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

[honeytea]

Fishwife people have a certain level of control over their weight/drinking/behavior at school a baby born as #3 into a poor family has no control over the circumstances of their birth.

Here in Sweden you are better off having kids than not having them regardless if you work or not. Daycare is pretty much free (small cost for food) you get more child benefit the more kids you have, university is free all school trips and hot school meals are free for everyone, 18 months parental leave at full pay, the decision isn't a financial decision when thinking if you should have a baby it is a decision about what would work for you and your family.

Amazingly the population growth here is extremely low, I have not met w family with more than 4 kids, the vast majority of people have 1 or 2. The culture of wanting loads of kids is the issue in the UK in my opinion, taking money away from poor families won't solve the issue it will just creat a generation who have suffered due to poverty.

[CassandraApprentice]

GhostShip
Our employers don't rise our wages when we have another baby. So neither should the benefit system pay out more.

See that logic completely.

However having DC grow up in poverty has lifelong implications - education standards and health. Having an underclass with poor work prospects and poor health has big long term costs.

I'm not actually in favour of people having DC they can't afford - I'd love more but we can't afford that. It just this seems a very blunt and ineffective way of dealing with that problem which brings undesirable consequences of it own.

[Shagmundfreud]

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

So you don't get child benefit then?

That's tax payers money.

Do you not need this money? I assume not, given that you're saying you can afford the children you've got. In which case, give it back.

[moogstera1]

Please stop saying this implies I'm calling larger families/ families who don't work bad parents. That's not what I've said at all ( as well you know!)

[fluffyraggies]

The system is open to abuse - yes, but it's a system born form a society becoming civilised enough to not want to see kids out on the street FGS. This policy is unlikely to stop the least responsible people/couples/families having children. When these people/families/couples have the children and there's no money what will happen to the youngsters?

What about all the people/families/couple caught in between, as mentioned up thread, who have fallen on hard times? Abortion? Adoption? Sell the bloody kids? What are they supposed to do?

(If the tax payer gets to decide where their money goes i vote not to fund MPs expenses.)

[GhostShip]

Its about when will it come to an end. We've had it rather cushty for quite a while which has put people in this comfortable stage of, we'll have more babies, we'll get more money it'll be ok.

If people who work can't afford another child, they don't have one.
People on benefits should have to have the same mentality. Why the hell should someone who doesn't work (i mean through their own choice) get a better deal than someone who does?

[moogstera1]

Shagmund this policy would apply to ALL receiving child benefit etc. Do you not think that's fair?

[Alibabaandthe40nappies]

Shagmund - women in very impoverished countries are generally not able to access contraception as easily as we can here - where it is free and freely available to any who want it.

[CassandraApprentice]

If housing cost and childcare were more affordable many more people would have more freedom to have the number of DC they actually want.


I susppose this is easier to implement.

[theodorakis]

I was just waiting for someone to link to the Guardian so the uneducated silly folks can be taught the error of their ways by the wise unbiased words of the world only newspaper written especially for left wing people who already know everything.

[Arion]

In theory it sounds a good idea, but there needs to be support in place for the children in 'chaotic' families so that they don't suffer from the parents having more children than they could afford.

For me (and I've thought about this a lot!) I would say one or two (happy!) accidents after needing to claim benefits. So, someone in an expensive area, working, needing top up benefits would have the support for two pregnancies (whether that's single births or twins, triplets, etc). Someone with say four kids who loses their job/partner but hasn't claimed before gets support for their whole family.

One big point I would make is that any disability support should NOT be classed as being on benefits. DLA is there to support people to have a more level playing field, so whether this is paid to a parent or a child I think it should be seen as an 'equalisation payment' not 'being on benefits'.

[Tailtwister]

Well, I think it's a good idea in theory. However, it couldn't take into account large families already in existence.

I just wish they'd scrap CB completely. The way they are currently working the changes is completely unfair (based on the highest earner only rather than joint income) and needs to be addressed.

I think the IVF example you give is a bit different tbh Mosman. I don't know if you've been through it yourself, but it is an extremely difficult process and I don't blame anyone for putting 2 embryos (not eggs btw, that would be pointless) back if they feel it would increase their chances of conceiving.

[GhostShip]

CassandraApprentice

I understand that completely.

I think it's sad that the argument here is 'we cant let children live in poverty'
No we can't, but the parents shouldn't want this either. But continue to have children. The system is abused so much because THEY KNOW we won't let a child starve.

[MrsKeithRichards]

But the benefits system is designed to pay out what is needed when so the argument is a bit flat really.

Or should we move to a system where x amount is given to everyone regardless of how much you earn, how many kids you have, regardless of how much your childcare or council tax is. Only then would it be fair to say to people 'here are your means, live within them' as a non claiming worker does.

[DinosaursOnASpaceship]

I don't know a lot about politics and didn't read or hear what IDS said but from reading the outline on here I just don't see how it would work, there seems to be a lot of variables that a blanket bill doesn't cover.

What happens if you meet someone in 2016, it's all good, he has a good job and you can afford to have four children together. Until he buggers off with his secretary leaving you holding baby number four and taking a huge drop in income. You go from being comfortable to living in poverty in a day. How is that fair.

You can't have anymore children as you can't afford them but your ex and his secretary can now go on to have three children. Doesn't seem very fair to the parent residing with the child. It's not like the csa have an ounce of sense and really manage to keep tabs on who should be paying what either.

If I got pregnant accidentally I would have to decide between having an abortion or feeding my existing children. I'm not sure what affect that would have on me mentally and emotionally.

I am one of the benefit scroungers people like to slag off. I'm pregnant with my fourth child. I claim benefits. I'm a single parent. It wasn't through choice, I didn't know in advance that my relationship would end and I'd be left pregnant and alone. But I am very grateful that the safety net was there to fall back on, my children have a roof over their heads and food in their tummys, but under the proposed bill this wouldn't be the case.

[Fishwife1949]

I dont know why some cant see allowing people to have 10 children condems the children to poverty

You defo wont beanle o ever work if you have 10 chikdren are unlikey to be able to rent or buy a big enough house by limting the amount people can have your giving them a chance 2 children on a low income is just about do able if you say end up working in tesco

[MiniTheMinx]

If this goes through, will it not be in breach of the erous goal to reduce child poverty? I i don't think this government risk make these changes because at the moment it would be, which is why there is going to be a delay in implementing it until after 2015.

The Europe 2020 project has so far failed to promote coherent anti-poverty strategies, campaigners say. And the UK is ranked below the average on its approach to most poverty and social exclusion issues. BUT there is nothing in this new policy about reducing childhood poverty which leads me to conclude that even if labour were to win the next election, these cuts to benefits plunging children into poverty would still go ahead.

[moogstera1]

I'm sure I said previously that this policy would not apply to exisitng children, so to the hysterical posters, no, you wouldn't have to choose which of your children to have put down.

[Pochemuchka]

Wonder if the response would've been so in favour if they'd said 'one child only'?

No, I don't think so. After all, two children is often considered the 'norm' or the 'ideal' and it would affect a heck of a lot more families, including those who have decided that two children is the 'right' number and any more is excessive (while (possibly) happily claiming their own tax credits etc. for their two children)

What about people who don't have children? Remember, some people don't!

[MiniTheMinx]

With Grammar like that.....do you work in Tesco Fishwife ?

[GhostShip]

Why does people's spelling and grammar have to come in to arguments

[moogstera1]

" what about people who don't have children"
What about them? Hardly a policy that's going to affect them is it.