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

StevieJ

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

Not taht different, actually:

In 2008, £0 10s 0d from 1965 is worth



£15.10 using average earnings.

I don't think they received anything for the first kid.

pop_gun

karen matthews told child services after she had her first child, she knew she couldn't raise any more.
why wasn't her fallopian tubes tied?
when i walk into town, i'm accosted by council ads looking for foster parents. it's not just child benefits and working tax credit
it's the task of raising children that most parents don't take into consideration. the state picks up the tab for their irresponsible
behaviour. what of the children who get lost in the system and come out the other side a total wreck.
all this heartache because of a biological impulse.

wolvoman

dori2o wrote: »

It should however also be means tested with those earning over and above the Higher tax rate threshold receiving none of the benefit. It's not actually needed by these people who are already taking home £619p/w after tax and NI.

Why should those who often work harder and pay a lot more of their fair share in tax be penalised even more by having one of the few 'tax rebates' taken away from them?

Furthermore, I can only assume you don't live in the SE. Take home pay of £600 a week doesn't go very far if you live in London with children.

treliac

pop_gun wrote: »

karen matthews told child services after she had her first child, she knew she couldn't raise any more.
why wasn't her fallopian tubes tied?
when i walk into town, i'm accosted by council ads looking for foster parents. it's not just child benefits and working tax credit
it's the task of raising children that most parents don't take into consideration. the state picks up the tab for their irresponsible
behaviour. what of the children who get lost in the system and come out the other side a total wreck.
all this heartache because of a biological impulse.

Sadly, with children able to conceive aged 12 and under, I'd describe it as a 'biological defect'.

treliac

Exocet wrote: »

These threads depress me. There are few things more precious than a childs voice, those first steps, the small hand in yours as you cross the road, Father Xmas, the first words.

Obviously there's booze, pornography and illegal drugs of course.

And we don't want to know about your private life Exocet..........

starsandmoon

When I married my husband and we wanted a baby we saved up, I managed to get a better paid job so when I returned to work I could afford the childcare. I took extra unpaid maternity leave but saved up 3 months salary to be able to do this. I returned to work part time and yes we applied for CB but not tax credits as it was such a lengthy process and my husband was self employed. We were able to pay to bring up our child with no benefits (except the CB).

Fast forward a few years. Divorced, ex husband sees child once a week (his choice). Im dependent on CB and tax credits even though I have 2 jobs. One of my jobs is being cut by 20%, my employers response was "the tax credits will make up the difference"!!! I do not want to be reliant on these benefits but what else can I do?

So those who have said dont have children if you carnt afford them well what happens if circumstances change and you become reliant on government handouts? I can only work 9-5 due to afterschool shuts at 5.30 and I have no family to help out.

JackieChan

starsandmoon wrote: »

When I married my husband and we wanted a baby we saved up, I managed to get a better paid job so when I returned to work I could afford the childcare. I took extra unpaid maternity leave but saved up 3 months salary to be able to do this. I returned to work part time and yes we applied for CB but not tax credits as it was such a lengthy process and my husband was self employed. We were able to pay to bring up our child with no benefits (except the CB).

Fast forward a few years. Divorced, ex husband sees child once a week (his choice). Im dependent on CB and tax credits even though I have 2 jobs. One of my jobs is being cut by 20%, my employers response was "the tax credits will make up the difference"!!! I do not want to be reliant on these benefits but what else can I do?

So those who have said dont have children if you carnt afford them well what happens if circumstances change and you become reliant on government handouts? I can only work 9-5 due to afterschool shuts at 5.30 and I have no family to help out.

Fair point, but they get by in other countries without any handouts, why should it be any diferent here?.
Far eastern countries are more family orientated than we are and they all help each other so nobody goes hungry. Maybe that's what is missing in the UK, it's more of a "every man for himself" kind of attitude.

Alan_Cross

JackieChan wrote: »

Fair point, but they get by in other countries without any handouts, why should it be any diferent here?.
Far eastern countries are more family orientated than we are and they all help each other so nobody goes hungry. Maybe that's what is missing in the UK, it's more of a "every man for himself" kind of attitude.

Absolutely, the wonderful Thatcher doctrine.

Yes, by all means, let's lose support for families, as the incontinent ol' nag suggests. While we're at it, let's follow all of his other brilliant suggestions which tend to centre around fascist solutions to anyone whose face he doesn't like.

Then, finally, let's maintain a cheery grin and not grumble about the cost of the extra police and the private security guards which we'll be needing to keep the plebs down and away from our wads...

Shakethedisease

Fair point, but they get by in other countries without any handouts, why should it be any diferent here?.
Far eastern countries are more family orientated than we are and they all help each other so nobody goes hungry. Maybe that's what is missing in the UK, it's more of a "every man for himself" kind of attitude.

Because children would starve if there weren't any family members about to 'help out'.. go back and look at what happened 100 years ago when there was no help available to families when ill heath, death of a spouse, disability, unemployment or abandonment took place..

Surely you don't want to take the UK back there ?

neverdespairgirl

JackieChan wrote: »

Far eastern countries are more family orientated than we are and they all help each other so nobody goes hungry.

People do go hungry.