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

mbga9pgf

Spartacus_Mills wrote: »

Schooling is an up front cost that society reaps the benefit of in later years.

in the main, Not for the sort of kids that have families that rely on benefits they dont.

jamespir

they should cut it for those earning iver a certain amount as they dont need it and they should cut it for those who have more than 3 kids cause its silly

WhiteHorse

Why should there be a bounty on children? If having children attracts a salary, then it's no surprise that there are career mothers. Child Tax credit should be abolished.

If you can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em.

bendix

Scrap it completely. It's a ridiculous benefit. Why should I pay to raise someone else's kid or, as more usually happens, why should I pay to send some tracksuit wearing slapper to her weekly Bingo and Cider sessions, while the brat is left at home eating Wotsits for dinner?

jamespir

bendix wrote: »

Scrap it completely. It's a ridiculous benefit. Why should I pay to raise someone else's kid or, as more usually happens, why should I pay to send some tracksuit wearing slapper to her weekly Bingo and Cider sessions, while the brat is left at home eating Wotsits for dinner?

hint of jealusy it seems

StevieJ

Generali wrote: »

Not true.

The history of child allowance was that in the very early C20th, women that had children found it very hard to earn money and married women with children were pretty much unemployable.

A group of educated women took up the cause of women trying to bring up children without a reliable income and in the end forced it into law. Many of that group went on to become a core of the fight to secure the vote for women in the UK.

The family Allowances act of 1945, was the first provision of child benefit, are you aware of something before then?

1945 The Family Allowances Bill, campaigned for by Eleanor Rathbone MP, was introduced by the Coalition Government and passed as the Family Allowances Act 1945.
An amendment proposed by Eleanor Rathbone and passed on a free vote overturned the government’s intention to have Family Allowance paid to the father. The benefit was taxable and was paid only for second and subsequent children.

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons/lib/research/rp98/rp98-079.pdf

StevieJ

mbga9pgf wrote: »

in the main, Not for the sort of kids that have families that rely on benefits they dont.

No wonder a number of these kids never have a chance with people like you about :eek:

Percy1983

I am up for scrapping it, I don't have children yet but don't plan to have any I can't provide for.

As above, why should I pay to bring sombody elses children up? Survival of the fittest might be a bit harsh, but how about "only those who work can afford big flat screen TV's and PS3's"

Jomo

I think it should be capped (and maybe means tested as well).

It's ok saying that it should only be means tested blah blah blah but those who would be entitled to the benefit also need to stop breeding without thought. To put a cap at two or three would IMO be fair.

mbga9pgf

StevieJ wrote: »

No wonder a number of these kids never have a chance with people like you about :eek:

Yet many do.

They do have a chance. Its their choice to doss around. Anyone arguing they "dont have a chance" is frankly wrong. People are pandered to in this country.

Perhaps those sorts have a bad genetic makeup, that makes them lazy. :rotfl: I doubt it. If people didnt have a choice, either work or dont recieve a penny, I bet you they would work.