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

If you're going to quote me, at least do it right and quote the entire post.

And I am capable of looking at it like a rational adult, you're the one who seems blind to the reality of what this would create.

SchroSawMargeryDaw

And I am capable of looking at it like a rational adult, you're the one who seems blind to the reality of what this would create.

'Oh why don't you just nuke all the disabled people you nazi' is not a rational argument.

I have just seen the argument about working people not being able to afford to have more children and waiting until the other goes to school before having more dc.
Well ok, it may seem unfair to some but surely there is the argument that they too can afford to have more dc because they are employed.
If they can't afford the childcare, that's not really the same as not being able to afford to live. It is also a life choice and maybe they should look at the subsidy and flexibility they have to enable them to work, than previous generations did.
I find it really sad to hear some comments on these threads that suggest because you are working and paying tax you have a right to complain that others don't. I find this type of person more entitled than the term used as a description for those on benefits.

I see many people here have been shopping at Sweeping Generalisations R Us.

FFSTiggaxx

Flatpack are you aware of the tiny portion of the welfare budget that goes to out of work benefits ...most of the money is pensions ...blaming those not in work is stupid

"'Oh why don't you just nuke all the disabled people you nazi' is not a rational argument."

I stated why I said that in my next post, in the part you failed to quote.

And WTF? I didn't say "you nazi".

Freudian slip, perhaps?

flatpack - your posts are the ones that sound stupid, actually, otherwise perhaps you would realise that social housing is very difficult to get these days even for people who are pregnant or who are single parents. Teen parents don't automatically get a house provided - that's nonsense.

'Is it better for society to subsidise a burgeoning unemployable underclass?'

Who is this underclass? Give me evidence of these people please because I actually think they don't exist - you have clearly swallowed propaganda bolleaux peddled by the tories, designed to blame the poor for all the UK's problems. I refer to edam's post above - there is no evidence that thousands of people have more than 2 children and were on benefits to start.

Hmmm, flatpack's posting style sounds familiar

Ok x2boys you think there's no cuts to the disabled? Aye right! Look at the oncoming issues with DLA! I get high rate mobility as I can't walk 50 meters. The government want to cut that tom25 meters. In practice, it makes no difference to me - the bus stop (which would take me to work -with a charity, providing literacy services) is 150m from my house. I can't walk that far - even though the bus would drop me 20m from the door/lift at my work.

I currently use my DLA (I get high rate mobility, as seen above, and medium rate care because I can't wash or dress myself alone (can you imagine trying to fasten your bra when you have no idea where your hands are? That's me! My dh works awat 2 nights a week. I either sleep inn my underwear or get my (13 and 9) year old girls to do my bra. I'm not asking my 11 yo ds, that would be inappropriate!

I hope the "capped at 2 children" doesn't apply to those who already have more! I've gt DLA (got a letter today upping it by -yay- £3) a monty. My dh is a GP so we don't get tax credits etc.

But I still need £15 a week to pay for my taxis to work (and you know Dave, my work is part of your Big Society).

I got disabled (I have no sensation below my knees or elbows, or in my lower face - have you ever kissed your kid but not actually felt it? That's me) i developed my disabiliy when my kids were 11, 9, 7. They're now 13, 11, 9. The government wants people like me (who cant walk) to do a lot more. If I don't get my DLA I can't shop for my family or even have a holiday with them.

I was pretty much left wing but after this I'm assured. I'm nuts. Good!

Weegie :(

Not to mention the blatant lies on the forms from the people who assess applicants for DLA.

The last time I applied I got a letter back refusing me as I have "no mobility problems" and "no problems with daily care". I can't even walk to the bus stop or to the shop just round the corner and up a set of stairs. I can't lift my DS without feeling like my whole body is falling apart (literally), I also like *WeegieMum" can't undo my bra on my own, unless I am having a brilliant day which is rare.

lottieandmia

flatpack - your posts are the ones that sound stupid, actually, otherwise perhaps you would realise that social housing is very difficult to get these days even for people who are pregnant or who are single parents. Teen parents don't automatically get a house provided - that's nonsense.

Who is this underclass? Give me evidence of these people please because I actually think they don't exist - you have clearly swallowed propaganda bolleaux peddled by the tories, designed to blame the poor for all the UK's problems. I refer to edam's post above - there is no evidence that thousands of people have more than 2 children and were on benefits to start.

According to the ONS there are 3.7 million households in the UK where no-one was currently working. The highest proportion is in the North-East where 1 in 4 households have no adults in work.

In 2012, according to the same page, there were 340,000 households where no adult has ever held a job. Those 340,000 households contain a total of 1.75 million children, which is an average of 5 children per household.

The average number of children in a household in the UK is 1.8.

So, we see here clear evidence of not thousands, but hundreds of thousands of people, with family sizes far above the average for the UK, where nobody has ever worked. These aren't my figures, or your hated Tory party's figures, they're from the ONS.

The problem is not everyone fits into the same box so some one somewhere will lose out.

I work and in principal do agree with the capping but it will not suit everyone. As a taxpayer I do not begrudge any of the taxes I may going to those who genuinely need it. But I do begrudge it going to the families who have never woked - when they absoloutely can ( no disabilities /no carers etc) and just havent bothered abd then CONTINUED to have alarge family with no means to support themselves. That is not using the safety net - that is using the state to live how you choose.

How about not getting paid CB /TC for the children you choose to have when you are currently on benefits - would that work?. It all comes across as trying to put down the families on benefits but I dont feel that way - Its just about readdressing the balance andunfortuanltely there are a small number of families who take the piss and those are the ones that need pulling into line - so that there is more to go round to the families that do actually need it.

Schrosaw and Weegie

It is because of people like you that many who might have fallen into the trap of gov propaganda, are able to understand what is happening.
Hardly any of the cuts will affect my family and we are very fortunate. I am woman enough to stand up and be counted though, and object strongly to how people are going to suffer.
Thank you for your posts and I hope more people will become aware after this thread.

To those welcoming these cuts please get your heads from up your assholes, stop talking about being fuckin tax payers and grow some.

Actually those children live in the households where no one works ...not just where no one has ever worked ...so those, like my colleagues, who will be signing on now Mr Gove has made them redundant ...many of whom have worked here 20+ years

surely we are not asking people to stop having families and so on - and we need to continue to support those who need it - but how do we go about stopping people having 4-5-6-7-+ children while they are still on benfits ? Its a bit different if you have lost your job but to keep having children when you have no income - silly?

Flatpack talk about selective quoting...
Your link does indeed refer to 340,000 households in which no adult has ever worked, but the 1.75 million children it refers to are not necessarily related to those families specifically. The 1.75 million children are in 'workless households' NOT 'households in which no adult has ever worked.'
Your claim that these 340,000 never-worked households have an average of 5 children each is wrong.
Maths not your strong point?

QUOTE:
The percentage of households where no adults work was 17.9 per cent, down 0.8 percentage points from a year earlier.
The percentage of households where all adults work was 53.0 per cent, down 0.3 percentage points from a year earlier.
Of the regions in England and countries of the UK, the North East had the highest percentage of workless households.
The number of households in which no adult has ever worked was 340,000, down 22,000 from a year earlier.
There were around 1.75 million children living in workless households, down 60,000 from a year earlier.
UNQUOTE

Plum.

Everyone who receives a benefit, with the exception of cb as the really rich gets this benefit. Are in the same box, THEY NEED SUPPORT!
There are no undeserving poor at least I like to think so.
I couldn't imagine wanting a say on who got money from gov. I don't think individual tax payers are consulted on how their tax is spent.
Maybe collectively it could be part of the agenda for some voters, but I like to look a bit deeper myself

Sorry Moogy1a But people with disabilities and limited life choices should not be judged by you or anybody else. I shall certainly not justify my dhs choice of television provider to you or anybody else. Yep, your taxes go toward his disability benefits, that doesn't mean you get to choose where he spends it, in the same way that you don't get to choose where your gp or children's teacher get to spend their money.
I'm sorry, but your attitude toward those with disabilities is ill considered and ill mannered.

I see gordy noticed the same selective quoting by flatpack
You can't pull the wool over our eyes, flatpack - some of us are capable of independent thought!

People are out of work because people are losing their jobs and jobs are difficult to find.

I don't know anyone who has 5,6 or 7 children at all, let alone someone who had this number and had never worked. It is hard for me to believe statistics which may have been manipulated when I see no evidence that this is the case - what I do see is most people trying to do their best. Surely a workless household could be a lone parent who separated from their children's father but has never yet worked in the new house because of child care commitments.

I don't know anyone who has never worked either, actually. Most people like working. Capping benefits at 2 children will inevitably mean that the children are the ones who will suffer and that is totally indefensible.

Wow. So taxpayers who fund others benefits should have no right to say how the claimants spend money that they didn't earn or inherit themselves??
Really??
If I claimed benefits the last thing I'd want to do is waste what little cash I had on Sky, cigarettes, alcohol, bingo, fancy trainers and takeaways.

And benefits should be capped at 2 children.
How dare people think its ok to have children they cannot afford to feed and clothe and expect others to pay for them.