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

how so?

Faster In all economies it is common for those at the lower end to have more children, historically it was a case of ensuring there were survivors. Now, as Crawling said, it's often a lack of education. This socio-economic group are the least likely to be fully educated about contraception, due to lack of opportunity they are the least likely to understand the implications of lack of contraception. They are also the most likely to have a child (again lack of education) because their Mum did at that age, or their mates got one and it's cool. They are the least likely to comprehend the impact of having children, physically, emotionally, mentally and economically.

How are they less educated about contraception? They are taught exactly the same as all other kids in school re. sexual health and are made well aware of contraceptive choices and where to access it for free.

The problem is that in fact they're not. Again, this particular socio economic group is the group most likely to be absent from school, for various reasons and no, it isn't always bunking off. They are also the least likely group to discuss it in the home situation, so the little picked up at school is not reinforced at home.

Moogy but we don't all have a equal IQ. In some cases undiagnosed special needs also contribute (which have also been cut great long term plan there) someone with ADHD for eg funds it hard to concentrate in class and if teachers don't pick up on it and if more help is not given (at the moment very little help is given) then the effect is detrimental on the Childs ability to listen and learn.

i refuse to believe that any 15 / 16 year old is ignorant of contraceptive choices .
Why are they less likely to discuss it at home? I never discussed such things at home. I'd have rather chewed my own bits off, but even in the unenlightened '80's I knew all the options.

moogy - I've met grown adults who don't understand how the pill works even though they've used it.

Just because YOU refuse to believe it doesn't make it any less of a fact

Moogya if that's the case then why as a teen mum was I given more than 3 hours of contraceptive talks by mws they don't do it for the fun of it.

Exactly freddie, but it's much easier to look down on people isn't it?

Moogy the temptation to tell you to 'grow up' is overwhelming. Just because you don't believe, you stick your fingers in your ears whilst yelling: 'la,la,la' and ignoring the received wisdom and research of the last one hundred odd years. FFS. Grow up woman and accept that there are realities other than yours.

I don't think most people who want benefits capped do look down on people reliant on benefits.

I have hired people who have been unemployed for up to 1 year for well paid roles.

Yes, you refuse to believe it because it makes it harder for you to continue poor bashing and you would prefer not to educate yourself about why some sections of society are different from others.

Dawn I am so sorry your situation is so difficult I know a family in similar situation to yourself. The father was an it consultant, developed nocturnal epilespy (he fits in his sleep)which meant he was unfit to work. The mother cared for their 3 kids all born while he was earning. One of the children has autism and the mother receives carers allowance for the child. She carers for her husband at night, while juggling her autistic child night and day. The father is exhausted during the day due to lack of sleep as is the mother and they have the other kids to juggle as well. He can't work, she can't work but she does easily 20 hrs days.

I can't believe they are classed as a non working family, what a joke

It's about ambition.

Neither I nor my peers had children as teens because it would have ruined our lives, as we believed , were led to believe and, in fact, still believe. My children are raised to think the same.

My parents would have been horrified, ashamed and deeply disappointed if I had become pregnant which was a huge factor. Again, same for my children. In many families having children as teens is, if not the norm, perfectly acceptable. In most educated and ambitious home sit is not.

how come there are so many poor basing threads? But rather fewer on MP's claiming for 2nd homes when they live within 50 miles of London. Or renting to each other or all the various expenses frauds etc.
I dont see anger over families with disabled children losing housing benefit because that disabled child needs their own bedroom either. Or the fact that Cameron lied about it. Just the same old 'feckless scrounger' bashing with no decent solutions.

gimmeanaxe because there are far far fewer mp's than there are people on benefits.
( and lots of people - myself included- have started threads slating mp's expenses.)

Also, people with a disabled person in the household won't lose out on the bedroom tax as has been explained a fair few times.

doesn't everyone dislike MPs/their expenses? so there is no debate to be had.

... and neither will pensioners before anyone says that.

Some people with disabilities will lose out on the bedroom tax. It's up to individual councils. Unfortunately with the ATOS assessments, they may well lose all benefits for varying periods. It has been clearly demonstrated that ATOS are assessing a significant number of cases wrongly. Those people who appeal will no longer be in receipt of any benefits, doesn't really matter at that point whether the bedroom tax is awarded or not, they won't be getting anything. Interestingly, this government are also looking at removing the right to appeal, too.
I notice moogy that since I stated how much the government award me, you haven't commented on my use of your taxes. Is that because you were, up until now, unaware that I only get paid 37 pence an hour?

Bedroom Tax Farce

No Dawn, it's because there are very few ways for me to phrase" sky tv is a luxury, not a necessity" and I've run out of ways to say it!

Way back up thread someone seemed to be expressing surprise that taxpayers aren't allowed a say in how benefits are spent.

WTAF do they think they are entitled to comment on?

The sky tv thing gets boring as well.