Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

to think capping benefits at 2 children is a good idea

999 replies

moogstera1 · 25/10/2012 13:44

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

OP posts:
whateveritakes · 13/03/2013 14:34

The benefits system needs a good retweek not a reduction necessarily.

For example you get free school meals if you can't claim working tax credit because you don't work enough hours. Free school meals isn't income (but worth £10 or so a week for one child) whilst working tax credit is. That makes a lot of difference to lots of other benefits etc.

I get more money as a lone parent student than when I worked 32 hours a week. I had to run a car and pay for childcare before but don't need to now as it's such few hours. How can 3 jobs be worth less than a student income?

ParsingFancy · 13/03/2013 14:35

LittleChickpea, the "hard-working family" also gets benefits...

And the contribution-based JSA in Schro's example runs out after, is it 6 months now?

That's what you'd get, Chick, if you were made redundant tomorrow but had been in work continuously enough to pay exactly the right NI contributions.

FasterStronger · 13/03/2013 14:35

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

yes - we have a structural deficit

LittleChickpea · 13/03/2013 14:37

Come on, the fact of the matter is they are earning £26,500 a year before tax for sitting on their arse. And the more children they have the more benefits they get. It's wrong...

The figures you put up just show what a ridiculous situation we are in....

moogy1a · 13/03/2013 14:39

Are you trying to say those figures for what you would be entitled to are low??!!! Oh woe, having to survive on that. Must be like living in the slums of Calcutta

SchroSawMargeryDaw · 13/03/2013 14:46

Those are contribution based JSA figures btw, you can only get that for about 6 months after you have lost your job.

Minus 400 a month of that as it is HB and the rest has to pay for all bills, food, clothes, travel etc for all 4 of them.

Nicecuppachar · 13/03/2013 14:47

The situation is clear cut for those who have never worked, though. They get a not insubstantial sum of money which is permanent and which they do not ever need to worry about losing. For most of the never workeds it is more than they could ever earn and THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT.And the more kids they have, the better off they get.
Yes, most of us wouldn't want to live on that for a second but that is because we are used to a higher standard of living but many of these people are NOT. If you can have the same or better lifestyle not working when all you could earn is min wage anyway, then you can see why so many choose not to. What we have to do is make work better paid and benefits less attractive, a two pronged attack.

LittleChickpea · 13/03/2013 14:47

So unfair, someone on £20,000 a year will be paying about 17.5% in taxes off their hard earned cash. Most of that 17.5% is going straight into the pockets of people sat at home earning the equivalent of £26,500 a year before tax. Let's not take into account people tha have been paying 40% and 51% (coming down to 45% in april) in tax. That's wrong!

We need a cap and a serious review of the benefits system....

SchroSawMargeryDaw · 13/03/2013 14:50

It's £18,960 a year and they don't get better off the more kids they have, those kids cost money!

moogy1a · 13/03/2013 14:51

But they do get more money / bigger house the more kids they have

SchroSawMargeryDaw · 13/03/2013 14:52

So what do you think is a reasonable amount for them to live on?

I would actually like to see what figure people think they should be getting.

moogy1a · 13/03/2013 14:52

And almost £19000 a year is a huge amount for doing nothing

SchroSawMargeryDaw · 13/03/2013 14:53

Bullshit!

I'm medical A priority on the housing waiting list (the highest medical priority), I have a Son and I am pregnant, many Drs letters etc and I am going to be waiting forever!

SchroSawMargeryDaw · 13/03/2013 14:55

And that's not even for a bigger house. I live with family just now in a small 3 bed cottage flat.

There are 4 adults and a child (will be 2 children).

LittleChickpea · 13/03/2013 14:56

It's not £18,960, I have just check and double checked it because I couldn't believe it. It's £26,500. Your £18,960 is net and doesn't include tax.... You have to earn £26,500 and having paid about £5,700 in tax you are left with £20,837.76 which on a weekly basis is £400.73. Which is a few pound over your original figure.

Nicecuppachar · 13/03/2013 14:56

So, how, if being on benefits long term is so shite, can only those on them or very wealthy, afford to have 5 plus children?

Of course they get better off with every kid! They get more benefits!!

Me? I'd bring in workfare and vouchers and free breakfast at school aswell as lunch.

I'd make work pay by topping up all those in full time low paid work much more than happens now.

Nicecuppachar · 13/03/2013 14:58

The owrd is obscene. littlechickpea. Obscene. Especially as that is for only two kids. Imagine how much they rake in for doing feck all when they have even more.

moogy1a · 13/03/2013 14:58

"scro"
how about the figure of about £14000 which is what this full time job is currently advertised as
jobview.monster.co.uk/Service-Administrator-Job-Manchester-North-West-UK-120478090.aspx

And there are many many at this sort of wage
Or how about a previous suggestion of mine which is benefit is capped at the equivalent of working 37.5 hours a week at minimum wage.
Fail to see why people not working should "earn" more than minimum wage.

Nicecuppachar · 13/03/2013 15:00

The more I read of this thread, the more pleased I am the Tories are going to tackle this. I feel sickened that millions of people work bloody hard , go without seeing their children, have to pay huge commuting costs etc etc and bring in LESS than family of lazy, feckless, workshy scroungers who have never worked. So yeah, bring it on Dave!

moogy1a · 13/03/2013 15:01

Don't forget that on that £14000 you won't get free school dinners/ prescriptions/ eye tests etc. etc. etc.

Crawling · 13/03/2013 15:17

Well my Dp earns 19000 and we are nearly 200 a week off than those on benefits and that's discounting my disability benefits so you do not need to earn 26000 to be better off as you get tax credits.

MrsDeVere · 13/03/2013 15:20

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

ParsingFancy · 13/03/2013 15:27

For what it's worth, I do agree with FasterStronger that we need to adjust to the UK's economy changing structurally.

Over the last few decades the economy has reshaped into an hourglass: jobs at the top, jobs at the bottom, not much in the middle. We've offshored our admin, HR, and skilled and unskilled manufacturing, so the middle ranking jobs just aren't there as they once were.

We need to be honest about this, and get to grips with what it will mean.

One thing it will mean is that people who don't make it into the top group will have a much lower standard of living than they could previously have hoped for - no nice safe job in a bank that pays the bills and for a modest holiday.

Another thing it will mean is that it's not their fault they are poorer. The top echelon is small - it can't employ the whole country. The hourglass economy is structural. It's not the individual's responsibility that the bulk of the middle jobs have disappeared.

We need to face this, and ask what sort of country we want.

A country with zero hours contracts, where the poorest don't even have the security of knowing what's coming in next week? A country where private companies get rich on contracts for the welfare state and soon the NHS, while the supposed recipients mysteriously become ineligible for the money or the healthcare? A country where to be poor is to be seen as lacking moral fibre?

Branding poverty as primarily a matter of personal responsibility disguises this economic restructuring. It allows those at the top to blame the necessary poor for their condition, while reinforcing their belief that they themselves are entitled to their own position (and therefore not likely to lose it - unthinkable because they can see how far there is to fall). It's no accident that this sounds Victorian. It is Victorian. And the winners under this restructuring are may well be comfortable with this.

expatinscotland · 13/03/2013 15:52

Well stated, Parsing.

gimmeanaxe · 13/03/2013 16:00

we are far better off earning 18K a year than we were on benefits as we get CTC and CB on top of that. When we were on benefits we had about 200 quid a week in our hands for the 4 of us to live on. And it took 12 weeks to get. 12 weeks of no money coming in, endless forms and phone calls and anxiety.
Work does pay.