Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Politics
Original poster

No 10: cap child benefit to 2 children

77 replies

longfingernails · 15/12/2013 08:37

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2523819/No-10s-plan-cap-benefit-children-New-mothers-children-lose-700-5bn-welfare-crackdown.html

Great idea.

OP posts:
JakeBullet · 15/12/2013 08:41

Am certain this will eventually happen.

It won't stop people having large families though and the queues at food banks will get longer.

On the fence about "great idea". Sometimes it's the only regular money a woman has if she has to flee for example.

JakeBullet · 15/12/2013 08:42

Ah and it's in the Daily Hate....they must be wetting themselves with joy.

Thants · 15/12/2013 08:57

Terrible idea. Why would be happy that more children will live in poverty op?
This won't stop people having children it will just mean those children are worse off.

claretandamberforever · 15/12/2013 08:57

dont shout at me, I tend not to get involved in politics.

But the premise of dealing with debt is spend less or earn more.

why are the government choosing to benefits bash (spend less) but not earn more by putting income tax up by a small amount? wouldnt that earn a lot of revenue? Or would it?

see, wibbly wobbly world of my own

ttosca · 15/12/2013 09:55

The austerity measures aren't in place to deal with debt. They're ideological.

HermioneWeasley · 15/12/2013 09:57

No problem if this is introduced "new" for kids not already born. Less impressed for kids who are already here.

Also not sure how it works with blended families.

But as a go forward principle I think it makes sense.

RubySparks · 15/12/2013 09:59

It would also be tricky to implement with 'blended' families - what if it is the man's third child but the woman's first? Or the woman's third and the man's first?

BlousyMumsyTwat · 15/12/2013 10:00

Am happy to be classified as "ideological" by saying that I don't wish the feckless/unable to breed with impunity. If you need CB, you can't afford your children.

This cut will not of course be applied retroactively so the left's response will be simply the usual wild-eyed bollocks without substance

Btw, why is the word ideology used in an attempt to smear the right when it could equally be said that the left's ideology is an indoctrined, dumbed-down state dependant serfs?

BlousyMumsyTwat · 15/12/2013 10:03

Oh dear Clare. Let me help you with the maths.

You increase income tax and give extra child benefit to a family who can't afford more children. This family will then become more dependant upon more benefits because they now have extra children they can't afford, And are paying more tax - ergo become a further drain upon society.

meditrina · 15/12/2013 10:05

When first introduced, the Family Allowance wasn't paid for the first child, but did apply to every subsequent one.

It seems the idea has come full circle.

Is the idea that you claim for the first two and that's it. Or you claim for a maximum of two, even if you have more, for as long as any two of them are qualifying age?

This strikes me as a lot better proposal than the means-tested claw back, as it is simpler and more predictable. Assuming that TC remain for those in the most straitened circumstances.

Ninasaurus · 15/12/2013 10:05

Gosh I think that is too drastic and too harsh.

If they really need to introduce a cap make it 4 children.

Capping it at 2 makes no allowances at all for contraceptive failures/multiple births etc. Considering most families stop at 2-3 by choice, capping it at 4 gives a little leeway. Capping it at 2 is a recipe for a lot of hardship.

TheUnstoppableWindmill · 15/12/2013 10:08

Wow Blousy. You live in a lucky world never struck by illness/disability/unexpected job loss etc. Even I, stopping at one child because my partner and I (on full time jobs) don't think we can afford another, can see that some people might need benefits unexpectedly. The 'don't have them if you can't afford them is over-simplistic.

TheCrimsonQueen · 15/12/2013 10:12

Great idea. The welfare state is not an endless pot of money and we all have to take responsibility for ourselves as individuals as well as ensuring those who need it have access to help. Two is more than reasonable.

capsium · 15/12/2013 10:14

People can suddenly need benefits after having their families.

It is not the child's fault they come from a large family.

TheCrimsonQueen · 15/12/2013 10:22

This isn't a question of fault but resources and personal responsibility. If as an adult you decide to have a large family (and it is in the vast majority of cases a choice) then you should be prepared to take responsibility for that.

I can't see how the proposed cap can work/be implemented retrospectively but I certainly agree that a cap is necessary going forward.

HappyMummyOfOne · 15/12/2013 10:32

I think its a great idea, would have rather seen it lowered to just one child or none at all but a start in the right direction.

Too many now give no thought as to how they will support their children and see it as their right to have as many as they like whilst others pick up the costs.

Once people realise no extra money will be given to them, contraception may be used properly. Given the tiny risk with most kinds, its always amazing to see the number of "accidents" people have.

Putting the responsibility back on parents can only be good for society.

UmpireHalfTimeKids · 15/12/2013 10:35

Wow.

People are in support of only the rich being allowed to "breed with impunity".

UmpireHalfTimeKids · 15/12/2013 10:37

Theunstoppablewindmill+1

TheCrimsonQueen · 15/12/2013 11:17

People are in support of only the rich being allowed to "breed with impunity".

Seriously? When will people simply accept that money buys privilege. That's life. Just deal with it. The welfare state is not there to give us the same choices as millionaires or the very wealthy - it is there to provide basic provision. Two is not unreasonable and certainly not a prevention/bar to people with less modest means from "breeding".

For the most of us we struggle to get through as best we can. We make what we can with our lot and try to improve it where we can.

jellybeans · 15/12/2013 11:21

I think it is a bad idea. Children don't ask to be born, why should they suffer?

Meglet · 15/12/2013 11:30

Nasty idea.

As usual it will be the women and children who suffer.

Grumbliest · 15/12/2013 11:30

People will always will have the number of kids they want to complete their family..health permitting. Teens are still getting pregnant even when they cannot claim tax credits(I think..correct me if not) and tax credits have been around circa. 1999..so not sure this will put off ppl anyway. Benefit cap should be set to 4 kids.

deepfriedsage · 15/12/2013 11:38

I think in blended families it will mean over two children for either parent.

HermioneWeasley · 15/12/2013 11:47

There are many things which the rich do that I would like - live in a big house, take exotic holidays, have staff.

If we had unlimited (or very extensive) resources, we would have more kids, but we have to live within our means and to afford a house in a catchment area of good schools we chose to stop at 2.

I find the idea that we should "tax the rich" (whoever that may be) more, to fund other peoples' choices rather baffling.

BackOnlyBriefly · 15/12/2013 12:00

What do they plan to do with the excess child?

If someone loses their job and home and claims benefits then they are given what they need to live on.

If we are now saying that if that person already had 3 children they won't be given enough money to keep the 3rd one then that's fine. We can have clinics like the RSPCA where the excess child can be put down.

Given that anyone can suddenly become poor the only way to make this plan work is to limit all families in the UK to two children. I don't think that will go down well.