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

Here we go.

'Ex-housing minister Grant Shapps said discretionary payments were available in certain circumstances, but families with disabled children were not exempt...

Mr Miliband said an impact assessment suggested 420,000 disabled people faced losing £700 a year as a result of the changes - a total of £306m - while the hardship fund covering those affected had an allocation of just £25m for disabled people.

'In response, Mr Cameron said "anyone with severely disabled children is exempt from the spare room subsidy".

"Pensioners are exempt, people with disabled children are exempt, anyone who needs help round the clock is also exempt," he told MPs.'
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21721320

Shapps had it right, Shiny Dave wrong.

I don't blame the public for getting the wrong end of the stick, when the nonsense is coming from the PM himself.

The media aren't exactly helping either. Check out today's headline in The Independent: "Disabled exempted from 'bedroom tax'".

You could be fooled into thinking it meant, well, disabled exempted from bedroom tax. But a quick look at the article and no, it's a narrow exemption for severely disabled children unable to share with siblings. A very welcome exemption, but very far from a universal exemption for the disabled.

Goodtalking- your point 4 is a big one isn't it. Not that I agree with this, but if you were going to be brutal and say "we need our housing stock back. If you have rooms spare, we'll dock your benefits", surely the biggest group of people is those who've been in council housing for decades and have raised their family and are now in a property far bigger than their current needs. Just as many families who own are in homes which are bigger than they now need. But they are exempt, because cutting benefits for the elderly is a vote loser ! Really illustrates how much political strategy and not ideology is motivating the policy.

Amanda can I just say that I was just pointing out different scenarios, I agree for one moment that elderly people should be forced from their homes nor do I think people should have more children to fill rooms, these were just points that I wanted make. I am worried that my post may have made it sound like I agreed with all of my points I don't.

I don't agree in particular with bedroom tax but do feel that something needs to be done when people are sitting with extra bedrooms paid for by government while others are homeless, living in overcrowded housing etc etc.

The solution is, well I have no idea, people should have there homes for life, in an ideal world no one should be living in fear of losing the roof over the head. Families shouldn't be forced to move miles from home, away from family and friends just because they are seen to be under occupied.

I think the reasoning behind not targeting the elderly is protecting those already in a situation. These elderly people moved into their homes at the time when a home was for life and they are entitled to that right.

Sorry in first post, I am good at this aren't I, I don't note don't believe for one minute that elderly people should be forced from their homes. Sorry

No, no, I didn't think you agreed. But it's a big point isn't it. That there is a big issue with the larger council housing stock being tied up whilst so many people are cramped. Yet what it would take to genuinely free up those rooms is so unpalatable. Actually, more than unpalatable, cruel.

The only thing I can think would really help is some proper changes to planning, with new developments required to provide a certain degree of council housing (not affordable housing. Actual housing they handed over at completion at building cost with no charge for the land) of proper size (not one and two bed flats). Though in a depressed housing market, that would be difficult too.

I don't think protecting those already in a situation really cuts it as an explanation though. Because younger people moved into those houses expecting that they could stay in them. They didn't expect to suddenly be told 'sorry, your son isn't disabled enough to get his own room.' I think that's a smokescreen because hitting the elderly polls badly and the elderly vote in high numbers, surprisingly often tory even amongst the poor.

Thanks Amanda thought I was going to get roasted I should really proof read

I agree with you it is huge and no way can elderly people who have lived for decades be forced out.

I think your right a further problem is the lack of bigger houses being built, a lot of new developments are taken up with building lots of small houses with 1 or 2 bedrooms, so more rent can be generated from smaller plots of land, what's really needed is bigger houses.
I think future tenants are going to have to sign an agreement saying that they will give there house up as soon as they become under occupied, this in itself will lead to problems. Council houses will be viewed as temporary, tenants are not going to put time, money and care into their homes if they see them as temporary.

It's all swings and roundabouts

Excluding the elderly makes sense as they won't be using their houses as long as younger people and the underoccupancy will cease over the next 15-20 years. A couple in their 20s could live for 60 more years so freeing up their property sooner will help far more people.

I don't agree actually. The idea of freeing up houses in 20 years not 40 or 60 doesn't seem a reason for a differential treatment. The problem exists now. All those families in overcrowded homes will be grown and left home by the time young pensioners start dying off in large numbers.

I'm not in favour of charging elderly people. I'm not in favour of the tax generally. But I don't think that there is a policy based reason for excluding the elderly. I think it's simply a reflection of the fact that it's a bad policy.

So what's the solution to better manage the existing stock?

Just waiting for stories about child abuse from families who've taken in single lodgers to fill empty bedrooms in council properties so they can afford to stay in their homes.

to all those saying we should make old people move in to smaller housing because it wont be for much longer and we will get the houses back soon your DO know that council homes can be past on in YOUR WILL so no you wont be getting the stock back it will be passed on to a adult child no doubut and you then wont get that back for the time the old person has le plus the 60 years the adult child lives there with there family

My nan did this had a 6 bed house died left it to my cousin who has one child and he has now brought it when the discount was smaller under labour so you will never get that 6 bed back and i wa tokd there were only 8 6 bed in that whole area so now only 5

Shagmundfreud dint be so dramatic each council has been offering £1000 for every spare roo ou downsize plus removal costs plus you go to the top of the housing list

People have know these reforms were coming and done nothing i were i work two weeks before the change people coming into my work moaning about this these are the same people we gave a letter to last year outlining the changes with what the council are offering to help them move

At the end of the day ITS NOT THERE HOUSE END OF

The issue is lots of things

Lack of homes being built
Under occupancy
Relaince on housing benefit (sp people are not aware of the true cost of living)
Allocation policey (single people should not be getting one and two bed flats which often happens)
And people getting housed who have no local connection ect
People haveing more children one permantly housed and demanding to be mover to ever larger houses ect

Labour ruled over bad houseing policey for years all those who dont like what happing now should think of why the good old reds did nothing for so long if they had tackled this issue then IDS would not need to do somthing now

Domjolly - The really irritating thing about this is how it will really disrupt the lives of loads of children and vulnerable families, and not actually save the tax payer any money at all.

People will move from council accommodation with a spare bedroom, into smaller, but more expensive private sector housing because not enough council and housing association property is available for people to easily downsize.

And I really can't see why it's ok for families with children to be expected to move, despite the fact that this might cause massive disruption in relation to their child's schooling and to parents' work and childcare arrangements, but pensioners rattling around in houses which are far too big for them will be allowed to stay where they are.

The other thing to bear in mind is that benefits to 'poor' families is recycled arouind the economy .It is spent nearly all in the UK which then becomes someone else's income and so on and so forth.The Multiplier I think is the economic term for it.
So it makes good sense for the economy to tax the rich more (the top slice of their income is unlikely to be spent) and give it to the poor who are more likely to spend it.The stumbling block is of course party politics.

Bloodyschool no one is saying don't give benefits to the poor. We are saying limit the benefits so people that have never worked and lived on benefits there entire life are not getting nearly and in some case more ha hard workin families.

I don't mind my taxes (which i work my arse off for) going to people with disabilities that mean they can't work or pensioners (that have worked) etc. But I do not see why I should get increased taxes year in and year out so people can carry on having kids and claiming more and more benefits. No Thank You. I have waited till 36 years of age before ttc because I knew I couldn't afford to have kids before and I didn't want other people paying for my kids.

SF - People will move from council accommodation with a spare bedroom, into smaller, but more expensive private sector housing because not enough council and housing association property is available for people to easily downsize.

but the freed up social housing will then be occupied by another larger family, either from more expensive private accommodation or overcrowded social housing (leaving that house to be occupied by someone else).

if it doesn't save any money, it will have helped reduce overcrowding.

LittleChickpea, you'll be relieved to learn, then, that the myth that there are families where three generations have never worked is not true.

That one was a Tony Blair invention, but there's no credible evidence of a single family where this is true. Despite strenuous efforts, researchers have been unable to find a single such family.

And that's counting the disabled, carers, and people who've done seasonal and temporary work as "never worked".

There are a small number of families where two generations are in that "never worked" box, but in most of those, the second generation has not long reached working age, so may well get a permanent job in the future.

It's all in the report I linked earlier, "The Lies We Tell Ourselves".

When they put the cap on benefits in place it'll be interesting to see if those on welfare stop having bigger families or whether they carry on having children which then pushes the entire family into debt, homelessness and semi starvation. I'm not aware of poverty reducing family size. Actually worldwide and in the UK the better off people are the smaller their families tend to be.

So gear yourself up for the return of families living in destitution. It'll be fascinating. Like returning to the 1930's.

ParsingFancy I have to be honest but i have not read the paper but I am sure there are plenty of papers out there that will demonstrate whatever political view they are promoting. With regards Tony Blair, I thought he was as much of an arse as I think of Eddie The Red and Crazy Balls. Well i can give him a bit of credit on the other two, at least with Tony Blair he was one of the sleekest sales people I have come across

My point is simple, it's about individuals taking ownership and responsibility for the choices they make. If you want a large family then fine go ahead but make sure you can afford to look after your own before you go down that road. It's simply wrong to expect other people to pay your way.

Like I said I am happy to pay taxes which support those in need. But I am not happy o pay taxes to support those that are caple of working and continue to have children even though they don't have the financial means to support their children.

shagmund worldwide people tend to have larger families because their children often die in childhood, and because they need children to look after them in old age. Oh, and also because they have no access to free contraception.
None of those apply in Britain as most children surbvive childhood, we have a very generous welfare state to look after pensioners, and everyone can get free contraception.
in the UK the larger families are from either tose living solely off benefits who don't have to worry about money, and those from very well off families who don't have to worry about moiney.
The poor sods in the middle who seem to pay for everything are the ones who limit family size

It's a report by the Methodist and other churches about the demonisation of the poor, and the fact we find it comfortable to believe that poverty is about individual choice and a failure to take responsibility.

It explodes 6 myths currently being peddled by everyone from Shiny Dave to the newspaper.

Myth 1: ?They? are lazy and just don?t want to work
Myth 2: ?They? are addicted to drink and drugs
Myth 3: ?They? are not really poor - they just don?t manage their money properly
Myth 4: ?They? are on the fiddle
Myth 5: ?They? have an easy life on benefits
Myth 6: ?They? caused the deficit

None stand up to scrutiny - and in some cases the politicians have been outrageous in the fiddling the figures.