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

[maddening]

I don't know the answer as both sides to the argument ring true.....

but I do think that if you are already without a job or income then go on to have dc 3/4 etc it is you the parent that has caused these dc to be in poverty and no one else.

[Fishwife1949]

PinkMilkIsMyFavouriteAndMyBest are you joking please tell me you are


We have whole familes who have never worked so all we done under labour is encouraged people who dont work to have children who will grow up not to work as a result of the EXTRA time on there hands more likey to be involved with police ect

[FrothyOM]

"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."

^^
YY It's like poor kids are sewer rats or something. Our class ridden society is sick.

[fluffyraggies]

They'll be offering money for sterilization next.

This is going to be a bloodbath, this thread. It's a very emotive subject.

It's just going back to the workhouse mentality for me. I cant do clever arguments, but i know how i feel. The well fare state was set up for everyone. Once you start denying help to the ones who have least you're going backwards. Really.

[Viviennemary]

I think if you put in in this way. Do people want to keep subsidising other folks choice to have larger families. A lot of people don't. And as for multiple births. People have twins and triplets. And there will still be free schooling, free healthcare and so on.

And your boss wouldn't give you a rise if you were having twins or triplets. It would be up to you to support them on the money you had. People struggle with nursery fees and so on. And sonme decide to only have one child or even none for this reason. Should they be subsiding people who choose to have more than two children. No I don't think they should be asked to.

[Mosman]

We don't need more children we need less aging population if we are being honest. Nobody was meant to live to 90 and spend 25 years being I financially productive.

[FrothyOM]

A lot of people have their nursery fees subsidised. That's the state subsidising your choice to have kids...

[ImaginateMum]

I totally disagree with a policy like this. These children did not choose to be born! They should not "bear the sins of their father", so to speak.

I believe as a society we have a responsibility to ensure the most vulnerable, which includes children, have their basic needs met.

[Knowsabitabouteducation]

I think this is a good policy.

It is putting the same pressure on benefit recipients that taxpayers already face.

I know that we didn't have children until we could afford them. We never ever considered getting the state to bail us out.

[MrsKeithRichards]

Pink that's an interesting point. We (as a society) are writing of the kids born to people on benefits before they've even been born. We are assuming they will never amount to anything other than claiming yet more benefits. We aren't even considering the fact they could grow into hard working contributing members of society and we need plenty of them to support the ever growing elderly population.

Perhaps that should be the focus. Perhaps it's worth supporting children and nurturing them to grow into fantastic adults. Some are capable of doing so without external support. Some aren't.

[Loveweekends10]

What are we suggesting now? Bump off the elderly?

[moogstera1]

mrs devere I think they do include benefits paid to working people, which I've already said I think is fair enough. Both working and non working people will get extra help for the first 2 children. After that, you have to decide if you can afford another one yourself.

[JenaiMarrHePlaysGuitar]

Do you pay income tax, Fishwife? No? Then shut the fuck up.

Does that sound reasonable? Of course it doesn't. Just please stop rabbiting on about "the tax payer". Everyone pays taxes of some sort. Even benefit scroungers and civil servants and teachers and all those other people "the tax payer" seems to loathe so much.

[LaCiccolina]

The problem is that the assumption is it is be those with less chances in life that will go for more kids. IE kids make up for brains, because if you had brains you would be working, you would be earning a very decent salary, you would be choosing to live somewhere better, with better education and more of everything.

Its the sheer arrogance of that I find toe curling. People have twins, triplets or contraception mistakes, divorces and new partners. Having a degree and a decent start in life to start with is not a certain thing. Mostly now its luck. People also have very different starts in life and to assume, because lets be truthful here its all an assumption, that you would have more kids to claim more benefits is quite patently ridiculous.

Its an argument made by those richer than others about those that are poorer. Its not an argument based on fact, statistics or anything but prejudiced opinion.

I wont be having more than two but thats because Im nearer 40 than 30 now and cannot imagine how Id cope. Two is scaring the pants off me I dont have the stomach quite literally for more. And nothing about that decision is at all fiscally based.

[MrsKeithRichards]

After all, what's 18 years of support to ensure a healthy, tax paying member of society who hopefully won't need support again?

Or just ignore them. Let those 3rd born babies bare the brunt of their parents poor decisions.

[Shagmundfreud]

Children are people in their own right. Citizens.

As a country we have agreed that we will do what we can to make sure that children should

• not go hungry
  
• not be cold
  
• be clothed and clean
  

If this bill goes into law then many more children than are currently doing so will go hungry, cold and dirty.

It will happen.

The least educated and most disadvantaged women in the UK will not just stop having babies because they've been told they won't get more benefit.

Women in very impoverished countries who get no benefits continue to have large families they can't feed or clothe.

The only PROVEN way to stop poor women having babies they are unable to support is to provide them with a good education and opportunities to earn a decent living.

[MiniTheMinx]

We have a tory elite who are making backwards moral judgements about the poor whom they despise as immorally inferior. We have a shrinking state because neo-liberalist economic policy dictates that ONLY the privatisation of all money/property and profit can be achieved through syphoning money out of the real economy.

You have Cameron telling us we must shrink the state so we can compete with China?????? do they have a small state? The worlds third largest economy is a state capitalist state with over two thirds of it's business in state ownership. I think that speaks volumes about what the Tory scums real agenda is. And it is nothing what so ever to do with debt or strengthening the economy. It has everything to do with old Tory class war antics.

[Alibabaandthe40nappies]

It is certainly not right that people who live independently of state help have to carefully consider the number of children they have, whether they will all fit in their house, can they provide for them, while those who live off the state just procreate at will in the knowledge that their income will increase and they will be entitled to a larger house to accommodate everyone.

Someone upthread said that it wouldn't save much money. I don't think that the immediate reduction in the benefit bill is where we should look for the cost saving. It is in the ongoing costs of the state supporting a child growing up in a house where no-one works, and where the likelihood is that those children will also not work, and therefore be a financial burden on the state for significant proportions of their lives - expecting a house to live in, money in their pockets - and in 18 years time, children of their own that the state will also have to support.

I know I sound very harsh, but things cannot continue as they are.

[pushitreallgood]

you can be a good and loving parent and have 5 or 6 children i dont really understand the correlation between having more children and not being a good parent to them. your ability to be a good parent is not determined by how much money you make. i know some shit awful rich parents that think they can buy their childrens love and some awesome parents on benefits. so the whole the children suffer already in big families oddness is a very strange. people's mentality on this whole thing to do with welfare is very strange to me. so long as i am ok then fuck every body else.

[LaCiccolina]

Personally Id rather shoot the over 70s. This ensures a fast paced inheritance line. Gets rid of elderly and associated health issues. Id remove pensions and have everyone working til they day they are taken out the back and shot.

Sounds daft doesn't it but these kinds of arguments if taken to their enth degree all end up in ridiculous places. No common sense involved.

[MiniTheMinx]

Our class ridden society is sick yy frothy and what is more working people who at present are fairly comfortable do not percieve that the tide will rise until they are also in it up to their necks, standing right next to these scroungers they find so disagreable.