to think capping benefits at 2 children is a good idea

[moogstera1]

Child-related benefits may be 'capped' at two children"
*Iain Duncan Smith said the current system, where families get more benefits the more children they have, was among changes being considered.

Families on benefits were often "freed from" the decision of whether they could afford more children, Mr Duncan Smith said, and must "cut their cloth".*

yes yes, before I get jumped on, if both your arms fall off and a previously hard working wage earner is jobless, there should be ( and I imagine would be)a safety net for those who then need benefits and have more than 2 chidren; but, in principle, I agree that working families seem to have to make much more difficult decisions regarding how many children they have than long term non working do, and it's mostly about finance.
The suggestion is that this would not be happening till 2015 and then only to new claimants so no comments about which children should be sacrificed, please.
The idea seems to be to only factor in 2 children wrt tax credits, child benefit

What's with all the 4x4 comments? Nice bit of moral relativism going on there.

In terms of health and survival, it makes much more sense to have children by different fathers - not just because of the mix up of genes, but because the provision of help is being provided by an extra 4 adults rather than just one. It is only our modern, westernised idea of morality that hates this. And the fact that statistically speaking 3 our of 4 of those modern-day fathers won't provide any help, but hey, lets continue blaming the mothers.

Truth is that if we got separated fathers to pay for their children, you wouldn't need as many benefits for single parents. But instead they're introducing charges for the CSA and encouraging people to avoid using it altogether.

And again, why are we assuming that large families must always be the result of several failed relationships where the woman has a new child with each new father? That smacks of prejudice rather than knowledge.

knowsabit..because i am sort of busy with DD at the moment, if you must know

Well, then, moogster I'm going to have to put both my hands up. Actually. Thank your lucky stars that no-one you know has been in that situation. Eh?

Like who? I saw someone who knew someone who'd been raped, but had access to contraception. I don't recall anyone who had been raped and then denied contraception. My point is that the numbers of those women are tiny.

"What happens if you meet someone in 2016, it's all good, he has a good job and you can afford to have four children together. Until he buggers off with his secretary leaving you holding baby number four and taking a huge drop in income. You go from being comfortable to living in poverty in a day. How is that fair."

You take that chance by CHOOSING to have 4 kids, knowing that your circumstances might change. Nobody is forcing anyone to have 4 kids. It is your responsibility to weigh up the pros and cons and to think about the future. If benefits are only paid for 2 kids you have to consider if at some point in the future you might lose your job and have less money when you knowingly had more kids than benefits provide for. This is your CHOICE. It is not for the government or taxpayer to insure your risky decisions. Why is thinking about the future rather than assuming you will have a job for life so difficult in making such a big decision of having x number of kids?

But what if they didn't take it into account? Do we say fuck the kids, we don't care you're mother isn't coping and dad's in jail it's your fault for being born.

We have free contraception in this country. There is no good reason why anyone should be having babies they can't afford.

How do you get access to contraception after the event? Until very recently it involved going to your GP. If you're in an abusive relationship where your every moment is accounted for, that's not a realistic option.

moogstera, I'm delighted for you that you live in a world where everyone has healthy, functional relationships and nothing like this ever happens (though in all honesty it probably does and you're just unable to see it).

The government are deregualating labour, taking away long fought for employment rights, bringing in a system that offers no protection to workers, will encourage businesses to offer worthless shares in exchange for the right to fire you at will. It is all very well thinking that this move to cut benefits won't effect you.....

At some unspecified time there will be a cut off when it will matter not whether your child was born 8 months after you lost your job or 2 months before.... only that your next child is number 3

These two policies are going to effect thousands of families, even those who at the moment like to think that they are insulated and morally superior.

You won't be seen as the worthy poor when you lose your job, just because you happened to champion these Tory bastards ideas.

You can't alter your choices retrospectively though can you?

Moogster, I think you need to carry out some further research before asserting that those numbers are tiny. Unless you'd like to share the basis for that assumption?

You could have an injection, or an implant, or the coil before the event though.

And if you are at the stage of having your third child, then you really should know that.

Outraged what contraception is 100% safe?

beetrootface

On the other hand, if there had been a cap in place, and if she had required a less chaotic lifestyle in order to make ends meet, then she might have made different choices. Who knows, she might have fewer kids, and she might have happier kids.

Not saying that would have been right, just wondering what effect it might have had.

A lot of people are like children: they'll take the piss and use every inch of slack you give them.

I will say this again

At some unspecified time there will be a cut off when it will matter not whether your child was born 8 months after you lost your job or 2 months before.... only that your next child is number 3

because it will soon be more than possible for your employer to sack you at will with little recourse and little incentive not to.

How about removing the wombs of women (because it's all her responsibility after all) on benefits after 2 kids? That'll solve it!

None, but they are pretty good. If they were used correctly by everyone that was claiming benefits, and couldn't say no o sex, and who had already had two children, then there would be very very few children who had to be brought up on the same money their parents already had.

Mrsbeth do you think the children should then be made to suffer because of the bad decisions made by it's parents?

Freddo, are you suggesting that only people with an assured income and a job for life can have sex?

Outraged, as I said before, I was using the coil for 10 years, I still got pregnant with twins. An aunt of mine also got pregnant whilst using the coil when her then youngest was 11 years old. Luckily for both of us our husbands both have good jobs.

God

I am glad to be single
I am glad to have just one child
I am glad I won't ever have to have sex again.....unless I choose to.

Women ARE raped or coerced into sex on a far too regular basis. Or they are sold a dream by some utter arsehole of a bloke who promises the earth then walks away when the going gets tough.

Then society castigates the woman for daring to need support. Horrible state of affairs.

This policy is about nothing except selling on a myth ...that all women left as single parents are worthless sluts who spread their legs and now want taxpayers money. That families where adults have lost jobs are somehow reckless..that children are not worth protecting if they happen to be a third or fourth.

Can all those saying, "I don't see why I should pay for others to have more than two children" explain why I (childless) should pay for you personally to have any children?

No, thought not.

(I can come up with good reasons why I should - but they apply however many children you have.)

You can have an injection, implant or coil if you're aware of how to gain access to those things and given the freedom to make that decision for yourself. An awful lot of women still aren't. And that's assuming that you can take hormonal contraception, which many women can't.

Don't get me wrong. I'm all for personal responsibility. I would love to see these sorts of messages pushed far, far harder - but to the young who aren't having to already pick up the consequences of these mistakes. Teach them the skills to say no to unprotected sex, to stand up to sexist bullying, to sport the signs of an abusive/irresponsible man...

Removing the safety net from those who have already fallen foul of not learning those lessons just penalises the already penalised and their children.

Well, if I was in an abusive relationship right now, that would mean me sneaking out to a drop-in clinic one particular evening in the week, due to my obstetric history's complexity. I'm not sure how I'd manage it. At present it's a case of "I need more tablets, you're looking after the kids after dinner". In fact, I dunno how I'd take the tablets secretly every day.

What about people who are earning a reasonable salary but have big families, that are going to lose their child benefit altogether. That could make a substantial difference to their budget. But nobody seems to be bothering that much. And they could have the same problems if they became part of a blended family.