Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

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

295 replies

ReallyTired · 17/09/2015 09:56

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.

OP posts:
Iliveinalighthousewiththeghost · 17/09/2015 12:52

YY Alfie.

PigletJohn · 17/09/2015 12:52

barbarian
"I can accept that but please give me some examples . Because other than the monarchy being overthrown and the Queen being forced to relinquish everything and go and live in a council house in Milton Keynes, I'm not clear how that could happen"

As an employee I was made redundant three times. On one occasion I received the statutory minimum, and on one occasion I had been employed there less than a year and got nothing. Once there was a severe economic downturn which caused a collapse in my field.

With my own business I was once badly injured and unable to work for a year.

How many times have you and your partner unexpectedly lost your jobs, or been made bankrupt, or been hit by a crippling disease resulting in the fit partner having to be a full-time carer?

Has your high-earning partner ever run off with the milkman, been sent to prison, been struck off, or turned out to be a gambler who went through everything? Have you been in business and seen your business collapse, when you had taken out a loan secured on your home to set it up? Has your milk farm been hit by a drop in prices leading to your profits turning into losses? Has a major trade customer closed down owing you vast amounts and losing most of your sales?

londonrach · 17/09/2015 12:55

Yes.

redstrawberry10 · 17/09/2015 12:57

I have absolutely no doubt that cb encourages bad behaviour, so maybe withdrawing it will correct some of that.

however, it's clear who will suffer (children) and it doesn't seem worth it. I imagine we (all of us) just have to suck it up as a necessary policy with some bad outcomes.

Iliveinalighthousewiththeghost · 17/09/2015 12:58

Fully agree with you, Dawn. It's very easy for people to sit smugly in judgement of others when they nothing of their circumstances or what has brought them to where they are

BarbarianMum · 17/09/2015 13:00

Yes, thank you PigletJohn. I think you have just proved my point more thoroughly than I ever could. Next time you are 'highly affluent' (because this is the group of people we are talking about) take out some life insurance, some health insurance, some sickness cover, save a bit and pay off the mortgage on a small property somewhere.

The point about being highly affluent is that you are perfectly placed to protect yourself against the vaguaries of fate Hmm You can even pay a financial advisor to have common sense on your behalf.

EponasWildDaughter · 17/09/2015 13:03

Women are allowed two children. Men are allowed to sow their wild oats with abandon if it pleases them.

Just thought that needed repeating.

wasonthelist · 17/09/2015 13:09

I am surprised the religious groups mentioned earlier on the thread haven't already challenged the govt in the ECHR on rhe grounds of discrimination against those who feel God demands they breed like crazy.

NuffSaidSam · 17/09/2015 13:10

I think it would be good to encourage everyone to have fewer children. Globally the population is just going up and up and it can't be sustained indefinitely. I don't want to see anything like China's 'one child rule' or anything, but a general move towards fewer is better would be wise I think.

I do think benefits should be capped, but I think the money saved needs to be ploughed into providing for these children in other ways. So cut the money given directly to the family, but increase the quality of free school meals, introduce a free breakfast club, make snack/milk available longer, provide something for the summer holidays, improve schools more generally etc. Ultimately, we shouldn't reward feckless parents, but equally we shouldn't punish the poor children born to feckless parents.

Iliveinalighthousewiththeghost · 17/09/2015 13:11

Well as you've seconded it Eponas. Can I third it.
It's always been that way where women are penalised, rather than the men. Take lone parents for example often subject to sanctions ect, while the absent father's are having a whale of a time with their fancy piece. Yet not once have I heard about the government persecuting the absent parent. As most Resident parents are women. I am of strong belief that this government is full of women haters, because they certainly seem to get off on making their lives a bloody misery.

dolcelatteLover · 17/09/2015 13:13

isn't child benefit only about a tenner for a subsequent child? Who can make a profit out of that?
the answer is that minimum wage needs to be set much higher to make work pay.To afford this wages or those at the top will have to drop

BarbarianMum · 17/09/2015 13:16

Women are allowed two children. Men are allowed to sow their wild oats with abandon if it pleases them.

Women can also "sow their wild oats with abandon" if they are content to dump the children they bear and head off into the sunset. Fortunately, most don't. I don't see it as some great right they are being denied. Adequate child maintenance - now that's a great right they are being denied.

MrsTrentReznor · 17/09/2015 13:20

Nuffsaid I'd be happy with that. The kids I grew up with were often grubby and malnourished with few toys. The extra money gained from having another baby wasn't spent on them.
Cap it and redirect it so the kids get a hot meal.
I remember one friend of mine got given a pound to buy a pot noodle for dinner everyday. If it wasn't for her school dinners she would not have had a proper hot meal. A breakfast club would have made her life so much better.

lovelyupnorth · 17/09/2015 13:27

Yes yes yes, you shouldn't be able to keep claiming more and more money by breeding, i think it should be two maybe three and should apply to all.

sliceofsoup · 17/09/2015 13:30

I don't see it as some great right they are being denied.

I don't think I see it like that either. More that society, and the govt, are happy to let women bear the responsibility for the children, while slating them for being lone parents/benefit scroungers/feckless parents and the fathers of these children don't get a mention.

Birdsgottafly · 17/09/2015 13:51

Just out of interest, how do those who see having children a choice (rather than a natural Human need, for many), view the refugees, who have had children, whilst living in unstable circumstances?

Surely there should be no refugees under the age of 10? Same with starving whoever.

They are also bombarded with contraception, but choose to reject it, unquestionably religion is a choice, for men.

""People need to learn to live within their means and stop relying on others. ""

I live in Liverpool, we have a level of unemployment and low wages, especially in Social Care jobs, that can't be done by teenagers. There will be a revolution if you try to say to 60% of the working population that they should stay childless.

No-one will pay for a mass exodus to were the jobs in the UK are, can you not see how a cap on child centered benefits, is going to cause unrest?

There are people who will never be a home owner, or be totally self sufficient, even though they work full time hours.

I don't agree with the cap, because all we are doing is creating child poverty and less money is circulating in our economy.

The knock on effect of less money, is shops/businesses closing and more unemployment/poverty/welfare needed.

I saw this in the 80's and my region was just about recovering. We are hardest hit by the cuts and it is going to be disastrous.

The U.K. won't save any money, we will have to spend extra on SS, services and the justice system.

So what is the point?

Spartans · 17/09/2015 13:59

Personally I think it should apply to men who have separated too. If they have children tht to credits is being claimed for, if they have more they shouldn't be able to claim for more children.

Or in the cases where wen leave it should apply to them too.

I would also like to see nrps face more robust justice when they don't pay.

BarbarianMum · 17/09/2015 13:59

Birdsgottafly I can't make much sense of your last post or the chain of logic you are using to link your arguments. Where on earth are you getting "if you try to say to 60% of the working population that they should stay childless." from?

Spartans · 17/09/2015 14:01

birds I view it differently in countries like Syria. Especially where women do not have autonomy over their own bodies or are not legally allowed to make their own decisions.

This is why I can't decide if it's right or not. There are still women in this country that are raped and abused by partners. I worry about them.

ProudAS · 17/09/2015 14:05

I'm all for it so long as it doesn't lead to more abortions etc.

howabout · 17/09/2015 14:06

No!
The UK birth rate is well below replacement level.
Someone has to raise the next generation. Society as a whole should share this financial responsibility.

goblinhat · 17/09/2015 14:20

THe UK has one of the highest birth rates now in Europe, and the highest it has been here for many decades- thanks to the number of young immigrants giving birth.

sliceofsoup · 17/09/2015 14:21

Just out of interest, how do those who see having children a choice (rather than a natural Human need, for many), view the refugees, who have had children, whilst living in unstable circumstances?

Totally agree. Why is it families here who are being told to take responsibility when people in war torn and poverty stricken countries are still reproducing?

IKnowIAmButWhatAreYou · 17/09/2015 14:24

Why is it families here who are being told to take responsibility when people in war torn and poverty stricken countries are still reproducing?

Well, it could be argued that this is a reason that people don't want refugees here.

1 person that's going to work - yes
1 person & 2, 3 or more dependents that will just eat into the benefits pot - no.

howabout · 17/09/2015 14:29

UK current birth rate (according to the google oracle) even with all the "young immigrants" is 1.89. This is below the 2.1 replacement level (also per google).