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

I know this thread is old but YANBU.

How can it not be reasonable? Why are people saying that children shouldnt suffer - they didnt ask to be born- its not fair for them to be in poverty? If you are on benefits - meaning you are unable to support yourself or your family and the people in this country who do work are paying to supprt you then I think its totally reasonable to say ' excuse me, please dont pop out any more children at the moment as you really cant afford them and neither can we'

If that parent chooses to have that child then its THEIR fault that they are skint - not ours because we wont give them anymore cash. And if that family has decided to have another then presumably they want that child so much they have decided to go without things (food , clothes whatever) so they can give them to their child. Their choice. Not ours. There are far too many people in this country who do not give a thought about whether they can afford another - infact I know one family who see how much they are going to get before they fall pregnant to see how much they will get.

People who work have to think carefully about how many they have. I have 3. I have always thought can we afford it on our salary - will I to work etc. The money we get from tc and cb is extra - we can support ourselves - if we had anymore we wouldnt be able to - so thats why we havent. I would love to have more but cant afford it.

And as OP states -this is for future children - so people will have warning. EVERYONE WILL STILL HAVE A CHOICE

GO on then how are we going to solve the problem of the massive debt the nation is in people can bleat on and on about how cuts will affect kids and disabled[ no cuts to diabled etc as far as i,m aware ] but nobody offers any solution the NHS is on its knees [ have worked for it for 17 years so am aware] education is nt much better will people be happy with no cuts but no NHS no education to speak of .

THREE well argued. Some posters do not think it through

Here is a situation I had my third child before I realised dd 2 had special needs now as her needs are so severe I cannot work because of her care needs. Do does work so while we don't claim full benefits we do recurve tax credits.

Now while I may be unaffected as my DC are already here and born before this was introduced in the future there will be families (and possibly single parents on full benefits) who have 3 children and have to give up work because one child is severely disabled.

There will be no safety net for them no loop hole to help them in the future.

Dp does work not do does work and receive not recurve.

Most people I know cannot afford three dcs, so why is limiting benefits to two draconian?

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

What a joke. Starve. There is no absolute poverty in the UK. Families with kids who are totally reliant on benefits would be getting approx £70 per week per child (child tax credits of £55 + child benefit of either £20 or £13.50). That is not including all the other benefits (housing benefit, income support, council tax benefit, free school meals, free prescriptions, subsidised nursery etc). If you can't feed a child on £70 per week then you need to sort out your financial planning rather than expect the state to give you more. Most working families don't even have £70 per week per child! Besides, they would be getting free school meals, so unless the parents never bought any food to eat at home, they would still get food at school!

It is levelling the playing field

lougle the one child policy is very far from a blanket rule in China. Just living in the right place allows you to have more than one child. There are many exceptions.

Why 2? Who decided on that number? Why not go the whole hog and not subsidise any children, and while you're at, if parents can't afford private schools they shouldn't be having children, same goes for private medicine.

What I always struggle with on threads like these, is how patronised those on benefits and low incomes are by the educated Left.

Just because someone is born poor it does NOT follow that they will remain so and yet the Liberal Left always assume it.

Just because someone is on benefits it does NOT mean they cannot budget and yet the Liberal Left always assume so.

Just because someone is out of work it does NOT mean they are incapable of forming a long marriage or having the number of children they choose when they choose and yet the Liberal left always assume they are not in control of their own bodies.

Just because someone is on benefits it does not mean they will allow their children to starve and yet again the Liberal Left assume they will.

There are few things quite as unpleasant as head patting patronising by champagne socialists. Absolutely makes my skin crawl.

TheSecondComing

So because some parents are twats you're advocating draconian rules for everyone else on benefits?

Draconian? Hardly. Guaranteed subsidy of two children is 'draconian'?

How much money do you have to earn before you are allowed a kid? And a second?

Nothing.

What about people made redundant?

They'll get JSA, as before.

What about people who have disabled kids?

DLA.

What about people who become ill or whose parents become disabled/Ill?

Why would having seven children change that situation?

Your pretend mate with 10 kids is a criminal, hence the summer house.

There's no pretence about large families subsisting on the state. Here is an example.

Bear in mind, this is from the BBC, which is not known for its right-wing stance. Take a look at the numbers. A household of 7 children with 2 unemployed adults gets £30,000 of support a year. To earn that a couple would have to have a household income of around £45,000 a year. This family receives that, gratis, and they make _no contribution to the public purse. They have seven children.

The children get free healthcare. Free education. The family gets £30,000 a year from the taxpayer. And they do nothing.

Those objecting to a benefits cap are defending the indefensible. When an ordinary couple earning the average wage each have the same income as an unemployed couple with seven children, that is indefensible. That is what is wrong with the welfare system.

I typed a big long post. All about my situation and what the 2 child cap would have meant for me.

And then I realised I was wasting my time.

I'm always saddened by how slow progress has been. Why are so many women trapped on benefits when their marriages break up? Why are so many women without skills or qualifications?

I am not talking of men here BTW, as it usually women left holding the fort and the baby.

Do women who aspire to nothing more than motherhood not realise what a vulnerable position they have put themselves in?

frankelly i am commenting!! also rather pleased to have a zombie thread!

TheSecondComing - I wish she was pretend. She is very real and has 10 kids and all the things I've mentioned. She learnt from her mothers example. Her mother had 4 kids and never worked. Her 2 sisters both have kids and don't work, the only one out of the whole family that does work and pay taxes is her brother.

She thought it was great posting pictures on fb of her lovely new summer house and egulary used to post updates when she was down at the stable, so no, not pretend at all. I find her attitude disgusting and removed her from my fb.

Or does it suit you to think there aren't really people like that out there because it suits your argument?

*regulary

and I do agree, she is a criminal.

flatpackhamster Dla is not there to subsidise low wages or dole money it's there to help with the extra costs of having a disabled child your assumption that it's for people to subsidise JSA is insulting.

So, if you earn over £50k through salary (but actually take home £35k after tax and NI has been removed), then your kids are fair game for being stripped of their benefit (child benefit/child tax credits) and tough shit for having hard working parents but if you are "earning" £50k through benefits (including all the satellite benefits not included in the forthcoming "cap" i.e. free prescriptions, free bus passes, subsidised or free nursery, free school meals, fruit/veg vouchers, milk tokens) then your kids being stripped of "some" child benefits is a crime against humanity and will leave them to starve.

Why are some kids fair game whilst others are innocent little darlings to be protected at all costs?

from neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/HTMLDocs/images/Topic%20Profile%20Child%20Poverty_tcm97-97819.pdf

Over 30% of low income households have 3 or more children.
80% of low income households have one or both parents not working.

What happens if you have a contraception fail?

Even worse, what if you have a contraception fail and are disabled?

Crawling

flatpackhamster Dla is not there to subsidise low wages or dole money it's there to help with the extra costs of having a disabled child your assumption that it's for people to subsidise JSA is insulting.

I didn't say that it was. I said that if you have disabled children, you get support from the state. I thought it was called DLA. Sorry if I was wrong about that, my point was that if the children are disabled they'll still receive support.

And if you'd like insulting, perhaps you'd like to hear what I think of people who decide they've got a 'right' to help themselves to the taxpayer's money.

Women in very impoverished countries who get no benefits continue to have large families they can't feed or clothe.

Women in impoverished countries would give their eye teeth for free access to reliable contraception and the morning after pill, so that they have the opportunity that we have in the UK to plan our famillies.

SchroSawMargeryDaw

What happens if you have a contraception fail?

Even worse, what if you have a contraception fail and are disabled? hmm

Gee whiz, what happens if you break your leg and have a failed contraception and then a boat lands on your house and then a meteorite blows your husband in to tiny pieces, I think there ought to be extra benefits for that.