Being devil's advocate - should there be a cap on the number of children a family can claim benefit for?

[ReallyTired]

Flame throwers ready - play nicely everyone.

I feel uncomfortable about further cuts to the support that families already recieve. Young families have suffered enough. It would be interesting know how other developed countries help their young people.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31743031

There are plenty of people who think we don't have room for people fleeing for their lives from Islamic State. If Britain is full up then surely we should be discouraging people from having any lots of children. I think the labour policy of being more generous to families with child tax credits, pregnancy health grant, generous childcare subsidy has increased the birth rate. Maybe there is an arguement for discouraging people from having more children. I don't know. Many migrants are intelligent, hard working and frankly more of an asset to the country than many native born British people.

However capping child benefit combined with the loss of child tax credits will plunge families into poverty. Children have no choice in being born and should not be punished for the lack of responsiblity of their parents.
The child benefit/ child tax credit system is broke and does not help to allievate poverty.

sure, I do get that Boffin
and the road to homelessness will no doubt have been paved by bad judgement aswell as bad luck

but when you're that far down it's very hard to get back up again, often mental health problems are involved, that really can mess up your life big time and severely limit your options

obviously there are no easy answers to these sorts of problems, how much help to give people etc

no one succeeds or fails entirely on their own merits / demerits
its always a combination of (good or bad) luck and (good or bad judgement)
if we don't redistribute wealth we end up with a 'winner takes all' society.
A few people holding onto all the good stuff, and a long tail of people with very little

Corbyn in the much-praised (but in reality a gift to the Tories) PMQ attempted to pull our heartstrings with someone calling on line one who had a household with one full-time job, one part-time job, cuts to tax credits and five children.

If he thinks that's political gold, he has a campaigning shock coming. The wider public sympathy for people with five children and a need for benefits is approximately zero.

Yes, it's possible it's the result of blended families, and of course in MN land it will be the result of twins followed by triplets. But the most likely explanation is continuing to have children because under the tax credit and housing benefit regime their income rises to pay the extra costs. It's political poison to advance that as something which is an unalloyed good.

I think there should be a cap. I can't offer any insight as to at what level that cap should apply. Perhaps there should be a higher rate for a period of time if you have got more than "x" children and have recently lost your job etc, as a sort of "grace period" to allow you to try and sort things out.

I would also agree that the issues with child maintenance should also be addressed properly so NRP (often fathers) have to pay a fair amount. I think these benefit caps should also apply to NRP as well as RP, although I can see that being practically more problematic,

To those saying "what about abused women etc"- I think rules based on exceptions tend to be poor ones. I understand that this may adversely effect these women- but I think it unlikely that they would be given access to benefits they do receive by an abusive partner. Again, I would advocate a higher level of support for a period of time to help abused women starting over again for a "grace period". I don't think you can ever create a rule/law that does not adversely effect some people (e.g. income thresholds- there are always people just over that threshold who won't get the benefit/tax cut etc who could have benefitted from it. The problem is that will be the case wherever you set it, but a threshold must be set nevertheless).

As for "it will force women into abortion". It may affect the decision of some women, I suppose. However, financial constraints are there whether you rely on benefits or not. I second a PP who said "my wage does not go up if I have a 3rd or 4th child". I do not receive any benefits and if I had more children with the increased costs associated with that (+/-requirement for a larger house and so on) then I would have to fund it out of my current income. I couldn't afford to do that, so my choice would be poorer living standards for us all if I continued the pregnancy or an abortion. Is this a "forced" abortion? No, it is me making decisions based on my circumstances. Surely the same goes if there is a benefit cap and a women couple who have a low income/are unemployed want a 3rd/4th/5th child?

I too think there should be a cap, but I am concerned nonetheless. Thro my work I have met many people who have kids yet have never worked, or who work part time or sporadically. I have not been able to afford to have children and therefore I don't. At times it has hurt me to see people with a two bed house with a garden in outer London who have two lovely children, a dog and a part time job. This is only available to them because of the state. And I believe they knew this. I don't know how many times I have heard 'you can get...' In relation to what they are entitled to. I believe it has become a lifestyle and an expectation.

On the other hand, I do worry very much about women and their right, their natural ability to have children. It's always us that pays you see. I work for women, for a women's charity, and I have had it drummed into me over the years that, the way the world is with its sexism and so on, we are simp,y not safe to become financially dependant. Men are not always safe. The state is not safe. What are we to do? And who has and loves the children?

I would like the general attitude to benefits to change, but I would want to see it there for those who need it, because some do need it. I hope the baby won't be thrown out with the bath water. Also men have to start paying for their children don't they and not being resentful.

Lastly, I think it is our right to have children but we do have to think about how we will provide for them in this money led society of ours. Where I work, in the pat of the UK that I work in, I think it would do a lot of my claimant clients good to be able to get out of the house and go to work every day.

Should there be a cap on the number of independent school places a civil servant/diplomat/army officer can have paid for?

£90m of private school fees paid by the taxpayer

Yes, it's possible it's the result of blended families, and of course in MN land it will be the result of twins followed by triplets. But the most likely explanation is continuing to have children because under the tax credit and housing benefit regime their income rises to pay the extra costs. It's political poison to advance that as something which is an unalloyed good.

Yep.

Only 5% of people in the UK have three or more children anyway, and only a small proportion of those are on benefits, so it's attacking a minute section of the population for great political advantage.

They would never means test or remove state pensions even though that comprises something like 70% of the benefits bill and many pensioners are extremely well off indeed. Political suicide. Easier to go for families.

I don't see a problem with the children of soliders getting school fees paid so that they can have some continuity of education. There are not enough state boarding school places for all the children of servicemen. The allowance does not cover the full cost of a boarding school place and children who attend top private schools do so on a partial scholarship.

The children of servicemen often have to worry about their parents being blown up. When their mummy or daddy goes off for six months they can't be sure that they will ever see their parent again. Its not fair to ask a child to have to settle into a new school every two to three years. They need strong pastural care and a good circle of friends to give support when Daddy comes home in a coffin.

Servicemen died so that we could have freedom and a decent country. To me that includes a civilised and compassionate welfare system. I do not want to live in a country where children lack shoes or breakfast due to poverty. I feel that we need to think how best to support families where parents have had bad luck/ made unwise decisions/ having learning difficulties or are disabled.

Most of the recipients of this grant appear to a) not be soldiers, b) be UK based and c) be office bound.

I often find it interesting that a rag like the Daily Mail whips up hatred against the poor and "benefit scroungers" when billionaire company boss Lord Rothermere is a notorious tax-dodger. Although born and educated in Britain, and having a palatial mansion here, and a business predominantly active here, he pays almost no UK tax.

I think this fact should be more widely known.

Depends.

Does UK have readily available and affordable birth control options for women where you can get what you need on walk ins and same day appointments? Can you get emergency contraceptive pills same day? Are abortions easy to get?

If yes, I see no problem with it. However, if you are denying women health services and still expecting women to not have babies like here in the US then the system is designed to fail from the start and will only keep women trapped in poverty.

In principle, I would say don't have kids you can't afford. But life isn't always so black and white. Kids should have a safety net and not be punished for their parents poor choices.

Do you have a program similar to what we have in the US called WIC? It's a program where you are only allowed to buy certain healthy foods in certain amounts per each child so you know that the family is getting nutrition they need, and it's hard to take advantage of it and use it for other expenses. It's not the best system, but the kids are fed good food and the parents aren't getting extra money in the form of income for the extra kids. I believe we have welfare capped at the current number of kids you apply with so you don't have more to get more money (and with medicaid all forms of BC are covered and free). But things like food stamps, health insurance, and WIC fluctuate to fit the number of people needing them.

The post up thread that said this is a small amount of people is true, so small that it will make very little difference to any fiscal deficit.

You lot keep looking at what the little people have rather than the great and the good. Morons.

On my FB feed this morning:

"It is easier to build strong children than it is to repair broken adults"

We should be investing for the future.

Corby certainly pulled the rabbit out of the hat with Claire and her brood of 5 children who only works part time because hard working single mothers like I am subsidise her in such leisure. It was a gold dust example. One reason the Tories got in is because most people want to ensure Claire is not incentivised to breed and only to work part time.

Loads of mumsnetters would like 5 children but they know they cannot afford them.

The changes to tax credits or universal credit so they only apply to 3 children or whatever it is come in 2017 I believe. Not before time. If you want more children work as hard as I do to support them.

digging up the roads
working in a coal mine
thats what I call hard work

digging up the roads
working in a coal mine
thats what I call hard work

Sure, I agree (not to the exclusion of other jobs not being hard work, which I think might be your implication).

How can anyone be induced into these kinds of jobs if the state makes it comfortable to remain unemployed indefinitely?

Many migrants are intelligent, hard working and frankly more of an asset to the country than many native born British people

You could say the same for any migrant population in any country.

By the very virtue that a family somewhere has said - " lets up sticks and give life another go elsewhere" obv have something about them to try a different life and way of living.

So Brits that want to move abroad, Indians Amercians and so on would hopefully for the most part be willing to give things a go. Perhaps more than some parts of the indigenous populations of any country.

However, when you have open door immigration, you remove that barrier jumping type of migrant, the one who will have to jump through hoops to move to a country Like we have to do for Canada, America Oz - it make it easier for any type of person to travel.

When you have vast number moving like from the EU you will have migrants who are an assets but you will have higher numbers of those who are not.

Then it becomes an issue because you are dealing with very very large numbers.

Larger numbers lead to larger costs across the board, police call outs, ambulance, council involvement, social services and so on. I am talking from personal experience.

I know many migrant families, who are normal, I wouldnt say they work any harder than us at all, but they have assimilated, made friends and just got on with it.

I also know of migrants who have costs us the tax payer untold amounts of money, from fighting, anti social behaviour, on going issues with all the above mentioned issues.

slightly off topic op, but I hate these all migrants are wonderful and an assets to the country, naive threads.

Migrants are people, and like people they are good and bad.

Assimilating a few bad ones isnt so much of an issue but Labour policy on migration has given us a far bigger problem.

I also really dislike threads that tar and put the British people down, again, like all people, humans there are good and bad.

When you have vast number moving like from the EU you will have migrants who are an assets but you will have higher numbers of those who are not.

totally unsubstantiated claim. How do you know that there are a higher number who are not? those people also did precisely what you described; upsticks and left their home. Given that we feel in this country people should get to live in their home area no matter what their employment prospects are there (and damage their future prospects by supporting them to stay there), I'd say there is a double standard here.

We know of those in Hungary, Croatia etc that 1 in 5 is Syrian (and relatively educated and fairly well off they could afford thousands in smuggling charges) and many of the rest are young males from Africa of conscription age with very little education.