IDS latest women-bashing plans

[Bumpstart]

Hello.

I have been thinking about this benefit cap of 2 kids.

I have a conspiracy theory I'd like you to talk me out of.

I think IDS have a team of civil servant who research how they can get votes. I suspect them of coming on mumsnet and noticing the amount of threads on here about 'should I have another baby?'. The responses to these threads are largely NO, not if you are dependent on tax credit.

There are whole discussions to be had about tax credit propping up the unsustainably low minimum wage, but what I'm trying to get at is that there are a significant number of posters who wanted a larger family, but denied themselves because they felt they couldn't afford it, and now cheer that IDS is validating their choice, and planning to penalise larger families.

I find this deeply depressing, that low waged families are having their family choices curtailed, and there is so little solidarity amongst us, that this new proposal is being seen as justice.

its not a man or womans right to have loads of kids and state pay
responsible parenting is factoring in ability to emotionally and financially bear responsibility
and if a woman has "love to give but cant afford another baby" yes she needs to discuss finances with her partner.or get a job to pay for extra child

That was my thought stewiegriffith. Presumably people (usually men) can start multiple families here there and everywhere and there wouldn't be a way to reduce the existing families' benefits just because feckless dad had gone onto impregnate woman number 2, 3, 4, 5. But if one woman has more than two children the entitlements within her family would be reduced.

Sounds like a way to punish the resident parent and let the non-resident parent get away with whatever they like.

I just can't see how it would work without punishing women (and children).

its not a woman right to have big family and state pay,or to have children by numerous partners and state pay
one need to be responsible planning family and yes if youre dependent on state then the state can and will set agendas and benefits,which will fluctuate by govt and idelology

Firstly, I assume these feckless men can only go around impregnating women who agree to have sex with them, so if you want to shag a guy who has 10 kids by 10 different mothers, are we all supposed to pay for that?

Secondly, this woman-hating government (who I did not vote for, and historically have never supported politically) currently have thousands of troops deployed half way around the world fighting (and dying) for the right of women to vote, receive education, receive healthcare etc that they would never receive under their own government.

I hate the fact that you have made me defend a Tory government. I feel dirty now .

DrJohnson,

That is a very passive view of women. They can choose NOT to have sex with feckless men and they can also choose abortions. Men cannot choose not to have children once a woman is pregnant, and they still have to pay. There are trade offs in both directions.

And how could you deal with feckless men? They are already made to pay what they can afford and bankrupting them would hardly be useful. The CSA (or whatever it is called now) should make all fathers pay who have decided not to and take them to court. Beyond that, what can they do? Saying that as long as there are feckless men, no restrictions should be placed on child subsidy is like saying as long as some people are capable of gaming the benefit system, we should let everyone do it.

The point is, for all the genuinely sad cases citable, is it really desirable to have money as a free commodity for certain families, regardless of the choices they make while other families, who actually earn their own money, have to make compromises over family size? That is the elephant in the corner that posters are avoiding.

Agree Bumpstart and SGM.

absolutely.if you chose to have kids by dfuckwit man who has squads of kids,and is absent to all of them id question your judgement

I just don't understand how it would work so help me out here.

A man can have 10 children, 2 by 5 different women. And all 10 kids get the maximum benefit.

A woman who has 10 children - by one man. Gets no benefit for 8 of them.

I just don't get it.

I see what they are trying to achieve. But how on earth is it enforceable or fair?

easily enforced by state as it will be via benefits system.
individually unenforceable as cannot curtail individual getting pg numerous times
state clearly trying to limit by financial sanction

We pay quite a lot of tax. If we didn't pay lots of tax maybe we could afford to have the second child that we might like to have. Unfortunately as we have to keep paying lots of tax to support other people's choices to expand their families at no cost to themselves it would appear that we will never be in a position to afford a second child. I strongly disagree with the viewpoint that people should be allowed to exercise their "reproductive rights" without any consideration as to how that child will be paid for.

Contraception in this country is free; if you can't afford to have any more children it's not difficult to prevent it.

Contraception in this country is free; if you can't afford to have any more children it's not difficult to prevent it

Give it some more time because i dont think it will be for much longer.

absolutely my family size is based upon ability to pay,career and lifestyle i want
no woman has right to expect state to pay for her larger family
with parenthood is responsibility,primarily individual responsibility to provide for family without expecting state pays

I doubt it could be enforced, that's the point.

If my exh went on to father two more children by another woman, how would I necessarily know? If he wasn't the resident father in either situation, the state wouldn't necessarily know who the father was of these two new children. And it couldn't prove it anyway unless they demanded paternity tests for any new babies coming onto the benefits "payroll" and kept a running tally of babies relating to this particular man!

This can only work if it relates to the resident parent and the resident parent is usually the mother. Which means women cannot have more than two children without sanction and men can have millions!

Scottish,

It is not easily enforced, sadly. Not without making people with multiple children end up at soup kitchens or unable to nourish their children properly.

The reality is the state, in extremity, will have to interfere in people's lives (mostly women's) far more than most would be comfortable with. That is why this is a very difficult issue and one most politicians prefer not to touch, regardless of how popular it is in principle (and it is VERY popular). You can either enforce contraception or sterilisation in return for money, you can restrict how people spend their existing money (all benefits paid in vouchers which can only be exchanged for family essentials) or you can actually force adoptions on people. Surprisingly enough, none of the above are popular!

So, you are caught between a rock and a hard place. The idea that someone can have 6 or 7 children and be given a large family house in an area where most people cannot afford a house at all and effectively put them on a net salary which few could possible aspire to however hard they worked. Or, enforce it in one of the above ways.

Personally, I suspect the government will waffle, fiddle around with the system a bit but basically leave things unchanged in the end (except for existing subsidies being rebranded).

What does concern me here is that this policy is plugging into the public perception that there are hundreds of thousands of feckless, workshy, 'Shameless'-type families who squirt out kids in exchange for benefits that the good old middle-English are paying for. IDS has done plenty of work in this area. He knows the truth about families on the poverty line. Hopefully this is only part of an overall family-positive set of policies.

I wish they would put as much focus on the Philip Green's of this world who offshore their brazillions of pounds and dodge tax perfectly legally. It's far easier to vilify poor families though.

Give it some more time because i dont think it will be for much longer

Very unlikely. The cost to the NHS of a hugely inflated birth rate would vastly outstrip the cost of providing free contraception.

And just to reiterate - I don't like seeing these families in London living in St John's Wood at the taxpayer's expense because they've got 8 kids and there's no council flat big enough for the. Of course I don't. It's rubbish.

But I agree with Larry. It's actually very difficult to do something about it without punishing either a) the children who are blameless or b) the women who may have contributed to the number of the children they have (!) but at least are hanging around for them. The people unaffected are the (usually) fathers who have multiple children and move on to the next woman, and the next woman, and the next woman.

I think it is reflecting the mood. I am agreeing more and more with these decisions. Even the child benefit one. Why should a person earning £11,000 a year pay tax to subsidise somebody earning £50,000 a year getting child benefit. The welfare state needs to be trimmed down. Nobody considers the single low paid person who is paying tax on an absolute pittance.

agree.redistribution is to needy should be priority
bemused at mc on 50K appealing they need their cb.No you like it,you dont need it
yes why should someone eke on existence on minimum wage whilst mc family gets cb

It is resident vs non resident parent based but also woman vs man from the pov that a woman will always be identifiable as a child's mother and will be registered as such. If a perfectly nice man has 2 dcs and his relationship breaks down and he goes on to father 2 dcs with a new partner, so long as those younger dcs are the first children of the mother then she will be able to claim, as will the mother of the older 2. If men can only claim for 2 dcs then the younger dcs will get registered as father unknown. If either of the mothers have another child they can hardly register it as 'mother unknown' can they?

Lots of very normal step families have this set up. Its not just for the feckless contraception rouletters.

Re WG's scenario. If my wife leaves me, takes our two children and sets up home with a childless man, what happens if they have a baby together? Can he claim, even though she can't?

I don't think so. She is resident.

Nobody knows but I'll eat my hat if a Tory government are introducing a policy whereby mothers can claim double benefit if they have children fathered by different men. 3 children with at least one parent in common I think would lose out if they lived under the same roof unless the non resident parent didn't have any more dcs and could claim for the eldest two.

So, men cannot claim child benefit? I know they are always reluctant to deal with me on the phone. When we changed bank accounts, my wife had to call and inform them.

Vivienne. . . So why ask 11,000 per year to pay so much tax?

I think it was called the 10p tax rate?