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

Little miss.."I have 3 children and I work so don't currently claim benefits other than child benefit and from next year family tax credits. DS1 has a disability and I receive DSA for him. But what if DS3 was the child who was born disabled, or had an accident that left him disabled, by the policy that benefits are only for the first two children then he wouldn't be able to receive DSA to cover his needs"

I hate to be the one to tell you this but under the new rules which they have kept very quiet....You can only claim for one disabled person per household.

There was a huge uproar about this before the benefit reform was put into place but it was kept very quiet by the BBC and the government who insisted that it was for the best. Read or google The Spartacus Report and it's all in there. The Welfare reform bill was predictably going to go to lords, then rejected, so back to commons, then back to lords and so on and so forth...instead David Cameron turned the policy into a "money bill" a law and rule that hasn't been used for 200 years so it couldn't be fought against or compromised. Because of this I will forever hate the BBC, David cameron and Ian Duncan Smith.

Do a search on MN about Pat's Petition and read the numerous threads...it's all on there too.

I appreciate accidents happen, but I don't agree with choosing to have big families on handouts. So YANBU. We can barely afford one child, and due to nursery costs will need a few years break between children. A third isn't really an option.

alemci Social Services were involved and the eldest wanted to go into care. Not sure what happened there to be honest Two of the children have since done extremely well for themselves.

My best friend was brought up in an unheated tower block by a single mother during the Thatcher years and she has done the same. Proper poverty. It was awful for her.

I'm not sure that it's always a cycle. Many children and indeed many posters on here couldn't wait to get out and start earning. It's much more difficult now of course, with wages being so low compared to the cost of living.

How many families on a lowish income, with one or two children, are having a large chunk of their childcare costs paid for by the government? Large families quite often have a stay at home parent (so don't claim childcare costs). Perhaps we should review this as well as the cap on two children.

How about basing the benefits entitlement, relating to a child, on both parents' income as opposed to just one lone parent's income. Why should married families have to subsidies lone parent families?

Who will be entitled to have the two children? Will it be the father or the mother? What happens when a woman meets a guy who has already got two children? Does this mean the woman won't be entitled to any benefits if she has a child with him?

What happens to a working family with say five dcs who becomes unemployed. Are you saying three of his dcs don't exist. How would he/she feed her family on the same amount of money as a family with two dcs.

The vast majority of people on jobseeker's allowance are back working within a year and only 4% have more than two children. Targeting these "skivers", then, IDS would only claw back a few hundred million,

FROM HERE: www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/28/barbara-ellen-iain-duncan-smith-benefits

I can't get worked up about the fact that such a small proportion of claimants have more than two kids. The extreme examples of scroungers with 10 kids, so beloved of certain papers, are seriously distorting public perceptions on this issue.

I am a single mum on benefits. It's not a life it's an existance. My DD would like to be a teacher and is doing very well at school. (year 2) Stop making assumptions about peoples parenting.

molepom can you provide a link to confirm that please?

i cant seam to find it

I always think 'there but for the grace of God' with regard to benefits. I am surprised more people don't.

We're over populated ? . If that was really the case would we still welcome imigrants ? .
But let's have a go at anyone who's got a large family again .
Let's go along with the " latest target " of the negative propaganda ...assumption that anyone who has more than two kids is on benefits or popping them out for the cash FFs . Do you even realise how offensive that is ?

Most people I know with large families , have both parents working , usually in shifts so one parent is always around the children ( to avoid horrendous childcare costs ) .

But hey well done Dave ....you've managed to set the population against each other ,causing resentments that are only there to distract from the fact that you sir are incompetent. Why are you not cracking down on businesses that avoid tax , or getting the banks to pay back their bail outs ? Or the tax dodging rich that have off shore accounts ?. Because you are a slimy Eatonion who hasn't the faintest idea that the FUTURE OF THIS COUNTRY , is dependent on the children who are born today and tomorrow .

So all who look down on large families ,ask yourself this ...who exactly do you expect to look after you when you are old ? . There will be a deficit of young fit adults

I have yet to read all the posts but I think it's a terrible idea. Just thinking of the Chinese one baby policy and the subsequent forced abortions if the couple had a child already and the gender requirements of the couple resulting in abortion of healthy babies. Will women who have given birth to 2 children be forcibly sterilised? Will men who have fathered 2 children be forced to have a vasectomy? No matter how rich you are?

I do not understand why healthcare is free for non residents of the uk. It's certainly not reciprocal to uk passport holders when they are abroad. I fail to understand why immigrants are at the top of the queue when benefits are claimed. I think a residents visa with proof of job and income - just like it is for Brits when travelling abroad and wanting to settle elsewhere should be in place.

People without a job who are living on benefits and are not British passport holders should return home, like they would be in other countries surely ? Not just Europe? Or maybe all countries in Europe decide how many displaced people they can take in, and how much they will cost long term, pls children and their children's children...is this driving the frankly insane IMO idea that Brits must curb their productive rate to provide for non - Brit immigrants?

Plus who will be paying tax to pay fr the next generation of people on benefit? And state pensions.

Off to read rest of thread now.

Wonder if it is reasonable to get upset about people fully on benefits having 5, 7 or 11 children for that matter.....

Might they as well just knock on my door before falling pregnant telling me that they intend to have another child and that they expect me and my working neighbours to pay the full costs and upbringing of their new child(ren)...... weekly collection round pls, I better get my son's piggy bank ready......

Well IM disgusted at all these benefit bashing threads. Anyone with more than two DC are one redundancy away from being on benefits and if they couldn't feed their family im sure the taxes they paid wouldn't seem as bad then.

But redundancies and claiming benefits don't happen to good hard working people oh wait it does.

it's a disgusting idea

even if it's meant to target irresponsible so called "spongers" and of course there are some, what about the poor children, they didn't ask to be born you know.

YANBU. I completely agree with this as I believe having children is a lifestyle choice. If you can't afford them, save til you can. I waited until I was 32 to have my first and will not have more than 2. I don't think it's my fellow tax payers' duty to support me having as many as I fancy. It's like anything in life, if you're responsible you cut your cloth accordingly. If you don't like it, try taking some of the tax payer funded contraception available :)

I think as long as it's not retrospective it's fine. People should only have the number of children they can afford. The world is overpopulated. Effective contraception exists.

I don't think the OP was talking about children who already exist, parents whose 1st pregnancy results in 2 or more live births or 2 live single births, I think the OP was trying to say the following:

If a woman has 4 DC, all conceived while she was working (or 2 on dole and 2 while working), she'll be eligible for CB and TC because she wasn't on the dole when they were conceived and born. She was made redundant from her job after the 4 DC were born.

As opposed to:

Mr & Ms A have never worked a day in their lives and have. They are TTC baby No3 (with no luck as yet) but are told that they won't be getting CB or TC for their 3rd DC because the state only pays for 2 DC conceived and born alive while parent(s) on benefits.

I hope I've explained that properly.

that was meant to be "was on the dole when 2 were conceived"

I totally agree, mabey it will force the parents to take responsibility and se contraception, or go out to work tomsupportbther kids. The numbers of people gphavng more than 4 kids and not being able to support them themselves is ridiculous

wow - wonderful zombie threadurrection going on

What TSC said.

I agree with chiggers, it's not for existing Chidren but for those who have not worked a day in ther lives and hav no intention of working

so what would you do with their children? or would you let them rot?

its a good idea, mainly for over population reasons alone.

people with twins etc should not be penalised though

YANBU particularly if people have continued having children whilst being on benefits. However, I do think exceptions should be made for people who have never been on benefits but whose circumstances change dramatically (eg one parent dies, both cannot find work etc).