No 10: cap child benefit to 2 children

[longfingernails]

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

Great idea.

"It does not imply that they had a kid in order to claim benefits"

Not exclusively benefits but it's like the entire world of maternity pay, benefits, childcare and other costs has come as a complete surprise to some.

Meh. It's just a proposal. I'm sure it will be one of umpteen ideas that will be put forward. Most will be rejected and/or watered down.

I very much doubt it would go ahead in the current form. If it is accepted as an idea it will more likely it will be extended to 3 or 4 kids so they lose less votes whilst still maintaining the illusion of cutting welfare.

Either that or they'll do something incredibly stupid and makes no sense. I put nothing past this Tory administration.

it only makes political sense if you can combine it with a tax cut to make the change neutral or positive for most tory voters.

Save The Children

Challenging 12 myths and stereotypes about low income families and social security spending

---

Introduction

In recent months debates about social security spending and poverty have revolved around long-term out-of-work parents and a focus on families with large numbers of children or families who live in high costs areas(and therefore receive relatively large amounts in support through Housing Benefit). Whilst long-term unemployment is damaging for the people it effects and the country as a whole, and there is a valid debate to be had about how to reduce the Housing Benefit bill, this can misinform the debate about welfare and poverty skewing it towards a focus on a relatively small number of households.

The more common experience of family poverty is that of moving in and out of work. Low pay, job insecurity and a lack of jobs that offer progression leaves many parents trapped in the ‘low pay/no pay’ cycle.

Such families rely on the social security system to pay them a
living when out-of-work and to top up their income when in-work.

It is crucial therefore, that the debate about social security spending and tackling child poverty is based on the facts and framed in a responsible way which ensures that policy makers focus on those challenges most common to those living in poverty.

This briefing sets out some of those facts, addressing some of the common myths and misunderstandings about social security spending and poverty amongst low-income families.

Key figures/points:

Only 8% of those on out-of-work benefits have 3 or more children.

--Rather than living ‘lavish’ lifestyles, out-of-work families with 3 or more children are less likely to be able to afford a basic standard of living.

--60% of children in poverty have at least one parent in-work.

--Just 0.8% of welfare spending is lost through benefit fraud and this has fallen considerably since the late 1990s.

--It is wrong to frame the debate about welfare spending so emphatically, as some have, around out-of-work benefits given, for example, that 54% of social security spending supports pensioners.

--Government spent £20.9 billion on subsidising low-pay through in-work tax credits in 2010/11 compared to £7.6 billion on out-of-work tax credits.

--The majority of children in poverty are in households with two or fewer children.

--Only 2.7% of families in Britain have an alcohol dependent parent, a
nd 0.9% a drug dependent parent, and these families are atypical across the population

Cont'd

www.savethechildren.org.uk/sites/default/files/docs/Challenging_12_myths_and_stereotypes.pdf

I can't see why anyone would have a problem with this tbh.

It's not going to be applied retrospectively, parents will be able to make a choice about having a third child knowing that they will have to support their child on their current income.

It's what plenty of families already do anyway, and they aren't suffering because of it.

Paying out benefits for two children people chose to have when they can't support them without other people's money is already pretty generous, there is simply no need for the taxpayer to fund children who should be their parents responsibility.

I hope this is implemented.

So, it's not ok to retrospectively take child benefit away from families with children...except when they are higher earners who are retrospectively slapped with the loss of child benefit. Why is it ok to apply this retrospectively to those earning over £50k (not a lot if you live in London) but outrageous if applied to those with more than 2 kids? If child benefit is for the kids, as people are always saying, then why is it ok to remove it from the kids of higher rate taxpayers but not ok to remove it from the kids of families with more than 2 kids?

Would the people on this thread support other benefits being limited to 2 children only?

If not, why not? The money spent from the government to children in the UK is huge, things like mat services and post natal groups and sure start and schooling and the NHS and all the rest of it.

Providing all of this stuff for only the first two children would save a BOMB.

But I suspect the people who want to stop child ben for 3rd and subsequent children (which will go towards food / clothing etc) will baulk at removing other benefits.

Can anyone explain why that is. Why is it essential to say give all children eg a hearing test at primary school but not essential that there is enough money to dress them warmly.

If anyone is happy to say bin the lot for 2nd and subsequent children that is at least a coherent argument.

Tabard, because these children would still be British citizens entitled to the free education, healthcare, children's services as any other British citizen.

But dressing them warmly would be their parents responsibility to sort out, either from their own earnings or by making the benefits they already get for their children stretch a bit further.

i think they should cap it to one child

and then any subsequent children can be left in the gutters to die

maybe we can look forward to a great famine

Amongst those who support this idea, what is their solution for any additional children whom the parents can't afford - a genuine question as I really don't know the answer. As far as I can see there are 3 choices:

1. Allow them to live in serious poverty due to the irresponsible behaviour of their parents over which they had no choice;
2. Pay for those children in some way so that we avoid option 1; or
3. Remove the additional children and take them into social care at enormous cost to them and the state

For me, 1 and 3 are unthinkable so unless anyone can think of a solution, surely the only option is 2?

leave them in the gutters

it's the only way forward

I mean it is perfectly fine for IDS to claim underpants on expenses

It is perfectly fine for IDS for spend £39 on a breakfast

It is perfectly fine for MPs to claim the mortgage on a second home - when they are a property developer and have 13 other homes in the area - closer

it is perfectly acceptable to pay your daughter/sister/brother/ as your 'secretary'

It is perfectly acceptable to go on junkets to foreign lands and take your next door neighbour

It is perfectly acceptable to live in your wifes family owned million pound mansion whilst telling everyone else to tighten their belts

It is more than fine that we the taxpayer subsidise their food and drink at the commons

It is amazingly acceptable that a lord convicted of fiddling expenses - turned up for less than 20 mins and claims £300 - quite regularly

or claimf or a second home when you live closer than most people commute

I can't tell you how acceptable it is to give your corporate donators a free pass on collecting taxes

billions in taxes

It is more than acceptable that IDS claimed benefits illegally

and more than acceptable that liam walker Youth Tory wanker claims people go to foodbanks so that they can spend their money at the pub

Liam walker is entitled to his opinion of course, as he was convicted of theft whilst serving as a special constable

Laugh, oh my... it is fantastic that IDS wasted 40 MILLION - just written off as a failure in trying to impliment the universal credit computer system

and the disabled...i mean ATOS with their assessments were amazing at saying that dying people were fit to work.

now ATOS have pulled out of much of the work - it is amazzzzzzzzing that civil servants who decide whether or not a disabled person will receive the benefit without any expert medical advice to call on.

thats just off the top of my head

Is this really what we have come to ?
" a measure of civilisation , is how it treats it's most vulnerable citizens " . Is that not the children , elderly and infirm ?

Think about it . Massive companies commit Tax fraud , weve been bailing out greedy, corrupt bankers , sending our money to overseas countries in acts of charity ( even if these countries may have corrupt leaders ) . We pay benefits to people who do not even live in the UK . ...but it's a good idea to take from our OWN children . These children will run our country in the future ....and they will Remember .

It's disgusting that the people of this country are being turned against each other . Ask yourself why ? . What exactly is the government diverting our attention from ?

amen

Don't get me wrong ....if you can work , you should work . I have worked the most horrendous hours , doing awful jobs , for my children's sake . But not for anything more than a basic standard of living . There are no decent living wages anymore .

The greed of the people in power and those who run countries is disgusting. They will do anything to maximise their personal wealth and don't mind if they trample all over their employees to do so .

One person springs to mind . His company (has more than one branch to it ) , pays appalling wages to his low level workers , and over charges his customers for the privilege of choosing his company ... It's all about making his vast personal fortune even bigger ... He owns an island . Regardless of his " public mr nice guy persona " if he actually gave a damn about anything other than himself ,he would pay his staff a decent living wage .

Saddest thing is , he is not unique , but rather a typical person in position of power ( whether in politics or business ) . Perhaps it's the great big streak of selfishness that drives them to go into these professions ?
There is something very wrong with a society that prizes money and possessions above the very thing that is mankind's most precious asset ...our children. They are the only guarantee of the human races continuation . They are our immortality ,and legacy , and yet those in power do not value such treasures .

Woowoo

"Tabard, because these children would still be British citizens entitled to the free education, healthcare, children's services as any other British citizen."

At the moment children who are British Citizens entitled to assistance with costs related to raising children. That is their right as British Citizens. You can't pretend that one benefit is malleable while another is untouchable.

Give me a good reason why some services are to be continued for 3rd and subsequent children and others abolished.

If you ditched eg free school meals, free preschool, maybe child services for 3rd or subsequent children that would save some money. Quite a bit of money. Ditch maternity / post natal stuff and that's another huge saving. You want a 3rd kid? Do it on your own money is what people have said on the thread. So that ties in. Go to a private hospital, or give birth on your own. Seems a bit retrograde to me, but hey.

I think any kind of strategy needs to be coherent. If we don't want people in the future able to support 3 or more kids on an average wage then that could be a much stronger message. Cut any and all services for larger families. Maybe monitor people who can't afford private healthcare and are of reproductive age and already have children? Do we need to build legislation to protect workers who get made redundant and suddenly they are only able to provide for 2 kids? What about death of a partner? Industrial accidents still happen a lot and if you've got 3 kids and your DH is killed and the government says well we've got a rock bottom amount for survivial (ie current benefit levels, they are based at minimum living level) and we will only pay for 2 kids you've got 4 so... so... what's the answer to that one.

Just thoughts

I think this is just a vote chaser. Many people who work hard cant manage more than one or two children financially because they are behaving responsibly. It is understandably hugely galling that those who do not work can carry on having children with no consequences. But in all humanity, abandoning those children and making them suffer is not the answer. I genuinely hope that those in support of this proposal (and other similar ones i have heard) have thought of a realistic alternative way of making sure the children are ok or have just not thought through the consequences of this.

My concern with this is the way that this whole "debate" is framed. There is massive anti child sentiment in this country and it seems to have got worse since the Con Dems have been in. At best children are seen as an indulgence. "Oh well if you MUST breed you csn pay for it all yourself." At worst they are just viewed as drains on society. Something we have to put up with until they start contributing to the public purse. I find it quite upsetting actually.

The idea of asking people to cut their cloth according to their means isn't bad but it's the way that children are being talked about concerns me.

I am with you entirely there wasabi. Surely people can see beyond their own understandable frustrations and realise that this kind of policy can only be effective if we are prepared to allow innocent children to suffer? It breaks my heart to think that anyone would think that was ok.

I'm not personally seeing a lot of anti-child sentiment.

I do see a lot of policies that ultimately impact children. Mainly because of the cuts and austerity. But that's more a feature of the economy rather than a government witchhunt against families with children.

There is a lot of bad press mainly in the right wing papers regarding those with large families on benefits that has distracted most people. To your average person on the street they think job stealing immigrants and scroungers are the main causes of our high taxes and unemployment. They're not. But you keep repeating stories like that and eventually people believe it.

I think it's quite a good idea. Child benefit for first two children and it's up to folk whether they can afford to have more without child benefit. A lot of people can hardly afford one or two children with the cost of childcare never mind three four or more.

I’d suggest that we don’t need to ENCOURAGE our domestic population growth, on the contrary, unlike other countries, on these tiny Isles (currently being eroded by the sea), the career and opportunities to stay busy within midwifery, seems somewhat assured.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24831941

“The UK population is projected to rise by 9.6 million from 63.7 million in the middle of 2012 to 70 million by 2027.
It is expected to rise to 73.3 million by the middle of 2037, the ONS said.

The ONS said a breakdown of the projected 9.6 million increase by 2037 was expected to be made up of 5.4 million more births than deaths (57% of the rise) and 4.2 million in net migration into the country (43%).”

TheCrimsonQueenPeople 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.

never a truer word spoken

Exactly. People need to rethink what the welfare state is actually for. It's to support people in need. Not support people's choices to have a large family, three houses or whatever. I fully support stopping child benefit at two children. All this only the rich can have children. Utter nonsense. Only the rich can own several properties, take luxury cruises, buy designer clothes. Are we to increase benefit to allow everyone to do this.

i'm all for it