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

One more point.. People are responsible for the. Homies they make. You choose to have children the you make dam sure you can afford to look after them. Dont expect other people to.....

jellyb - 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.

neither does it take away their responsibilities as a parent to provide for their children.

Will my life be happier if other people's children end up without support? Will it be safer? Am I likely to see less crime? Does it work in countries like Brazil? Is it not a known fact that countries with a functioning welfare net have better levels of overall health and of child happiness- because everybody profits from living in a society that is relatively free of crime and suffering?

I want even the children of the feckless to be supported and looked after, not only for their own sake, but for the sake of my children who will be sharing their world. I want that world to be as safe and happy as it can be.

I defo agree with it, end of.

"It is, essentially, a policy to keep the 'undesirables' from reproducing.

At least in China it's a blanket rule - none of this 'ok for some but not others' rubbish and they've the honesty to say 'we only want you to have one child' and not dress it up as a benefits issue hmm "

No, it doesn't. If you can afford to pay the fine, you get to keep the baby. If you can't, then someone comes to your house, arrests you and beats you until you miscarry.

Children do not ask to be born

It is a good idea in principle but where does it end. I see the choice to have more than 2 children as being no different to the choice to have 2 parents working. No matter what anyone says it IS a choice - you could cram your family into a one bedroomed flat instead of having two wages so why should the tax payer contribute to childcare costs for those on tax credits?.I dont agree with that idea but once the families who have 3 + children are finished with they will move on to something else to demonize as a "drain" on the country and that is one of the logical steps up.

Instead of focusing on a pretty small number of people who abuse the system how about we stop looking for scapegoats for our problems?

jellybeans

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.

Nobody's saying you shouldn't have a child. They're saying that the taxpayer shouldn't be expected to subsidise large families.

YABU-you'll be advocating sterilising people with low IQs next.

THe thing that gets me the most isn't actually the money / taxes ect. It's the half arsed excuses. "Oh woo me, I come from a council estate, I had no chance......" Well you know what not all the kids (me , my brother and sister) that came from that background have used it as an excuse to spong off other peoples taxes. we worked our way out of there.

We started with nothing, we worked hard and waited till our mid to late thirties before even considering children. That's called been considerate of our future child's needs and been responsible.

For those that are using the "oh woo the people on the estaste they had no chance". Cut it out, not all of us used it as a lame arse excuse..

Mad as hell!

You can be as dismissive as you want but the policy penalised people for having more children than the state allowed which is what you are advocating

Hope you are prepared for the rising cost of state funded care for these kids

As I said before on another thread that didn't affect me personally (cutting cb to HRT payers) I object in principle to any erosion of the welfare state.

This doesn't affect me either with my two dc, one of whom will be too old any month now but I still object to any erosion of the welfare state.

When people were being all smug about how people on 50k didn't need benefit I said we should all be standing together to fight this because they'll come for all of us eventually

Still no sign of people standing together is there?

about half the working age population contributes to the state than it takes and about half takes more than it contributes.

you are unlikely to get both groups standing together unless you can get people to want to pay more tax/want less from the state.

Yes I can see that from some of the attitudes expressed on this thread.

The OP won't be responding to any comments. This thread is over 4 months old!

FasterStronger you are right, he two groups will never agree....

It's just so unfair on those that contribute more and get nothing or very little to be expected to carry on getting increased levels of taxes to support those that hav never worked who carry on having large families. I wish I could have started a Family sooner but i didnt because I couldn't afford it and I didn't want other people to pay for m child/children.

yes - in my social group its normal to have limited your family size to 1 or 2 and have left London due to housing cost.

I don't remember any comments of 'its not fair', 'social cleansing', 'Nazis' etc. just everyone got on with it.

I'm lucky enough to be a contributor. In no way do I ally myself with people who grumble about paying tax to support others. Once you've paid your tax it's not your money you know. Maybe my tax went on the Olympics which cost more than will be saved in any CB shake up.

This is a very sensible idea so the idea of it happening is zero. Firstly, anyone can have as many children as they like but only 2 get subsidised by the state. It is ridiculous to pay people to have children and in this day and age, nobody "needs" more than 2 children (the replacement rate) and is just adding a future burden in terms of resources and pension provision.

Also, this cap would affect everyone, those working and those not working, so would be fair. At the moment, those in work are penalised because they don't get paid extra for each child (some of them don't even get child benefit now), even though they are paying thousands in tax to subsidise other peoples children. And come on, even if someone is in work it is a bit unrealistic to think that they could never lose their job or circumstances could change. Having more than 2 kids is risky and naive in my opinion, especially in the current economic climate. A job is no longer for life. Have bazillion kids by all means, but don't expect the state to subsidise more than 2.

who are these mythical children who live in poverty i know a lot of people who live entirely on benefits and whilst they may not have a better life than my own family they certainley dont have a worse one. We live almost entirely on wages apart from child benefit if something was implemented now it may stop feck less from producing as many kids aas they want in the future benefits should never be seen as a lifestyle choice.

You cannot let children starve; even if you happen to be a Tory lik Duncan Smith. Case closed

I haven't read the entire thread as it's so long. In principle I think it's a good idea.

An old school friend has 10 kids (first at 15), she has never worked. Her partner (father of 9 of the kids) works but she claims benefits and doesn't declare him living with them. She has just had a massive summer house built in her back garden. She has a large house (council, and I'm pretty sure she mentioned it was an adapted one like 2 houses knocked into one or something like that). She has a horse, an allotment, pushchair for lastest baby that cost nearly £1500, it just goes on and on. The worst thing is she is proud of the fact and laughs that she has 'cheated the government mugs'.

Her attitude and others like her are why there needs to be a cap. It grates on me it really does.

DH and I both work and always have, we had to save for years working two jobs each to afford to buy a house and had to wait to have kids until we could afford them.

littlechicpea You were plainly and obviously brought up with respect, with love and you had the intellect to know there were other options for you.
Not everybody living in the situation you were living in when you were little has got that sense of self esteem in them, they simply just have not. They do not all have a Mum like yours that instills in them this moral and self esteem. A lot of them go on to make terrible decisions in life because of it all - you grew up with hope and determination and for that, I applaud you but - a lot of people have no hope - a life without hope breeds disaster and that was my point - you proved my point by your post. You were brought up to have pride in yourself - a hell of a lot of people don't get that given to them, shown to them or taught what it means when they are growing up.

A lot of people end up in situations they have no control over because of a crisis in their lives and you say that, because they lacked the foresight to be able to care financially for their children alone as a single, working mother after a crisis... Not sure what you are classing those people as exactly because you do not say?

It makes me incredibly sad to read all this on here today. Society has become cold and hard and selfish. Its all about me and its all about what I will and will not pay for and how hard I work and how far I got in life... Good, I am happy you all got somewhere in life - I got somewhere in life as well but hell if I am going to sit back and judge another whose situation is so complex there doesn't seem to be anything anybody can do to solve it all so rather than look at it I am going to say they are all scroungers and too hell with them - and if kids suffer? I do not care because I am not going to put up with my tax payments going to them. How very David Cameron of you all....
How bloody Christian and thoughtful and what a great example to pass onto those children of the families - take the money away and then sleep at night knowing the kids down the road are going to bed hungry and cold but its okay as your tax is no longer going to them... That will teach them that life is hard and friends are few and its every man for himself, eh?

There has got to be a better way to address this issue and deal with it and help people other than saying they are technically, all useless, lazy, takers in life?
Society deeply saddens me. I would not let a child go without food or the mother of that child go without food regardless of the why or what of the child's birth and mothers past decisions. I just would not and I am glad I would not as I could not live with myself if I knew a kid down the street was suffering while I, in my house, was okay thanks mate...
That's my lot - off to work now so I can support my three children and pay the bills - claim my tax credits, which, I suppose, makes me a benefit scrounger in reality? After all, tax credits are, as I was told by their office on the phone when I first applied for them - a benefit for working people who do not or can not earn enough money on which to be able to live on? Perhaps we ought to take that away as well? Just saying, after all, these working people who had children and now find it impossible to live on a wage thanks to rising costs, how dare they even have had any children... Buggers...

I agree with capping to two children. However it would have to be bought in with effect from xxxxx and not to encompass those already in the system.

I also think CB should be capped to two children.

Of course there are so many complications such as multiple births etc to ever implementing anything like that.