sad that some people think someone disagreeing with their point of view is being irrational or unreasonable. What arrogance!

Celine but plenty of children in families not on benefits are being "punished" by parents who choose to waste their money on going down the pub,gadgets,smoking instead of providing for them properly.

Where does you theory about not holding people to account end?Are we supposed to be giving money to these kids too because their parents choose to put their wants for immediate gratification first?

totally agree with niceguy.

I really can't see how the suggestion that people should think a bit more carefully as to whether they can afford children is such a terrible thing.

'Dawndonna: you can withdraw any time or come up with another word for people from outside Britain who come to Britain to work here. I'll continue to look out for that.'

They are called immigrants, Brycie. If they are from EU nations, they're entitled to claim benefits, too. And they do.

I really can't see how the suggestion that people should think a bit more carefully as to whether they can afford children is such a terrible thing.

That's because, Nancy, you're clearly not a bleeding-heart liberal. Personal responsibility? That's outrageous! No one should be responsible for how many children they have! You should be able to have as many as you like and the state should pick up the bill, because it's your human right and you're entitled!

I work in social services. I have visited people who really do not know they are born on benefits and they still whine that the government are giving them enough. Read Flatpack's amns benefits shopping list below. That family spends £32 a week on mobile phones and also has Sky TV and can also buy cigarettes and alcohol. The reality for many working parents is that those things aren't affordable. After paying for childcare I get less than that man does on Jobseekers allowance.

My theory about not holding people to account? I think that is your interpretation, not my theory.

Just because some people who are not on benefits choose to neglect their children by depriving them to spend money on smoking etc (as you allege) it would not excuse the state withdrawing support from children who were born above quota through no fault of their own. I don't see how neglecting children can ever be justified but where it is state sanctioned - as this policy would be - that is obviously very, very wrong.