Capping benefits at 4 kids?

neverdespairgirl

tom9980 wrote: »

What if someone gets ill at a young age and has no real chance at a job but is capable of managing a child or two in the future with a few reasonable adjustments? what if that person was to bring that child up to be a good, honest young person who would benefit society in a meaningful way?

That's where we differ. My personal view is that anyone who can deal with two babies and small children is more than fit to work!

ceridwen

confusedmummy wrote: »

I read this a while ago and was meaning to post about it.

This MP has suggested capping benefits at 4 kids; http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15790806

I actually kind of agree with it but I think it should actually be capped at 2 and then tapered. What do other people think?

Personally - that struck me as incredibly generous to cap benefit at 4 children.

Personally - I have wondered for years why child benefit still exists - but then remember that the size of the "parent lobby" is huge and apparently blissfully unaware that having children has been a personal choice for about the last 40 years - so is still lobbying away for a "lions share" of resources in blissful ignorance of that fact and their personal responsibilities.

:(:mad::(:(

neverdespairgirl

Candy53 wrote: »

Well I must be the thick one here, but I thought you only got child tax credits when you worked? I thought the fact we have to tell tax people what we've earned in the previous year was the whole idea.

I didn't think that Child tax credits were actually classed as a 'benefit', and as alot of working families on here are claiming them, we're all 'claiming benefits' then.

There are two different lots - "working tax credit", which you get if you work, and "child tax credit".

Of course they are benefits! What else do you think they are?

So working families claiming them are indeed claiming benefits.

Not all families get them by any means. We don't, for example.

clearingout

peachyprice wrote: »

But you and your husband weren't living on benefits before he walked, you worked he (presumably) worked. Would you have then gone on to purposely have another baby once you were a single parent to 3 children just for the extra benefits the 4th would bring?

Those are the people the cap is aimed at, non-working families who keep breeding, not families whose circumstances have changed.

No, I wouldn't. I see your point.

Person_one

clearingout wrote: »

I don't know much about DV, but I suspect that's too simple a view on things, however logical in a benefits sense.

It is too simplistic. This is an extreme example of course but Josef Fritzl fathered 8 children with his daughter, he wasn't getting any benefits for them obviously.

clearingout

lostinrates wrote: »

this has been raised many times on the ''debate economy'' board where there is a strong opinion that suh a system would cost far more to administer. Also, vouchers would probably have a ''black market'' value so that in some case children would do with out still.

Not to mention it's like wearing a neon pink coat with 'on benefits' written across your forehead....not very fair, particularly for children who can be bullied for far less.

peachyprice

Person_one wrote: »

Petrol? Heating? Water bills? Phone bill? New appliances? Home repairs? Toys (yes children NEED toys)?

Water and toys yes, petrol possibly. But what relation does the number of children you have bear to new appliances, house repairs, heating, phone?

Person_one

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

That's where we differ. My personal view is that anyone who can deal with two babies and small children is more than fit to work!

There could be sooo many situations where this isn't true, you need to try and be a bit more open minded and tolerant.

Also, when people have disabilities finding work becomes a lot harder, even if they are capable and willing. You can be blind, deaf, be a wheelchair user, have cerebral palsy, have MS, have tourette's, a facial deformity or any number of other things and be a great parent while finding it very hard to get and keep a job.

cavework

Person_one wrote: »

Ah, you've misunderstood, I'm the healthcare assistant not the employer, sadly I didn't decide the wage!

Most care work is very low paid and yes, it is low status, requiring no qualifications, no registration and not very respected by most.

Thanks for clearing that up and for the record .. my respect to you and others involved in this type of employment .
NO WAY low status :A
xx

lostinrates

clearingout wrote: »

Not to mention it's like wearing a neon pink coat with 'on benefits' written across your forehead....not very fair, particularly for children who can be bullied for far less.

I'm not so sure about this argument for the people who are lifestyle claimants. An acquaintnce of mine (NOT a friend) tells me the details of her claiming status almost every time we meet. I really don't want to know TBH. There is NO shame in it for her, none what so ever.

Another person who I am much closer to to the outside world look incredibly well off. Her HB is topped up by an ex to rent a gorgeous period cottage, her children go to some of the best schools in the country (educational grant provided by a rich god father) and wears designer clothes bought on credit card often baled out by relatives when this debt becomes unmanageable (yeah, I've contributed, so I'm as stupid as the rest of the family), has holidays twice a year pai for by friends to the same very chichi locations and this person snipes at ''slob mothers'' and poverty of standards and decline in the way we live but has lived of friends, family, debt and state with very occasional high profile low pay work since she graduated in the 80s. The shame would probably be a motivating factor for her and importantly, for her children, who have little concept of the reality and finances. (however with feer than four children the cap would not touch them)