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

POTATO What is the answer then?

Do you agree that there are families out there that really need it and others that could support themselves and can't be bothered? I know alot of people (honestly I do ) that are of the mind set that they can just put themselves in the hands of the government - they continue to have children to get more money, to get a bigger house. Before people shout at me I don't mean everyone I really don't. But there are people in my own family like this so I do know. How much longer can we conitnue to support these families. And so far from personal experience what Ive seen is the children from these families follow suit.

Shouldnt the money go to those who really need it? , I know that all families on benfits are in need - but some of them are there by choice arent they.??LIke the ones in my family that really cant be bothered and would rather play the xbox all day .The welfare state wasnt set up to be a lifestyle choice as soeone said - it is a safety net to help those who cannot help themselves/fallen on hard times. But i cant deny there are people out there do take the piss. Thats what needs to stop.

LOTTIEANDMIA those people are out there - they are not made up honest

plum, I am sure some do exist, but I really don't believe they are the majority of benefit claimants as the government would have us believe.

Cockypants - if you are saying that anyone who gets benefits should have what they spend their money on "approved" because tax payers are paying the benefits to them, then that goes for doctors, nurses, teachers, policemen, school crossing patrol people, teaching assistants, receptionists in doctor's surgeries, hospital porters, swimming pool attendants... shall I carry on? Because anyone in public service of any description the tax payer pays their wages.

Freddie, those people are WORKING for the cash.
Why should I pay for claimants who have Sky?? Hardly a life necessity.

Freddie - doctors and co are getting a wage, in return the UK gets their work. it is a trade.

with the exception of carers, the UK does not get anything in return for the payment.

1.75 million children is houses where no one works is way too many. something is very wrong.

CockyPants - it's ok to judge other people when you have a job isn't it? but if you lost yours perhaps you might resent other people dictating what you should spend your money on if you had to claim benefit.

But the point is that it's taxpayers money.

What about me?? Had my kids when married, now not married. Went on benefits. Suppose they were capped at 2 kids and I have (for example) 2. If I meet a man who is a carer for his disabled child and doesn't work as he is looking after this child, and we want to live together, what then??

And in the meantime my ex can shag the country and have bits of skirt dropping babies left right and centre because why??

Yes, def limit it. Having dcs for the money is a baaaaaad reasonto have dcs.

He's not and I'm not and that's not my situation. I'm putting forward an example. Before anyone gets the wrong end of the stick

See, this attitude of 'benefit claimants shouldn't be allowed anything nice' is not about genuine concern for the children not eating properly. It is a spiteful attitude that people should be kicked when they're already down. People who are poor deserve to live as miserable a life as possible. It's vile.

So sky, cigarettes, alcohol and bingo are a necessity for life?
Really?
Entitled or what.
And if I lost my job it is precisely this kind of costly useless rubbish that I wouldn't be spending someone else's money on.

Benefit claimants should be using the money to heat their homes and feed their children decent food, not squandering it on trash.

I think capping benefits is a fantastic idea on paper, do I think it will ever ever work, no.

Capping benefits will not stop people having more than 2 children just like poverty doesn't stop people having children. They will still have children, they will just struggle more. Rightly or wrongly it's true.

Secondly what about families who already have children. They children who are already born need to be provided for.

Not all families on benefits neglect there children. Not all people on benefits choose to be, and no one on benefits is well off. As someone mentioned before more money goes to the elderly than the employed, so are we going to look at ways of reducing the number of elderly next.

Thirdly the claim that young people fall pregnant to get council housing is a joke, there is no council housing that is why landlords can charge extortionate rates, very often people are stuck on benefits because they can't afford to work, as they will never earn enough to pay their rent. This is where the real problem lies. What percentage of benefits budget is lining the pockets of landlords in housing benefit

As for workless households does this include households with carers, are carers classed as working

And when I was on benefits and living a shitty life and everything was hard and miserable and rotten if I wanted to treat my kids to a take away once in a blue moon then I fucking did. If I did without and sat in a house with no heat when they were at their dad's so they could have a curry chip and a dvd on a Friday night what fucking business is it of anyone else's?

Aside from pensions, housing benefit has the largest outlay within the welfare system. 90% of new housing benefit claims are made by those 'in work'. This same argument is always floored and has no economic grounding whatsoever. What difference will any of the suggested changes make to our economy? I ask this as the only reason anybody should be concerned how others live within the welfare system, is the economic impact it has on them or society?Penalising the poorest in society, of whom a large proportion are workers (your coffee makers, your cleaners, bus drivers, postmen, retail workers etc) will make very little difference to our Economy overall. If social mobility is as easy as some of you love to argue then have you considered who will make up the next working classes for your dc if these scroungers can no longer 'breed'. Its an absoloute ignorant joke! These arguments should be more concerned with the cost of living typically dictated by those that set these figures and whom make enough money to hugely impact the economy for the better!

In a forum for people that mostly have one common thing, children and with so many people understanding the ever day struggles of raising them, I'd expect more humanity, care and consideration to be shown to the struggling.

And for those of you who don't believe the figures, I now work on a pretty good wage because I had the resources to change things but when I did not, rent aside I had around £500 a month to feed, clothe, heat and travel with my two dc. £250 on bills, £35 pw on food of which was non negotiable. Both of my children were under 2! Dad dos a runner! Do the maths and please explain where these so called luxuries fit in. Primark school uniform is a struggle! As a previous poster has said people who live easily on benefits are not honest claimants...

Surely in light of this so called intelligence that everybody choses to think they have, lets start a conversation based on tangible facts! Let's ask all the people who actually claim benefits to talk about how much they get and where it goes!

'Benefit claimants should be using the money to heat their homes and feed their children decent food, not squandering it on trash.'

Most people whether receiving benefit or via work, make those things a priority anyway. Where is your evidence that all benefit claimants 'squander it on trash'?

Actually rent aside it was more like £400....

Excuse typos on phone!

Didn't say ALL benefit claimants squander it on trash.

So sky, cigarettes, alcohol and bingo are a necessity for life?

CockyPants where is your evidence that this is what most benefit claimants spend their money on? Who has claimed that cigarettes, alcohol and bingo are 'a necessity for life'? This is just nasty, anti-claimant rhetoric that tries to portray all benefit recipients in a negative light.

so what happens if you lose your job and already have 4 kids? Or have to give up work to become a Carer and have 4 kids? Put 2 into care?

Define decent food. Heat homes to what temperature? What is acceptable? What is allowed?

Don't you see how ridiculous that proposition is? What next, inspectors in the supermarket to inspect the trolleys of the great unwashed to ensure they are only putting "decent" items in their trolleys and confiscation of any contraband?

There needs to be some changes to discourage people who dont work not to sit have more kids whilst they have no job and so expect everyone to pay for them, however, there would need to be a different criteria if youve got 4 DCs and have lost your job, thats what benefits were put there for isnt it to help you when you need it not to live off permanently.

It's actually scary that the so called educated do not truly userstand propaganda! I've heard fags, bingo, holidays, nails, hair etc.... Where do you get these ideas? Is it truly from what you have seen??? I could actually cry with the ignorance if those that think they are smart but for now I'll laugh!!! What a sad sad joke.

'There needs to be some changes to discourage people who dont work not to sit have more kids whilst they have no job and so expect everyone to pay for them'

It's already been established that people will not be discouraged from having more children because of changes to the welfare system. One of the problems with this government is that they fail to understand basic human behaviour.