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

tosh. It was a safety net, and a sparse one when we were out of work 18 months ago. Very sparse. 9 months we struggled. Hats off to people who manage for longer.

SchroSawMargeryDaw a few people even now i watching the news a welsh man who was on the sick claming of the state no less caught fighting a shark

Out of interest how much in benefits would a family of two adults two children get as a maximum? And how much would the same family get with both working on minimum wage including any top up benefits like child tax credit?

Dom I said a few people in the grand scheme of things.

All the posters against this on this thread are really quite handy with selective quoting!

He might have been fighting a shark but do you know what he was claiming for? A few weeks ago I ran* around soft play with my DS (I was having a bloody amazing day feelings wise), I dislocated my shoulder in the process though and the whole day was bloody agony and I am still paying for it.

*Probably more of a slow walk!

gimmeanaxe yo people who have always worked and dont know the system it will be a shock but many who have never had a job which in its self is shameful we have grown adults in the uk who have never had gainfull employment

but we have whole familes who know they system very well and live wuite nicely i wtached a programme called saints and sinners one man had a farm in france were he was living whilest claming incapacity for the last 15 years

Another family were claming here and in Ireland and also manged to get two council homes one here and one in ireland

'And how much would the same family get with both working on minimum wage including any top up benefits like child tax credit?'

That's impossible to calculate because the LHA rates differ by council and postcode, even.

Sure they did.

Do you believe everything you see on TV or read in the Daily Fail?

Atually siants and sinners is on the bbc

Atually siants and sinners is on the bbc

why whenever people come up with examples of people playing the system are they disbelieved? do you honestly think it doesn't happen on a vast scale?

I we're in a position to choose:

Keep a decent welfare system and safety net and accept that some people will choose to exploit this, and there may be little we can do about this exploitation if we still wish to keep the system intact for those who don't wish to exploit it.

Or destroy the safety net for everyone in order to stop some people exploiting it.

Personally I think that there are people out there who are constitutionally unable to hold down a job. There have always been people like this. If these people don't have benefits and are unable to hold down a job they will simply turn to crime. Many of these people will have children. If they are unable to put bread on the table their children will end up in care and continue the cycle of despair.

I honestly think from reading this thread that there are some people in the UK who are quite happy to see children taken into care, or semi-starving. They feel this is a reasonable price to pay for punishing those who they see as 'scroungers' by driving them into destitution and homelessness.

it stopped being a saftey net about 12 years ago now its a double bed with feather down duvet with satin sheets PMSL

Serious point. Whichever way you twist the numbers ultimately we get less in tax than we payout in benefits.

Comparing welfare bill .v gdp ignores two major issues of our age:

1. We have a structural deficit. This means if we waved a magic wand and tomorrow to ecomony was booming, we would still be spending more than we raise in taxes.

2. the world get getting more competitive and the free ride we have had on other countries is over.

Done the benefits calculator for 2 adults and 2 children.

The results.

^"Benefits and tax credits Uncle could be entitled to - current circumstances
Note that the amounts shown are estimates only, based on the information you have given today. Actual entitlements can only be confirmed once you have applied to make a claim with a benefit claim form.

You may be able to claim the following benefit(s), which we have estimated for you:

Child Tax Credit £113.68 per week More information about Child Tax CreditOpens in new window
Housing Benefit £100.00 per week More information about Housing BenefitOpens in new window
Jobseeker's Allowance (Contribution based) £71.00 per week More information about Jobseeker's Allowance (Contribution based)Opens in new window
Jobseeker's Allowance (Contribution based) for your partner £71.00 per week More information about Jobseeker's Allowance (Contribution based)Opens in new window
Total benefits you have declared £39.00 per week
Total weekly income £394.68 per week

Find more useful information in Money, tax and benefitsOpens in a new window"^

And the BBC is still television, isn't it?

moogy1a - I think there are people who play the system.

People who are prepared to lie in order to live on a tiny subsistence income without working.

There have always been people like this and there always will be. The difference between me and (probably) you, is that I accept that maintaining these useless people on a subsistence 'wage' for doing nothing, paid for by the tax payer, is probably better than destroying the welfare safety net for everyone else. I also think that giving these people a subsistence income probably reduces crime, as they WILL not or CANNOT hold down a job, and will have to find some other way of feeding and housing themselves if we remove their benefits.

And no, I don't believe that the people playing the system are doing it on a vast scale.

If you tried to claim benefits you would realise just how much of a struggle it is to get them!

And as your own link shows, moogy, welfare spend as percentage of GDP was fairly stable around 6% until the 2008 recession, when it peaked (below 8%), and is now heading back down to 6% as we slowly recover. Which is what one would expect - although there should also be a slow upward trend when you include pensions and non-working-age-benefits, due to demographic changes.

Also from your link:

"It illustrates the importance of being aware of different ways of viewing the same statistics. For example, the Daily Mail could easily run a headline (with a suitable picture of some immigrant living the good life)

?Welfare State is out of control as Welfare bill doubles in 10 years!?

Alternatively, you could say

Apart from expected blip during the recession, welfare payments as % of GDP remain at the same manageable level of 6%

The second headline probably wouldn?t sell as many newspapers. But, both statements are based on truth."

Both our links point out that you can choose to give percentages, numbers in billions, compare different points in years, etc, to try to back a particular story - and of course politicians do.

But I'm finding it hard to panic at welfare staying broadly in line with the size of the economy, and cycling to smooth out boom and bust. As your link points out, that's what it's for.

Ha, got interrupted and cross-posted!

Parsing

So can anyone for this actually come up with some solid evidence that it is spiraling out of control?

'I know someone who knows someone who saw someone on TV who has a 50 inch telly 20 holidays a year and 5 houses' doesn't count as solid evidence btw.

Sorry, I forgot to add the goat with the telly.

And neither does "Saints and Sinners" because it's heavily edited shite.

SchroSawMargeryDaw based on your calculation that they would be entitled to about £398 per week in benefits means a working family would need to earn at least £26,500 a year before tax to get the same. There are hard working families on less than that. Ridiculous!

Disclaimer, it was a quick calculation as off out so may be out a bit but not far.

You don't have to destroy the welfare state to stop people exploiting it. You just have to make it more difficult to exploit.

You could do that by capping child related benefits to two children, and by not providing any more money to children that were conceived while claiming anything other than HB or Child Tax credit.

Personally, I think JSA is too low, but if you can clearly show what you have done to job search and you can show that you are employable and have had interviews, then you get more money than you do if you are unemployable and are making no effort to change that.

People don't need to play the system, because with the way our current system works, you don't have to make any effort to be entitled to a generous amount of help. You can get more than you need for doing nothing, and that is wrong. When the system offers you a lot of money and a home just for having children, people don't need to break the law. They are still scroungers, but scrounging isn't illegal.

But little chickpea working families get housing benefit and tax credits which top them up.

That's including their housing benefit, child benefit and child tax credits btw.

And no the working family probably wouldn't as they would also be receiving child benefit and most likely tax credits.