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

decent families wont suffer

what makes you think that?

"Sleeked" wtf ?! Should be "someone" who's done it. Did you gave to do it a lot?

No glue you inject the medication into your stomach, which is less traumatic than it sounds you get used to it I guess.

we will all suffer. indirectly. because this is not the way you run a country.

but the ones who will suffer the most will be children in decent and not so decent families.

Where do the sperm go tho ?

Inject into your stomach? Can't they do that for you?

Because they didn't before basking seals. I have friends five years older than me who were single parents in the early 90's and they could afford childcare and bought their own houses. Child tax credits sent the price of childcare soaring to the maximum level that the government will pay. So that screwed up things for those who didn't get all or indeed any of it.
The people who have done best out of government hand outs are those who've taken them off the people given them, land lords, private nurseries, tesco's etc

And I'm sorry to say I've seen it with my own eyes, the money doesn't go on the children in a meaningful way. An acquaintance of mine from the kids school was in Argos, bumped into her, she had just been back paid her disability allowance and the first thing she did was buy herself a treat and then thought she had better get the boy something so he was bought an iPod. He is three.

No. You know what? Those who suffer most will be the children in the not so decent families. The very children that welfare was brought in to protect. The same children who, left to grow up in poverty and with parents who care more for themselves than for their offspring are far more likely to end up involved in crime and needing SS intervention for their own families in years to come because they don't know how to parent properly.

So not only will this be a case of saving a fiver now and costing a tenner next year, when these children require intervention in early years but we are also increasing the future crime rates when the parents steal to feed them or they go out mugging for the gadgets their peers have and they don't.

Quite simply, decent parents will put their kids before themselves and so these cuts will affect the adults involved, those with more chance of having an informed decision in the process. Not so decent parents will continue to put themselves before anyone else and in those cases, it is the children, all of them not just numbers 3, 4 or 5, who suffer.

There is no way of slicing this that doesn't lead to already disadvantaged children being screwed over and creating an under class.

You see I think the strategy will be they take the benefits away to identify the children who are at risk because if the parents not putting the children first. At the moment the mild neglect must be quite hard to spit, the kids that do get fed but are fed rubbish so then once the parents have the choice of putting the kids first or not the ones that don't will become very clear and they need more help which they should receive.
Those children are already in need whether the parents have the money or not because it doesn't go on them.

Someone mentioned "when the welfare state was brought in..."

Originally benefits WERE capped. An out of work person (at the time it was generally a man who was the claimant) could only claim benefit to the equivalent of the pay of an unskilled labourer, which was effectively the at the time version of minimum wage.

This was regardless of whether he was married or how many children the family had.

It was done this way to ensure that noone claiming benefits from the system could have more money than someone who was working. It put a claimant on level footing with the minimum wage of the day, no more no less. And just as the labourer had to keep his family on his wage regardless of how big that family was - and cut his cloth as it were, so did the claimant. The decision to have and the responsibility to provide for any or more children lay solely with the families.

To me that is the fairest way to do it. Why should people on benefits have a higher income than those who work? THAT is not fair.

We all spout about equality... seems to me that we originally had it right, and it's been messed up by politicians on all sides over many years.

Yabu. As much as we all wish that people would act responsibly and with forethought there is no getting away from the fact that this proposal will HURT THE POOREST AND MOST VULNERABLE CHILDREN IN OUR SOCIETY. I am not willing to sign up to inflicting that damage. Not in my name.

Can you tell us what date you're choosing for "when the welfare state was brought in", Coola?

Because there have been state welfare systems since at least 1601, and many precisely tailored the benefit to the number of children.

They also, obviously, paid out to women, since widows were among the more likely to need support.

I don't know how anyone can think more children living in poverty is a good thing - but even if you can somehow accept that idea - this policy is bad for everyone.

Children whose parents can't afford to look after them properly will end up costing the taxpayer LOADS more than reducing spending on child benefits could possibly save.

Maybe it's not about saving money more targeting it correctly. The children this would affect are already disadvantaged, money is not the problem.

I think the whole thing will collapse because it won't be 'people' it will be women who will be limited to two children.

Women give birth so it is easy to find out how many children she has, much harder with a man.

So odd that this follows just weeks after the hoo-haa about halving the legal abortion limit. Because a rule like this is going to send the abortion rate rocketing...

Although I'd support this if I had no doubts that the right people would be protected, which they wouldn't so it's a moot point, wouldn't we have cases like in China were girls are killed when they're born because they want a boy? Obviously not to the full extent because there's not the social stigma here regarding having a girl, but I can't help but think there'd be idiots who'd want to get rid or shove the child of the 'wrong sex' in care.

nightlurker

We already have some element of the 'progressively smaller benefits' you talk of: £20 child benefit for the first child, and only £13 for subsequent children.

And you are absolutely right that "children grow up to be productive members of society, who pay taxes to support others". We already have an ageing population that our society can't afford, and a falling birth rate (down from 2.4 in the 70s to 1.8 now) that means there will be fewer workers to pay taxes in the future... There has been talk just this week of making pensioners "work, or have their pensions cut"... Frankly, we need as many children as possible in our society, and we are going to be stuffed if we do anything that leads the birth rate to fall any further. :( It's a stupid idea.

Where on earth have you got the idea that all children grow up to be productive members of society? Or have I missed the sarcasm?

Have you missed the pensions crisis, moogster?

The thing is, we have a system of general taxation in this country, which means we don't expect old people to be supported by their own children, but by society generally - and specifically younger tax payers.

This proposal will make families poorer now, and push some into crisis, and is likely to bring the birth rate down...

If more families hit crisis now, it will cost the state more now, and there will be (even) less money left for your pension.

If you make families poorer, the children are less likely to thrive and grow up to be productive, so there will be fewer children growing up to support you in your old age.

If the birth rate falls, there will be fewer children growing up to support you in your old age.

It's in your interest to support the children of this generation, not just your own.

Moog, ALL children have the potential to be productive members of society. Whether they are born into a family on benefits or into a nice middle-class family. Equally, being born into a nice middle-class family doesn't mean that your child won't end up on benefits. Therefore we have to support all the children so they have a chance of achieving their potential. Those from a family on benefits need more support than those in mc families, so they should actually get MORE money.

Throwing money at those families does not solve their problems. That's the crux of the matter.

Hmmm, well the jury is out on that one. But cutting off money from families that are already struggling does cause problems for the children, and for wider society. That's the crux of the matter.