to think that when there is a schools place crisis perhaps the government should think of ways to reduce birth rates?

[jellysandwich]

In my area (London) there is already a huge shortfall in places because there has been a baby boom. They are constantly opening new schools or creating bulge classes but this is often at the expense of other children who lose their playing fields and there is just not enough room in London to keep opening new schools and there is already a housing crisis because the country is so overcrowded.

I think perhaps it is time the government thought about limiting child related benefits to 2 children (which is the replacement rate) and those that want to have more can do so but not with taxpayers money. It would go some way to stopping some of the problems that rising birthrates create such as the school places crisis, overcrowding, pollution, increasing struggles for resources such as food and water and in an already overpopulated world I think the government is being negligent in not putting some sort of limit on child related benefits, especially when it seems to be counter-intuitive (if you work you don't get more money each time you have another child).

The basic amount of CTC is £545 a year, or just over £10 per week.

The maximum amount for non-disabled children is £2720 a year, or about £52.00 a week.

The amount for severely disabled children is £3015 a year or £60 a week, which can be topped up with up to another £1000.

I really don't see mother having severely disabled children just for the extra tax credits, do you?

It's not hard to see that in a low economy, that having a second or third child and adding an extra £80 a week in income is a viable option for some people.

It's much easier to feed 2 children with £160 than it is one child with £80.

I know that doesn't include fuel but it also doesn't include income support of £72.

If people really don't see that people have second and third children while reliant on tax credits then I don't know what to say really!

Filee

So what exactly is your point here?
Do you think that by reducing benefit there will be fewer children? Do you think that people are motivated by benefit to produce children?
If your figures above are correct then £82.50 is not enough to encourage people not to work, even an extra child at £13 whatever is still not enough.

But their second or third children would have to be severely disabled Filee. Do you really believe that? really?

I think reducing benefits to 2 children per household will give a clear message that people should not have more than 2 children unless they can afford to.

As I said for it to work, the neglect laws would need to change to cover financial neglect. But yes, I think it would have a big affect on the welfare budget and on the population.

But Filee, birth rates are FALLING. So why take away the benefits from that area? It would be a drop in the ocean compared to what is paid out, for example, on Pensions. Why not say that pensioners have had all their lives to save up and provide for themselves once they have retired, so pensions should be stopped? Children will become taxpayers eventually, whereas pensioners contribute nothing but cost us the most.

Can you see how horrible that is? Can you see how wrong that is? But it actually makes more financial sense than what you propose.

(Disclaimer. I obviously don't mean that. I'm not a complete wanker)

filee

Who has the right to give a clear message that people should only have 2 dc?
Wtf happens to your third or fourth. OMG financial neglect? What laws would they be then and what happens if you break this imaginary law of yours.
You don't half sound dim and a bit unhinged.

How do you define 2 children per household? If your 2 children's Dad fathers an additional two children in another household with another women are they all OK? The man has 4 children but the women only 2 each. He can, after all simply not go on the birth cert for his youngest two. If you have a 3rd child with a partner who is only the father to that child and not your older two, can he claim CB for his PFB even if all three children live in the same house. The mother, of course can't not go on the birth cert so I suspect she would lose CB for her youngest whereas men can father children up and down the country with no CB consequence.

The birthrate is already less than two. Where are all these families?

What do we do with families who are in poverty and have more than two children? Let them starve. People aren't just going to starve their younger children. The whole family suffers. The DWP have been accused of blocking access to food banks. Is this the sort of society we want? Aggressively individualistic to the point that people are literally starving.

I don't understand how benefits are affecting the lack of school places surely its poor planning from successive governments and councils. Birth rates have always gone up in peaks and troughs.

I don't understand why councils could not hire out school buildings as conference centres or offices when they are not needed and then be reinstated as schools when the need arises.

I'm originally from a deprived area and a fair few girls I grew up with have multiple children to multiple fathers and with the girls I know this is more down to a scewed outlook on relationships not benefits. I think more focus needs to be on relationships in sex education.

By 15 I could normally tell which girls would have children young and have a large brood so schools should be investing more in giving these girls confidence and aspirations it would save money in the long run.

I would suggest a period of change where by in a years time benefits began to be withdrawn. I would say that pensioners already survive on very little where as £160 a week is plenty to feed a third child.

It's not 'telling' anyone not to have more children, it's making it clear how many the state are willing to fund.

In reference to neglect laws, I would suggest that if a parent were found to be financially neglecting their child they would be accountable by law. Same as you would for neglecting them in any other way.

You do know that not all large families lack aspiration don't you?

Some high earners with very decent jobs are quite keen on having a large family

If people can afford to have kids they should carry on. It's the political stance I am interested in, not the personal one.

Filee 2children is about £114 in tax credits not £160

If that was directed at me sock I'm fully aware of that I was just responding to the posters who were saying people on benefits have large broods for benefits where in my maybe some what limited experience that isn't the case

Plus CB... And the family rate @ £10

Doesn't Xenia have 5 children sock? (And an island )

Filee, I'd suggest that a severely disabled third child would cost an awful lot more.

Yes, I have. I broke it down earlier but you can do it for yourself if you prefer on entitled to.

If people can afford to have kids they should carry on. It's the political stance I am interested in, not the personal one

That's not quite true is it, your apparent sole interest in the subject is poor people and benefits and how bad it is that lower income families have children.

We aren't talking about disabled benefits. Neither is the op. if you want to talk about disability benefits by all means start a thread on it ( or even a conversation in this thread about it) but if its not part of the current conversation... Well it's not part of the current conversation!

Rubbish. My thoughts are with what the government is offering to all people.

Its to do with the cost of benefits/tax credits and the fact that by giving more benefits to more children it is encouraging more children in an already overcrowded world/country.

You can only get tax credits if you are working 16 hours per week or more. If you are on Income Support or an equivalent, Child Benefit is taken off the amount you receive, it is counted as 'money you already have coming in'.

No, you only get working tax credits if you work 16hrs a week or more.