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).

To be honest I am amazed how few people are aware of what the benefits actually are.

You get ctc if you have children
You get wtc if you work
You don't have to get one to get the other.

Filee

Throughout this thread your comments along with another posters comments have been utterly disgusting.
I can't think of another word to sum up your posts than vile.
Looking back through the pages I am glad that your views are not shared by many and pity those who think like you.

Search for entitled to on google, you'll be able to see for yourself.

YABU

Plenty of people who can afford children, do so and contribute to the issue of population growth. Nowhere have I seen stories that the shortfall in school places is due to poor people claiming benefits.

In my area (London) there is a shortfall - partly because there are too many family homes and not enough schools. Plus people cannot afford private anymore so more going for state.

The idea in the OP is simplistic and quite frankly a bit stupid.

Yes she does LT she does indeed.

I have more than 5 did briefly contemplate an island but decided against it mainly because I'm not especially keen on sunshine and outdoors, and the ones not in the sun seam a bit pointless really.

And I know that a disabled child costs way more as 5 of my kids are disabled and shock horror not all my kids have the same dad.

And I would rather be buggered sideways with a rusty pitch fork than live on an income even vaguely close to benefit level no matter how lavish some people think it is.

I think it's late and people are struggling to read.

That's really the only explanation of it.

MrsD you've just spouted a load of stuff I didn't say.

And I really can't be arsed to pick it apart because its just not relevant to my point of view or anything I have said.

Sorry. However, under your rules all families on benefits would be done for financial neglect because it's not really enough to live on. Although the government says you need this much to live on, this new government has fiddled the figures. You see it used to be worked out on a basket of shopping that was an average taken from the big three supermarkets. It's now done on a basket of shopping from Aldi. If you live rurally you may not have access to an Aldi.
Apart from that, even with tax credits etc totally an approximate 132 quid a week, by the time meters have been filled, shopping done, etc. there isn't a lot left. It certainly still isn't the life of Riley and I can't think for the life of me why you would think it is.

I think it's late and people are struggling to comprehend the sheer awfulness of your posts filee

Right well you have two choices in a debate, you either refuse to acknowledge that the other side has a point of view, stick your fingers in your ears and make stuff up, or you.. You know, debate.
There's been a lot of the former and not much of the latter on this thread.

If they changed the law today (in whatever way selected) the impact on primary schools would not be felt for at least 6 years and on secondary schools for at least 12 years

12 years ago school rolls were falling across most city centres and schools were closing ...

who can honestly say that in seven years the UK will not be such an economic backwater that the schools will be half empty again

and then people will be moaning at the cost of maintaining empty buildings

this was the biggest story on the BBC all day and even if taken at face-value, the subtext is that Ian Duncan Shit is wasting taxpayers money in order to punish the poor and is an incompetent and lying fucker.

On the very same day this report comes out which demonises the poor and the parents of disabled children which was sponsored by IDS and his cronies.

Yes, on your part. We could start with you not accepting the report from the Rowntree Foundation, a well established and highly respected organisation. Where are your facts and figures? According to you the world is full of lazy scroungers living the life of Riley on benefits. You have ignored the FACT that child benefit is removed when other out of work benefits are in place. You have stated categorically that accidents are not allowed to happen. You feel that (the erroneous) figure of £160 per week is enough on which to feed three children, but have forgotten gas/electric/water/telephone and other essentials.

You're always going to be on a hiding to nothing on these threads on mn as there are a lot of Women here who know they are about to lose out on a lot of money they think they are entitled to, so they are going to call anyone who agrees with these changes heartless, say they have a lack of empathy etc.

While in truth these changes couldn't happen sooner tbh and I can't bloody wait and yes if people struggle then so be it! Future generations will unfortunately for you lot will have to control themselves.

"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"

Thats not true, CTC is paid to non workers and child benefit is not deducted from income support. A single parent would get IS, CTC and CB.

Filee, i agree benefits encourage peole to have children them cannot afford but you wont find many on MN that do. Most believe its a human right to have as many children as you fancy and that it doesnt matter who pays for them. Benefits are seen as an entitlement as they may have worked a few days in the past or do a few now.

It would be interesting to see the difference in birth rates if benefits stopped completely, our teen pregnancy rate would certainly drop. Never understood why they go up with every child, workers dont get a payrise for reproducing from their company.

Benefits are a red herring. I would say that comparatively and acknowledging the difference in real numbers but accepting the comparison with resources available, the UK was far more overpopulated in 1347, before the Black Death. Or even @ 1315-17 when there were some horrific famine conditions. There were too many people in England (not sure about rest of UK) for the available food. And there wasn't any child benefit I will resist pontificating about the population density then and now, but England (again not sure about rest of UK) has always been comparatively densely populated. Even so it took some areas five hundred years to get back to the population density of pre 1347

btw Population has been falling in Western Europe since 19th century and was one of the drives of Ceaucescu (sp - Romanian dictator) trying to get Romanian women to produce as many children as possible.

School numbers are because there was a dip in the birth rate, so the local councils closed a load of schools and haven't got up to speed building new ones. Now that parents have a better chance of choosing schools and league tables are published, there will be migration between boroughs and waiting lists that will bugger up such planning as there was.

That's my opinion after a stronger than usual orange brandy.

HappyMummy Try reading the thread, I did state I'd got one part wrong. However, child benefit is taken from Income Support. It is counted as (and I quote) 'money you already have coming in'.

Mrs DeVere I applaud you for stating that Child Benefit has always been means-tested for the poorest in society despite the richest thinking it was a Universal benefit.

eine How does that explain the rich fuckers like me, then?

You only get WTC if you are doing 16 hrs or more.

Personally it wasn't on my radar when I reduced my hours. I was too stressed at that point.

Lots of people can get CTC though.

CTC tops up the meagre wages people get in the UK. If you lived in other parts of Europe you would get a living wage for your work and the Gpvt wouldn't need to top them up so you could afford to live.

Dawndonna is correct......they also deduct for Carers Allowance.