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

^It is, essentially, a policy to keep the 'undesirables' from reproducing.

At least in China it's a blanket rule - none of this 'ok for some but not others' rubbish and they've the honesty to say 'we only want you to have one child' and not dress it up as a benefits issue hmm ^

I dont agree. It will put people on benefits on par with people who work. Can't afford them, don't have more. For all people.

Not everyone with a large family is a benefit scrounger, I grew up in a house as the youngest of 3 with 2 parents neither of whom worked a day in their life, I left school at 16 to WORK and have worked since.
I had my 1st baby at 19 and worked right up till my due date , of my 6 children 3 were accidents OMG yes 3, having my tubes tied didnt stop my 4th being concieved , or my 5th , 5yrs later after they insisted it was now corrected and my 6th was born after both condoms and the pill failed. I have claimed benefits for a 3 mth period during the time when my husband (the father of all my children) left me while pregnant with the 6th.

so the safety net was a necessesity for me or else my children would have starved , but don't worry if i'm ever in that potion again i will let the kids draw straws to see which of them eat.

I'd like to address the point above about how women usually know if twins run in the family.

Firstly, the kind of twins that run in families are fraternal twins. Identical twins, on the other hand are random, and could occur in any pregnancy.

Secondly, I am not happy about the idea that women with a possible family history of twins should be expected to restrict themselves to one pregnancy, just in case, the next one is twins. Especially has the fraternal twinning gene occurs more or less in populations, according to ethnic descent. In tables of fraternal-twinning frequency, caucasian women are around the middle, but Yoruba women have the highest rate of fraternal twinning. Such a policy would disproportionately affect particular ethnic groups overall.

If you need to hit four kids around the head in public you are not going to win any parenting awards, any time.

The logic of all the arguments in favour of this is that we should stop giving extra benefits to people just because they have children.

My husband's() employer didn't give him a raise when any of our children were born.

What that should have to do with what we as a society choose to do with public money is beyond me, but it makes no sense to employ that argument only after two children.

If people need to only have the number of children they can afford without stare help then we need to cut
1 child benefit
2 tax credits
3 free maternity care
4 free schooling
5 free nursery places

That should save a fair bit of money.

Don't you envious, bitter fuckers get it?

The welfare state supports everyone.

One big point I would make is that any disability support should NOT be classed as being on benefits.

Or how about we don't think of people on benefits as scumbags?

I work with people in poverty, a large majority of whom are ethnic minorities, and for many of the women in receipt of benefits I see with lots of children, it is not their choice how many children they bear. Because of their religion and culture they are not allowed to access contraception, and many would not consider it their right to turn down their husband's advances. Many of them are victims of circumstances, and some of abuse at the hands of the men they are tied to. Nothing is black and white, no matter how much the government and hysterical media would like it to be.

This is also going to be a hard policy to police without making blanket decisions. This is what will happen.

How much extra money, above and beyond that received by everyone else, do benefit claimants get per child?

clearly that must be because of her huge benefit income then

As someone with no children I've decided that there are too many people in the world.
It isn't necessary for everyone to reproduce, so I am hereby banning reproduction unless you have applied to the government, disclosing your earnings, education, health and all other relevant information.
If you earn below 500k, weren't educated at the right establishment and have ever been ill (apart from the common cold) don't bother applying as you aren't suitable to become a parent. IMO

Gah. I knew this thread would send me crazy.

"for many of the women in receipt of benefits I see with lots of children, it is not their choice how many children they bear. Because of their religion and culture they are not allowed to access contraception, and many would not consider it their right to turn down their husband's advances."

i agree that this is the case, cannotsee, but I don't see that the system should condone and support such a state of affairs. I don't know what the answer is, but it's clearly not to just carry on.

And sweetkitty, I agree completely- having proper systems in place which ensures that EVERYONE pays their correct amount of tax and closing those loopholes that enable multi-millionaires to avoid paying their share is vital.
But it shouldn't be an either or - it should be both.
(As well as looking at MP's 2nd homes. Why can't they build/buy a multi -storey block of flats near the Houses of Parliament which MP's then use as their London base for the time they are an MP and when they get kicked out, the incoming MP takes over that flat? The MP wouldn't own the flat so wouldn't make any money from being in it).

Even if we accept the ridiculous idea that each household should only have 2 children living in it, how does that square with blended families and step parents?

As an example, say you are widowed and left alone with 2 DC. At your grief support group you meet a bloke who lose his wife and has been left with 2 DC. Over a few years you get to know each other better, a relationship blossoms, your kids all get on fabulously and you decide to move in together. Except you can't, because you both work minimum wage jobs and are barely keeping your heads above water with state top ups to your frankly insulting wages. There is no way you can merge those households and make the money for 2 children stretch to 4, even with the reduction in housing costs.

Absurd? How about another one. You have 2 DC and work full time. Your partner becomes abusive so you take the kids and flee. In time he goes on to find a new partner and has kids with her because Hey! They are allowed up to 2 and he never bothers seeing the first two. What about the abused mother left on her own to raise 2 traumatised children? The dating pool when you have kids is small enough. This would reduce it to only being those who like kids enough to raise someone else's but for whatever reason don't want their own.

This change would mean that any person starting a relationship with a single parent would have to go into it knowing that they could likely never have a child of their own. They are essentially being penalised for being a caring person

I don't agree with it as it will punish the child for parents actions. There are also very few families on benefits with five or more if you look at figures.

As for twin parents knowing they have a risk of twins and thus should avoid having (comment from page one)- that is just silly. They are in my family but still risk is still small and I was stunned when told it was twins. Most twin parents I know have no twins in family.

a very rough area by the ciggie/lottery counter

DM bingo anyone?

Anyhoo - notice how all these arwewipe Tory cuntish Malthusian social-engineering polices impact on women? How many of these Big Ideas are going disadvantage men? What percentage of men are left clutching the babies when a relationship breaks down? How many of them take their kids along for the ride when they run off with a younger model? How many men are denied access to contraception by their families and forced to conceive children can't afford because of religious and cultural diktats?

Very good point cannotseeaway about religious and other groups with 'traditional' beliefs. What will happen to them?

pinkdelight I disagree, I think our welfare system needs to carry on keeping the people it is meant to protect, in this case, those with few rights and their children, away from starvation. This was what it was designed for. It is not a vehicle for judging, condoning or not condoning, the belief systems and cultural differences of different people in our society, but for supporting.

Any system that penalises people for having more children than deemed acceptable is, by default, going to disproportionately affect women unless steps are taken to hold men equally accountable. I see no sign of that being done.

Where is the investment in the CSA to make the fathers pay for all these unwanted children born by feckless single mothers on benefits? (let's forget the inconvenient fact that the typical single mother is mid 30s, has two children, is separated or divorced, and is in paid employment).

Where is the drive to get men to share 50% of parenting responsibility? Why is do we still here women saying "my wages won't cover my childcare"

Where is the access to affordable, flexible childcare so that no mother who wants to work is denied that through lack of childcare.

Where is the recognition that children need looking after and isn't it actually pretty normal to have a mother do that rather than a paid professional? Shouldn't it be the case that a single salary should allow a typical family to live to an acceptable standard bearing in mind that children need looking after. If both parents choose to work the extra money is easily available for childcare.

ROFL at people only having children if they can afford it. That'll be 75% of the population denied that opportunity then. Since children are the adults of tomorrow, I rather think children are a social issue affecting all of us, not just their parents. It's about investment in our future. The same principles apply to education and the NHS. It's not altruistic to pay for these things, it offers a tangible benefit to society overall.

The fault is not feckless breeders but a society that values profit and loss exercises above social ethics. Some things - such as investment in social care, better access to contraception, free education and training above a more than just basic standard, a welfare state for even the undeserving poor - all cost money. They are never going to be profitable in cash terms. But take them away and you'll end up with a return to Victorian slums and the massive social problems and crime that accompanied them that end up costing a price even for those in their nice comfortable ivory towers.

AFAIK the difference in benefit entitlement between two children and three is minimal. Most of the help available, either through WTC, HB or other benefits kicks in as soon as you have ONE child. You would get an extra dollop of CHB per kid, plus a small amount extra but frankly, anyone who genuinely has a 3rd child "just for the all benefits" only exists in the DM really can't add up.

I completely agree with this in theory but in practice I am not sure at all how it will work.

When people decide on how many children they would like, they should not take into account the money the government will give them, they should take into account the money that is earned by each of them - its a very simple process, only have the amount of children you can afford on your OWN with no government help!!!!

I grew up in a country where there is no welfare at all, people plan and save for their kids and make sacrifices for their kids, they certainty dont expect the government to be topping up their bank account each month, if they are not working or cant afford to have children then they dont have any - simple as!

"arsewipe Tory cuntish Malthusian social-engineering polices "

catchy, I love it

So, why are all Catholics (and Orthodox Jews, Mormons, and fundamentalist Christians and Muslims) not up in arms about a Government policy which will act in direct contravention of their religious beliefs WRT contraception?

Are you really suggesting Hoping, that you would lose more money losing child benefit for 2 children than you would save giving up running costs and maintainance costs on a 2nd home?
Child benefit must be more lucrative than I thought.