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

They have parents, mabey it will Make people think before having large families or face up to their responsibilities and support their children

It's not actually about people though is it? It's about women.

Women give birth and in most cases if the parents split up then the children live with their mother.

So you could have one man who has fathered 6 children, but because they have three different mothers there is no cut in benefit.

On the other hand a single parent with two children who meets another single parent wit one child and they want to be together as a family will be penalised.

Said it before: Marie Stopes is alive and well and living on Mumsnet.

I think it's a good idea, as long as the sensible exceptions can be implemented to ensure its only targeting those exploiting the system and not genuine hard working people whose circumstances change beyond their control.

To the poster who said that it wouldn't save much money, I disagree. Not only would it save on child benefit payments but also housing costs (fewer larger council houses required), less funding for free school dinners etc.

thesecondcoming Had the exact same thought as you while reading/skimming through this thread - Lets just stop this nonsense now and cut to the chase - lets get back the workhouses for this lot of scumbags who have more than 2 kids and are single and unable to work... How dare they...
I think its great how a Government only a small majority of people voted in get to sit in their heated homes of a winter and decided without the pain of bedroom tax, how many children women should have and what number it is that constitutes a large family. Three children is officially classed as a large family now - I know because I tried to get council housing after a separation and was informed having 3 kids, made me practically un-housable. That I would have to take on private rented and claim a reception room as a bedroom... That's what the council do with 'these large families'...

I think the answer to this problem is proper education when 'these women' are young - most of the women who end up with multiple children and staying single have self esteem issues and have never been shown a way to get a better lifestyle. Have any of the posters on here bashing the single woman with lots of children ever frequented a lousy housing estate? Where self confidence, self esteem and hope for a better future is doused down in past patterns, desolation and hopelessness? Have you ever actually taken a long, hard look at how the women live? Why they live that way?
Ffs, have a tiny bit of thought and compassion for those less fortunate than yourselves financially and family wise - there is no support for these women and the children do what they can and have to do to survive this sort of lifestyle while others, well, judge them from the comfort of their kitchens on a laptop...

I am so tired of hearing people bash those on benefits - yes, a small majority will be puling a fast one and sitting back with no intention of bettering their lives, having a laugh on the tax payer - but there are bad apples in every walk of life - what's going on here is because there are a few bad apples, everybody is getting tarred with the same brush and vilified.

Single women with children are an easy target - its easier to pick on them than it is to pick on am immigrant with a large family and be seen as being racist or unkind towards THEIR suffering... Quick, pay your taxes and chuck the cash in their direction and lets slag off the woman down the road with 3 kids...

Lets get a petition together and have a meeting on why people are being forced to heat or eat? On why people are being taxed on a spare bedroom when the council have no houses to move them to if they ask for smaller accommodation after this very same Government sold off all the council houses last time they were in power. On why this Government have taken away Legal Aid? On why this Government are capping benefits while the people responsible for this mess, the bankers, are still having their bonuses. On why the disabled have been targeted to 'save money' after all, most of them can't fight back so - easy target...

Honestly, the way people go on... Benefit payments are not enough to live on - you would know that if you were forced to live on them - they barely cover the cost of heating homes and feeding people. I do not know where this idea came from that benefit payments are extortionate and ample to live on - you do not 'live' while on benefits, you survive... And it takes hard bloody grit, determination and belligerence to escape that life and I am telling you all now - not everybody has that in them, they simply do not have what it takes to pick themselves up and try to make a better lifestyle, not without proper help but instead of the help, what they get is a bashing... From politicians, from ignorant people, from everybody who desires to point a finger and say, 'You are the problem here...' They are not the problem here.

If living on benefits is such hard work and barely enough to survive on, why would anyone have more than 2 children if they knew that was their only income? Funnily enough , all the people I know who "survive" on benefits seem to have just as much disposable income as I do ( 2 working adults in the house).
BTW I know this as I know where they holiday, get their nails / hair done etc, so hardly just surviving.

benefits should be up to the average number of children so that people dependant on benefits are neither advantaged or disadvantaged, in terms of family size, by not working.

whether someone is working or not should not effect the reliability of contraception so on average both groups should be able to control family size to the same level.

at the moment, highest and lowest income families have larger families than middle income families which is clearly not fair to middle income families.

lol! moogy1a You do not know anything about another person's situation, what they do or do not do, what goes on behind a closed door or how they juggle/live their lives - you only think you know and make a judgement accordingly.
If what you are saying is true then go ahead and report these people as they are claiming benefits whilst having another income and not disclosing it. As the parent of three children who had to claim benefits for 2 years before becoming self employed I promise you - benefits are not enough to have any quality of life on. I did not have my nails done, take a holiday, have my hair done... I was lucky to be able to get through a week and still have a pound left in my pocket after meeting direct debit bills and purchasing food - I had to pull my car off the road for over a year as I did not have enough cash to keep it running.
Open your eyes.

All of the women on this thread are intelligent, educated and able - even if they have not had the ideal home life before they had children they had the ability within themselves to be able to see there was a better way of living other than living single with children on benefits. Not everybody is as fortunate. Some people can't see a better way and have to be shown that there is one.
This thread says we are not to target those already with children so my point is this - we are then talking about young girls/women yet to have children or with one or two already - lets concentrate in that case, on showing these young women that they can achieve in life and having children and living on benefits is not the only option open to them. Its a pattern that is bred thanks to environment and low self esteem issues. Help the mothers now - helps the children of the future... You have a problem, you start to solve it at the cause, you treat the cause of it not the symptom of it.

threebats you make lots of valid points on immigration etc. However, I also agree with moogy1a , I also have the perception that lots of people on benefits (not all maybe) live a lot better than if they were working and have a lot of 'luxuries' that take a lot of hard graft and juggling of commitments for me as a working parent to be able to afford. If I am wrong, then how do threads such as these Benefits thread (and there are a lot of these and not just from the dm!) come about?

It also seems, that the more children you have if on benefits, the better off you are which is why I think the proposal is a good idea.

I didn't say they had another income. I said how come they can have such a lifestyle/ why would you have more children in benefits were your only income

I was talking about my household with 2 working adults ( not very clear, I admit!)

Having been on benefits, and getting more than most because people in this house have disabilities, the only way not to go into debt is to:
a)Live frugally, even with the extra allowances for disabilities.
b)Know how to cook from scratch.

This way we can just about afford internet, sky television - crucial for someone unable to walk, get out etc - and other luxuries.
Hair done regularly, nails done, holidays would all entail getting into serious debt.

threebats I disagree with you on so many levels I don't know where to start.

1. my mother brought up three kids on her own on a tough Newcastle council estate. She had three jobs and didn't claim a penny. She sacrificed time with us so we were brought up with pride and not to expect other people to pay fo us.

2. I grew up on a council estate (Scotswood to be exact) but I knew then (particularly coming fr that back ground) that I would not bring a child into this world I could not afford to bring up. I am 36 years old and only now am I tryng to conceive. There was no way on this earth i was going to bring a chld into this world I could not afford to look after myself (without benefits) if my DP and I split up. I was brought up to pay my own way.

3. why is it acceptable for people that have never worked and been on benefits to carry on having children and expecting us to pay. So its ok for me to work all the hours god sends and continually pay increased tax levels so other people can sit at home claiming benefits and having children? No Way Thank You.

OP - YANBU

dawnyour first point is that you need to live frugally. Surely that shoudn't even need saying. of course you need to live frugally if your only income is benefits. no different to vast numbers of people whpo work and live frugally.
I disagree that sky tv is somehow a necessity. what's wrong with freeview? Can you not see that when people think things such as sky should be effectively sibsidised for them it riles workng people?

The problem is, no one's life is cut and dry - shit happens. There are people who sponge off the state and keep popping out children - I agree, why should they be able to do this? But equally, there are people who fall on genuinely hard times and need the safety net of the benefits system.

As much as i dislike this government - I wouldn't want to be the person to make these decisions because it is never going to be fair to everyone.

Oh and people saying it should be two births because of triplets well rules like this tend to be set in stone and unbending so if it's two births then what about someone who is unlucky enough to have a stillborn. That classes as a birth.

People are all justtrying to point the finger at someone else to stop cuts effecting them it's like the Salem witch hunt here. I remember when the cuts were on child benefit there were endless threads about how horrid it was.

crawling I should imagine it would work the same way as child benefit. If the child is no longer alive, they are not "counted"

People should read up on China's one child policy ...

But it won't see to all the loop holes just like the child benefit cut didn't people will get caught unfairly by some loop hole.

"People should read up on China's one child policy ... " sorry, what's the relevance. Oh I know, sensational unjust policy. Try putting the words nazi and eugenics in as well...
This proposal has nothing to do with the China one child policy ( which is no longer enforced)

YANBU - kind of. I agree in principle, but there are so many anomalies I would think it is practically impossible to legislate on this fairly.

I have to say that I honesty only know of three or four families with more than four children - they all attend my DCs school. And all of those families are on benefits. It may just be a coincidence, I don't know, but it's a big coincidence none the less. I don't know any working familes (personally, I mean) who have that many children because none of them can afford to!

And before anybody says 'how do I know they are all on benefits' I just do . Can't say how without outing myself.

Personally, I would rather be held to ransom by feckless people than watch children starve in the street.

'It's not actually about people though is it? It's about women.

Women give birth and in most cases if the parents split up then the children live with their mother.

So you could have one man who has fathered 6 children, but because they have three different mothers there is no cut in benefit.'

Agree with sashh

OP YABU for the above reasons and because it would affect innocent children.

Having children is biologically normal and the way society is now is not necessarily the 'right' way to live, not everybody will fit in with the way society works now but that doesn't take away their biological right to have a child.

Jellybeans yes women do end up with the kids. But as women, we know that and we should be making sure we are in a position to look after our own single or not. My mother did it, I have waited till I can do it. It's no excuse!

Shit happens and yes there should be a safety net, but that's all it should be a safety net. Not a life choice or way of life.