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 questioned that earlier in the thread, fluffy but wondered if it was a bit dramatic too?

It does annoy me that my neighbours have three children, and don't work as far as I can see. But I know that is meanspirited of me. How can I possibly know (that I want to) all the details of their lives and how they decided to have that many? They need support.

No-one ever gets pregnant by accident, or has twins instead of DC2, or has triplets, or gets made redundant after having three children, or ends up in a blended family with more than 2 children...

Because thats all the tax payer is willing to pay for

You can give people the benfit of the doubut with two acident, whatever but get into 3 children and yur taking the piss

I listened to IDS on the radio and he said the saving would be £1bn. Not sure how he calculated this, but it included fewer CB payments and presumably a reduction in the CTC element of the new Universal Benefit.

He says the average no of children per family is 1.8, so offering help for 2 children seemed the right level of support. "Large families" (no definition given) were clustered at the top and bottom of the income scale.

People are rational. That is why the average family size has shrunk so much - because parents know if they want a certain lifestyle, they have to limit their families. For those parents who decide to have more children at least partly on the basis of the extra benefits they get (rational) the equation will alter and they will make different choices (again, rational).

However a minority of parents will always take a short term view of their own and their children's future and the real challenge is changing their behaviour.

And yes, why 2?

An 'unreasonable' amount of children surely starts around the 4 or 5 mark in most peoples minds doesnt it?

Personally i feel uneasy about it. It sounds like a good idea at first - but then smacks of controlling the poor.

I don't like the proposal at all.

People who are feckless about having children and assume that money just falls out of the government sky to pay for things, will continue to be feckless about having them and assuming that somehow it will be paid for. They never have children for logical reasons, anyway.

Children who didn't ask to be born are the ones who will suffer in poor, disorganised households.

The children of feckless benefit scroungers should go cold and hungry.

That'll learn 'em.

Fuck me, not even IDS sounded convinced this morning on R4. Still, anything to make resentful DM readers happy I guess

Fishwife1949 - that how it is with the people I know.

Having said that education here isn't prolonged here but that doesn't stop them finding and keeping work.

So I think you may be confusing education levels and actual work levels. Local economy here is based on low wages.

Plus some of the larger familes started very young think teenagers and have spaced the DC out. Some of them even have the same two parents. So perhaps they don't meet Daily Mail norms.

it's not controlling the poor. It's about people having to take financial resposibility for their own offspring.

What mrskeithrichards said.

Just a load of unthought out shite designed to have people going 'yes! Punish people who have too many children' 'I stopped at two' (because you wanted two, maybe?). How can that be the answer?'

Let's put more children into poverty and take cash from people who can't afford to have it taken away (including those who work hard but get paid a pittance by greedy private employers who use 8hr a week contracts + overtime to reduce their maternity/holiday pay bills and get the government to pick up the tab. Or families who chose to have children because they could afford it and then lose their jobs, all their savings get used up because they're not entitled to any help because they're 'too rich' and then further down the line they have to claim benefits because they've got no money left! What about single parents whose ex partners pay nothing?)

Still not addressing the main issue: low wages, high living costs.

These idiots need to stop looking for sensationalist short term solutions that wouldn't be out of place in the Daily Mail comments section and look for real, sustainable ones that don't single out one particular sector of society.

Next time you read a suggestion like this, think to yourself 'is this a Tory idea?' If it is, you have your answer as to whether its a good one that will benefit all and not penalise people who can't afford it.

so people on benefits are bad parents? you people are disgusting and yes op yabu.
abortion rates would go up, child poverty would go up, more children ending up in care.
then we have the working people because we all know they would not stop at people on benefits, people on low incomes are just as bad.
what about blended families. this idea is ridiculous and smacks of the chinese ban no more than 2 children if you were the wrong sort.
believe it or not unlike the tories want us to believe not every thing in life is about money.

No people who have 5,6&7 children are bad parents if they do so in the hope the tax payer will pick up the bill

Call it a daft analogy, but this is like dog licences ...

The people who it's aimed at aren't the ones who are going to take any notice of it. And yes, of course children will suffer because of it.

You would get pregant then knock next door and ask them to buy your baby milk ect thats effectivly what these people are doing

Where did I say people onbenefits are bad parents? The proposal puts the non working on a level playing field with the working wrt planning how many chilsdren you can afford. How is that saying it makes them bad parents?

Why don't we restrict free schooling and free NHS care to any family with more than 2 children, if you want a 3rd 4th 5th you have to pay yourself. No one really needs more than 2 children surely?

Ofcourse that is not a good idea as children would suffer, nice middle class children. But it doesn't seem to matter if children from poor families suffer.

Oh we have a ticking time bomb in terms of the elderly, a burgeoning mass of surplus labour, ie people just surplus to the requirements of businesses, forget the fact that people consume......what the hell do we want children for, ban them I say. Let them eat worms and send their parents to work at poundland for a dollar a day.

Honeytrip yes we do

Those who dont behave of follow school rules are asked to leave

Nhs: people who are overweight have to loose it before oprations are given and people who drink wont be given transplants unless they stop

We ask things of people all the time

low wages, high living costs

Indeed. Even they know that, which is why IDS sounded so uncomfortable on R4 this morning.

"I have 3, my husband works full time, I am a SAHM trying to set up my own business. I do not think I am taking the piss. At all. We can afford it now, but I am very sure we will be in trouble when all the cuts are implemented. How is that taking the piss?"

Because you're being subsidised for your choice to have three children. The Beckhams for instance have what I consider to be too many kids - in terms of overpopulation and the harm we do to the planet, etc. - but at least they can afford to keep them.

How come us who work have to figure out whether we can afford another child?
But those who live on benefits shouldn't have to?

Our employers don't rise our wages when we have another baby. So neither should the benefit system pay out more.

honeytea I think some people would actually do that...
This thread started off quite well, people making good points but has degenerated into a benefits bashing thread. Again. I've got 3 DC's. Me & DH work, him FT, me PT at home, we claim the benefits we are entitled to, such as they are. I think I may need to hide this thread now...