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

Dla shouldn't come into it at all as it's to make sure your child has enough support and covers their needs, if you have 3 children and one disabled removing those benefits means they will have to use dla to sub the money lost in benefits.

That's not what dla is for it's to help with the extra costs of having a disabled child.

Moogydawnyour 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?
So in your world, the fact that I work eighteen hours a day, as a carer, means that because I'm paid a pittance by the government I am not entitled to the same choices you are, and that because my dh is so severely disabled that he cannot dress himself etc he too is not entitled to the choices you have.
Get lost sweetie, I wouldn't want to live in your world.

Crawling

Dla shouldn't come into it at all as it's to make sure your child has enough support and covers their needs, if you have 3 children and one disabled removing those benefits means they will have to use dla to sub the money lost in benefits.

That's not what dla is for it's to help with the extra costs of having a disabled child.

That's right, they will. They have three children, the state supports two. They'll have to deal with that. They will have to turn to family or to local charities.

The situation we have at the moment, where you can have as many kids as you like and the taxpayer subsidises them all, is untenable.

Actually Orwellian The amount of chlld benefit paid is removed from benefits, it's counted as money you already have coming in, so even if your benefit is capped at the proposed 26,000, you will still lose your child benefit, unlike those earning below whatever the cap is.

Do fuck off Flatpack, the problem is the scenario I posted can and does actually happen.

Mind you, it's probably better that disabled people don't reproduce at all right? Who wants a family of lazy scroungers when there's a chance the kids could also end up lazy scroungers through fault of genetics.

Lets just fill a city with all the disabled people and their kids and nuke them, then there will be more money in the pot for the perfect people. :)

That's right, they will. They have three children, the state supports two. They'll have to deal with that. They will have to turn to family or to local charities.
Ahh, back to the workhouse argument, flatpack. No surprises there.
It's nice to have it in writing that you consider those with disabilties undeserving.

fastStronger I meant you were right about the two groups not agreeing. The other commen wa purely my own thoughts.

Threebats are you saying that everyone on my childhood estate except my brother, sister and myself were not loved, had low self esteem, we're brought up with no morals and didn't have the intellect to think there was a better life and a better way of improving their living standards? Therefore they had no hope and just popped kids out and wnt on benefits? That's a pretty condcending generalisation if you are.

No one is advocating watching children starve. All I am saying is yes the should be a 2 cap going forward with considerations for multi births etc. It's a ridiculous situation when you have hard working family's coming out with £35k after tax/NI and yet a family on benefits getting he freebies and £30k a year. How can anyone think that's fair on the hard working family.

SchroSawMargeryDaw

Do fuck off Flatpack, the problem is the scenario I posted can and does actually happen.

Mind you, it's probably better that disabled people don't reproduce at all right? Who wants a family of lazy scroungers when there's a chance the kids could also end up lazy scroungers through fault of genetics.

Lets just fill a city with all the disabled people and their kids and nuke them, then there will be more money in the pot for the perfect people. smile

I think this post establishes conclusively that you have absolutely no rational argument to support your stance that the taxpayer should subsidise an unlimited family size. When in doubt, turn to abuse and to incoherent hyperbole.

Dawndonna

Ahh, back to the workhouse argument, flatpack. No surprises there.
It's nice to have it in writing that you consider those with disabilties undeserving.

And here's take 2 of "I have no valid arguments left, so time to turn to incoherent personal abuse".

Nope, still don't see why Sky is a necessity. I'll ask again, what is wrong with freeview.
The point about having choices: unfortunately we all have to make choices according to our income- whether that income is limited due to disability, bad luck or fecklessness is neither here nor there. The benefits system is a safety net, not a means for paying for 800 tv channels

Flapjack I sincerely hope you never have to face the heartache and stress of having to give up work to care for a severely disabled child. Relet on family and charity do you realise most disabled carers are alone as family tend to disappear and the cost invoked means when you lose a wage your not living the life of luxury.

I really hope you remain as ignorant and arrogant about how hard living with disability is.

or for paying for limitless numbers of offspring

No, I honestly thought you would have agreed with what I said.

You obviously think that it should be okay for children and families to suffer because of circumstances that they cannot control. Might as well just kill them all because the possible alternative is not a life worth living.

"How can anyone think that's fair on the hard working family."

Instead of this rubbish about what's fair on the "hardworking family", we should instead look at what's best for society as a whole (of which we are ALL a part).

If we drive countless children into poverty and homelessness, which this amounts to, those children will overall have worse physical and mental health and prospects. That's not good for society. Healthy individuals make for a healthy society for all of us.

My problem with this "it isn't fair on the working families" is that by the time this it'll be shit for everyone but that's OK, because it'll be fair as we'll all be in the shit together (well, except the rich and big business of course)

Also, why does dla always come into these discussions? My OP was capping child-realated benefits to 2 children, not cutting dla. ie. you won't get more child tax credits/ family allowance etc.
It's not a coherent argument to say that means I advocate putting down disabled people.

Err because disabled children will still suffer.

DLA is only to cover extra expenses that someone with a disability will incur, it doesn't cover basic living expenses like food.

It's a GREAT idea. Let's punish single mothers who were left to raise their children alone, widowed parents, people who have contraception failures, parents who get made redundant, disabled parents and most of all, children who have not been asked for born. Did I miss anything out?

OP, of course YABU.

So who pays the shortfall then? Do we allow families to become homeless because they have more than 2 dc and can't afford to live.
Of course the tax payer should subsidise families that need help, its the way it has been since Welfare began.
Its ok saying turn to family for support, what about those without family. To the bright spark who said rely on charity, well there are many tax payers donating to charity.
There is something wrong with a society where some people just because they work think they are better than everyone else.
In fairness Sky tv, is not a necessity, for some however internet access is.

I don't agree that children should be made to suffer disadvantage and live in poverty because of their parents' crap decisions.

I would have thought that dla for extras would still be paid. The same as people getting all het up about the bedroom tax saying we need extra room for a carer and this is going to be taken away from us. well no, actually there is provision in the reforms for people with disabled people in the household to have extra rooms as needed.

Yes DLA will still be paid but you're missing the point that DLA doesn't pay for food or clothing or shelter! Only the extra expenses.

SchroSawMargeryDaw

No, I honestly thought you would have agreed with what I said.

Your post was stupid and it shows that you are incapable of looking at the situation like a rational adult. Until you can debate like a grown up, I'll ignore you.

aufaniae

Instead of this rubbish about what's fair on the "hardworking family", we should instead look at what's best for society as a whole (of which we are ALL a part).

If we drive countless children into poverty and homelessness, which this amounts to, those children will overall have worse physical and mental health and prospects. That's not good for society. Healthy individuals make for a healthy society for all of us.

OK, let's look hard at that question. What's better for society? Is it better for society to subsidise a burgeoning unemployable underclass? Is it better that teenage girls get pregnant at 13 because a life on benefits is better because you get a house, and is it better for the mental health of adults and children that they will never know any life except that of total welfare dependency? A poor but useful analogy is zoo animals - do they thrive when trapped in a small cage? No, if kept in captivity they fare far better when in a large enclosure with stimulation. The same applies to humans.

And anyway, do you realise how bloody hard it is to claim DLA!? Even if you have a serious disability you are already treated as a scrounger from the moment you send for the forms.

But moogya many parents of severely disabled DC have to give up work to care for that child. Some would have been hardworking parents of 3 children who now cannot work so rely on benefits.

But this cut will hurt those and the disabled child will suffer