surely it is better to limit child benefit to 2 kids per family

SingleSue

michaels wrote: »

So how many posters would we lose with a 2 kids only policy? I am no 2 of 5 so would still be around bt obviously would be looking forward to a much larger share of any inheritance...anyone here child number 3 or greater and wouldn't be around if there was a two kid limit?

I am number 2 out of 3 who survived. If my elder brother had lived (he died at 6 months), I would have been number 3!

Shakethedisease

What if you've already had them.. then you can't 'afford' them later on ?

LydiaJ

Shakethedisease wrote: »

What if you've already had them.. then you can't 'afford' them later on ?

This is the big problem with expecting people to limit their families according to their income.

When I had my kids I was married and expecting to stay married for life. My husband earned enough for us to live reasonably comfortably and I stayed at home for the first four years. So yes, we could afford our kids without help.

I had no way of knowing that within the space of 6 years my husband would
a) lose his job
b) leave me
c) die

Affording my kids without help would now be a lot harder than it used to be. I work just over 60% of full time, and claim CB, CTC and widowed parents' benefit. Yes, I could work full time and earn more money, but it would be damaging to my kids who need me to be at home at least some of the time. (They are both at primary school, they were in the car with their dad in the accident that killed him, and one of them has just been having further surgery for his injuries.)

I do think CTC/WTC are stupidly complicated, though. I also think they're too high for middle and higher earners. Can't comment on whether they're at the right level for MW earners because that's outside my experience.

StevieJ

mbga9pgf wrote: »

If people from the sink estates start getting violent, we need a couple more face-offs with the riot police. With the proviso that any damage done to state social assets will not be repaired. If people want to behave like animals, they can live like them. take the council houses off the trouble makers and give them to those having theirs damaged or burned out. We could also do with the state turning a blind eye to local communities "sorting" out the trouble makers in their own communities.

Couple of D cell batteries down the barrel of the rubber bullet gun does wonders. Anyone seen a D cell bounce? Theyh do if they are fast enough.

I think if it was to kick off like you seen to relish then the weapons are unlikely to be confined to one side :eek:

StevieJ

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

Should work both ways. I've no idea of the numbers, though.

Unfortunately the 'both ways' in our case is mostly eastern europe

StevieJ

Shakethedisease wrote: »

In your 'day' only one wage earner was need to 'finance the children' and the house.. nowadays, it takes 2 just to cover the mortgage/rent AND the childcare.

Get real and don't be so bleeding smug ! Times change, we don't live in the 70's anymore...

You will probably find that most people even those on benefits are a lot better off than people in general were in the 70's, strange as it may seem BTW my mum worked right through my childhood because she needed to.

neverdespairgirl

StevieJ wrote: »

Unfortunately the 'both ways' in our case is mostly eastern europe

I lived in Eastern Europe for a year, teaching English. Pre EU accession, though (-:

harrup

elaina79 wrote: »

Everybody pays tax. When you pay your bills or buy things from the shop or if you have a car etc. Yes I claim benefits .

With all due respect.....I don't understand "but do I think that I'm spending your money. Well no I don't. It all gets lumped into one big pot reguardless of where it came from"

If you are not earning... and you don't think it comes from your fellow countrymen .....just whose money are you spending?

What pot are you alluding to?

harrup

The_White_Horse wrote: »

rather than cut it off to the people who actually pay the taxes that allow it to be paid to grasping scroungers with 4 or 5 kids.

houses, could go up or down or stay the same.

I must say that most people I know who have 4 or 5 kids are actually rather well off. Paying already wealthy people child benefit is nonsensical.....and the rest surely direly need it. As the name implies it is intended for the benefit of the child.

I say this as a person without even one child and one who pays 50% tax. Do I resent child benefit? Not one iota. Drop in the proverbial taxation ocean.

What I DO resent is the government squandering money on far less worthy/needy causes. Just 2 examples from my own family - and bear in mind I actually love and care for these 2 people.

Both my MIL ( retired) and my OH have a medical exemption fee certificate. They'll never have to pay for any medication. Regardless of how unrelated to their condition which warranted the exemption certificate

For as long as they shall live.

Yet....these are both wealthy people. They could easily afford to pay for their prescriptions. My MIL is taking 5 different medications per day. And has done for the past 30 years. My OH takes 2 different meds. For the past 10 + years. That's a lot of lost prescription revenue from 2 people.

My take: as a nation lets look at cutting other unnecessary benefits first before curbing those for children.

StevieJ

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

I lived in Eastern Europe for a year, teaching English. Pre EU accession, though (-:

Not sure of the relevance there? one you didn't have any kids, two you wouldn't have received anything anyway.