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

Mrsbeth, you are of course right but who knows. She doesn't provide for the children she does have already, she doesn't go without, but her children certainly do.

MrsKeithRichards

No, on page 10 I said:
"It would clearly be a good thing if people were responsible for the size of their family.
But how do you encourage that without punishing the kids?"

I just think it's important to recognise that neither option is a no-brainer.
If you cap it, you punish kids. If you don't cap it, you discourage responsibility, and that creates more poverty.

And when you've done that, could all the ones saying, "But my employer doesn't give more money for extra children" please cancel all the state benefits you're receiving for your extra children. Since you've just said you shouldn't be getting them.

Ta.

god lord I really hope no one rains on the parades of some posters here - like with pissy rain such as cancer or adultery

I have 3 children, born in marriage, planned and wanted - my husband had an affair when my youngest was 7mths old ...and fell in love so left us

He pays child support, I work and I get tax credits to help pay my £650 a month childcare bill

I would struggle to work without CB

I have fiends who are single because their partners died of cancer - feckless bastards hey

Life is sometimes utterly shit no matter how well you plan

people need to stop being so fucking judgy and nasty - be very careful of karma

MrsKeithRichards - what about telling woman you can have as many DCs as you want/can physically have, just if you need benefits, you will get a set amount for 1 DC and then a larger amount for more than 1DC, that amount has to cover however many DCs you chose to have.

That's not saying woman can't have more DCs, it's not saying that people are wrong to have 4/5/6 DCs, just that it's their choice to make on the understanding if they do need to rely on benefits in the future (or do right now) the amount they get will not increase with any additional DCs.

As others have said, the size of your family is a personal choice, it's not the state's decision to make, in the same way it's not by DH's boss' decision to decide how many DCs we should have, but he doesn't give DH a pay rise if we have more DCs.

It will be hard for the DCs who currently exist, but long term, the idea is that people will not have more than 2 DCs unless they can be certain they can support them without state help - so it probably will just be higher earners to take that decision, but anyone can take a different decision, just not expect other people to take responsibilty for their decision.

There is a widow benefit for those who are widowed Gordy.

I wonder if there is a way to hold the parents responsible, without punishing people who have just been unlucky, and without punishing the kids?

This thing about it only applying to new claims could well backfire though. If you have 3 or 4 kids and come off benefits and start work and then loose your job 6 months or a year later you would then technically be making a new claim again so would only be eligible to claim for 2 children. That's a massive risk and disincentive for anyone in that position to start working surely?

(BTW - when it was first brought in, CB was only paid for the first DCs, you didn't get extra for more DCs, I don't see anything wrong with going back to that, you would then get a set amount for having a family, regardless of the size of the family)

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

Clearly not, as that would be ridiculous.

What I'm saying is that if you already have two children, then you and the person you had sex with are 100% responsible for the consequences of the sex you have.

That's all.

MrsBethel - no there isn't, not without massive means and 'morality' testing (and who decides that?).

The point is that any system is always going to end up with its piss takers. Such is life. However, as long as the minority of piss takers is less than the number of 'deserving' candidates who will be unfairly punished if cuts are made, it's a price we have to pay in order to live in a civilised society IMO.

"It is not for the government or taxpayer to insure your risky decisions."

When "risky decision" include having children, not being immortal, and not being independently wealthy, yes it absolutely is for the government to insure us.

That's what the welfare state is.

So, how far is this going to go? Will the third child of middle-class parents be unentitled to education at a state school? Or would that be a vote- loser?

How about:

• Cap benefits at 3 kids + 1 multiple birth (let's not be silly, you don't have more than 4 deliveries by accident). (exc rape)
• 'Test' benefits above and beyond 2 kids: if the pregancy was unforseen/unlucky you get them as normal. Tricky to define, but not impossible. Tough to prevent people sabotaging their own birth control, so you'd have to mandate that jonnies alone are not enough.
• If the pregnancy was planned, then for kids #3 and #4 you get the benefits as now, but they will be clawed back from you once the youngest reaches 16 through reduced benefits.

Its a really good idea, everyone knows that if you have too many kids at any point you can just take them to the child swap shop.

Then when you have more income you can pick them up again, just like apawn shop.

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".*

See, the problem I have with this is that larger families on benefits are already going to be hit by the 26k cap (unless a family member has a disability). If you live in an expensive area (aka daan saaf) and you rent privately, a huge chunk of that 26k could easily be taken up just from rent. Large families on benefits are already going to see a huge reduction in the amount they have to buy food and pay bills.

Or maybe the argument is just framed in a way that suggests jobless people living on benefits, but the real targets are the working poor. I should imagine an outright attack on the working poor would raise all sorts of awkward questions about low wages and limited job prospects and lack of training opportunities.

Yes, parents who have many children without the means to support them are feckless. It isn't the child's fault. It won't be the child's fault in 2015 either.

Wow, MrsBethel, that is some scary-ass totalitarian state you would like to inflict on us.

What about a new law saying that if a family's third child passes the 11 plus, the state will charge fees for attendance at the grammar? Could claw back a little bit of money, eh?

This all seems a bit dotty.

I agree that automatic child benefit for more than 2 children is a luxury we cannot afford as a society/economy.

Not looking after those in some/most of the circumstances described above would be unthinkable. IDS, as I understand it, just wants to take away the automatic element. This would save money but also free up money for more targeted benefits.

When child benefit was first brought in you didn't actually get it for the first child at all. Only for the second and subsequent children. That certainly wasn't fair. Called family allowance but basically the same thing.

I am being made redundant next year - by this government - so which of my 3 should I leave on Cameron's doorstep?

I think it's a good idea and it will save millions! so brave OP well done and glad to read the comments.

Good idea, TheBig

How about if private schools that accept 3rd or subsequent children lose their charitable status?