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

Perhaps there would be more money to spend on affordable childcare schemes, effective CSA agencies etc if less money was being spent in asda. Perhaps women who do not want lots of children but are afraid to say no to their husbands for religious reasons might be able to direct him to a calculator and point out the bleeding obvious rather than be victims of such behaviour. You never know.

A whole sentence went missing there, sorry iPhone

If you look back at British history in the days when there weren't any state benefits, having lots of children made far more economic sense because they could supplement the family income. I wonder how long it will be before the rules on child labour get relaxed... Of course, it will be presented under the guise of getting children to gain some valuable RL experience of the working world, while encouraging their work ethic and getting them to take personal responsibility.

As a taxpayer, I will say this.Children don't ask to be born.

Where's the evidence that there are loads of families on benefits who have more than two children AND who were on benefits before they had their third child? Where's the evidence that this is an actual problem, rather than a handy distraction from the omnishambles of this government? What's fair or ethical about punishing children because someone disapproves of their parents?

Ridiculous propaganda that punishes people for being unfortunate enough to lose their jobs, or for only being able to get low-waged, insecure employment (where you can turn up for a night shift only to be sent away with no work and no money, leaving you with less money than you started after paying for petrol).

Still, suppose it distracts everyone from asking why the government tolerates multi-billion pound companies like Amazon and Starbucks not paying any corporation tax on their UK business...

Yes, because a woman who's afraid of her husband should take responsibility for his actions. OK then.

And as for the shopping in ASDA comment...

Could you be anymore of a caricature?

I believe that the tax and benefit system should have a purpose of raising money but also influencing behaviour.

I like the UK system in as much that there aren't that many laws affecting your civil rights, but the taxation system provides incentives.

I don't think we should be encouraging chaotic lifestyles, including 4x4 families. If you want that - go ahead, but don't expect to be subsidised.

There is no reason to have three or more children that you can't afford. One oopsie is forgiveable, two is "there but the grace of God go I", but 3 or more is taking the piss. You might think that those first two children are a right, and you only think of the third as a oopsie, so shout get support - but working parents think very carefully about having their first child, and don't consider this a human right.

We are a civilised country with a robust welfare state. We need to absolutely protect those who struggle to support themselves - but this should not include those who rely on the welfare state as a lifestyle choice. I really don't understand when disabled people and carers support chaotic lifestyles of able bodied people. It just puts pressure on their very justified support. I find these attitudes absolutely bewildering.

And feckless men can't reproduce on their own.

Wingedharpy did you miss the part of my post where I said both parents were on minimum wage? So both morally decent tax payers, but suffering because wages haven't risen in line with inflation who have to rely on tax credits to top up their pitiful wages? It isn't just child benefit they would lose, but child care top ups, child tax credit, housing benefit allowance, council tax allowance... It all adds up.

"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."

So you are suggesting that people should make decisions based on less than complete information?

Why?

You seem to be advocating a very stupid type if decision making.

What two people earn at any particular moment is a very poor basis on which to make a long term decision about children.

Earning potential and actual earnings could vary.
Over time someone might significantly increase their income.
Or they might lose their job and find their skills in low demand.
Or they might stop working to care for family members.
Or they might get sick.
Or they might die.

Very, very few families are wealthy enough to decide to have children if they don't factor the welfare state's provision into their calculation.

WingedHArpy - And feckless men can't reproduce on their own.

No, but feckless women can certainly be expected to raise those children on their own it seems...

You might think that those first two children are a right, and you only think of the third as a oopsie, so shout get support - but working parents think very carefully about having their first child, and don't consider this a human right.

Are you saying that only those on benefits consider two children as a right and all those working parents don't? That's a bit of a sweeping generalisation isn't it?

What about blended families where each partner has two children? What happens when those parents get together. Suddenly they're two over threshold without anyone fecklessly breeding.

Women could choose not to spread their legs. How hard is it to say no?

But why would any woman choose to have a child with a man who has form for ignoring his existing child(ren)'s needs?

Blended families are a choice that needn't concern the tax/benefit system.

Knowsabit..You might know about education but you don't know much about not being a sexist git.

Oh dear Mosman, you have obviously led a very sheltered life if you believe that women who are in traditional patriachal misogynist relationships just need to show their man the errors of their ways with a big "tut tut silly, do your maths" and they will change.

"Women could choose not to spread their legs. How hard is it to say no?"

^^
Vile comment, but it epitomises what this policy is all about - hatred of poor women.

Why don't you address my opinions rather than attacking me personally, Fangs. I am all ears.

knowsabitabouteducation

That is a sarcastic post, right? You're not poo-pooing the reality of abusive relationships, really, are you?

[waves at LP]

I only have one child. I'd have liked more, but we'd really struggle to cover the childcare fees we'd need to enable me to return to work. One salary wouldn't cover our outgoings.

Would I swap places with a woman struggling on benefits with 3 or more children? Of course I wouldn't. If it was that esay we'd all be doing it, surely?

Discuss why this is a vile statement. Don't ignore the elephant in the room.

Apologies Hoping.
I was just focussing on the child benefit element and had not taken into account the other elements you mention.