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

hakunamatata8
They're already doing that.

Have we got a parrot in the room

Most people are one paycheck away from the dole due to the current economy and debts e.g. credit cards, so i hope none of you never have to claim benefits. Its funny because when the original benefit system was formed Beverage said there are two different types of people ''the deserving and undeserving poor'' basically what allot of posters are saying, its easy to resent people on benefits due to the propaganda by the current government, but i would hate this country to be like the U.S or China

OutragedAtThePriceOfFreddos
You don't need to know every rich person to know that most of them didn't work for it. In fact, even if they did, they were clearly being "paid" much more than is ever justified (such as bankers and footballers) and shouldn't have such vastly different wealth to most other people.

it really is beyond madding people are not money making robots, do you raise you children to think that all that is important in life is to work and earn money so that they are productive members of society? sure we all need some where to live and food to eat etc but after that everything else is a bonus. even people on benefits put back in to the capitalist society they buy products which they pay vat on, they keep business going there are whole things marketed just at them (bright house). i know i am going off topic but i find peoples mind sets on here so thoroughly depressing.

Dolomite I'm confused. Are you saying you avoided a second pregnancy, in case it was twins, or that you went into a second pregnancy without worrying about it, or something else that I didn't understand?

There are a lot of people that do work for what they have, that don't have anywhere near enough money to consider themselves rich.

Why do these threads always become rich versus poor without thinking of the vast majority of the population that falls somewhere inbetween?

Yes, a lot of rich people are rich because they are overpaid. A lot of poor people are poor because they are lazy. What about it? Not every rich person is overpaid, not every poor person is lazy. Generalisations are not helpful to a debate like this, especially when they are made about people who are irrelevant to the policy we are discussing.

AThingInYourLife
Don't be ridiculous. If you don't want to fill out the form, don't claim it. A simple matter of referencing GP records.

I'm not saying it is without flaw, hence the framing as a suggestion for constructive criticism. Some of that would be nice, rather than glib slanging.

I find the constant Godwin's Law lite offensive. Think of people who actually have known totalitarianism before being so flippant.

What sort of income do mumsnetters define as rich?

pushit I hear you, I find it "thoroughly depressing" that benefits claimants bleat on about "blah blah what if you become unemployed yada yada can't meet the bills wibble wibble" and haven't understood the basic premise of the statement - which was, changes to child benefit will not affect any children currently born.

jessie Probably my crappy english, sorry. I went in to my second pregnancy thinking "oh please only be one", because if #2 had transpired to be both #2 and #3 it would've had a dramatic impact on our family finances and we'd have had to significantly change our lives. After #2 we opted for sterilisation because we cannot afford #3. (We both work).

Something which I have picked up on is this making the poor poorer, since this government has been in we have seen our income (no benefits given to us) stay the same but our money no longer goes far enough. We are 'well off' on paper but when the bills come in they eat everything, we don't go on holiday or have sky or get loads of takeaways etc. I think capping at 2 is a good idea, the welfare bill is just too high

Awful idea. And an obvious snidey attack on H.M Queenie, her children, all four of them, deserve to be kept in the style they've become accustomed to.

Seriously though it's all a bit "Hand Maidens Tale" for me.Mind you every pronouncement by this Government is bizarre.Odd fuckers.

Because it is rich v poor, anytime in history there are financial crisis's in a country the poor and vulnerable are always targeted and yet there are other places cuts can be made. Also if you really want people off the dole there are other issues rather than how many kids people have. If people are having more kids as a source of income, which i think is bullshit, why is that?

Actually I don't think it's going to make a huge financial impact whatsoever, the figures involved with CB are so small it's not really relevant.

I think it's the message contained within which is what matters: "stop buying/doing shit you can't afford", be it shiny tat for your house or children whose mouths you cannot feed. No longer can the bill for people's thoughtless actions be picked up.

i understand fine that it will not effect current children, what difference does that make to it being a horrible policy. i do not subscribe to the idea of i will be ok so fuck everyone else.

farts and lights it

also it isnt about child benefit its about tax credits.

Out of my six siblings the youngest nineteen is the first never to have had a first time job, as there are none, he was looking for a job to help him pay his way through uni, there are none. The government has wasted ridiculous amounts of money on stupid scenes such as the A4E job scheme that flopped, how about that??

Smells, yes they boast about the benefits they get to all the family.

I love her but yes I am pissed off that he sits on his arse all day playing games.?

My older kids got part time jobs at 16 to help family finances.

Sorry but there are feckless lazy arses out there on hand outs. And I do vote labour btw.

though capping child benefit which is supposed to be a universal benefit for all who have children is disgusting the real impact would be tax credit.

just jumping in with some info. i havent got further than page 4 yet but so far

fishwife fyi. the £500 bonus changed some time ago so it is only now paid to families without any other children who qualify for cb and are resident in the household. so first child only.

and the other poster who was going on about the tax credit baby premium that was also removed either last year or the year before you no longer get any additional amount for a child under 1

""stop buying/doing shit you can't afford", be it shiny tat for your house or children whose mouths you cannot feed"

Yes. Because shiny tat and small, defenceless human beings are pretty much the same thing, aren't they?

Have just had a bizarre thought. Has anyone factored in the number of people who do not reproduce. Only 1 of my 8 offsprings has had DC's ( only 2)
I will have no more GC by their choice or unable. Perhaps this will redress the balance Sorry to be flippant but that is a 14 children deficit

So, with that in mind Dolomites, are you in support of a 2 child limit or a 2 pregnancy limit?