Capping benefits at 4 kids?

georgiesmum

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?

I have been saying this for years.:T If you have always been on benefits or are coming into the country with kids the it should be capped. I would cap it at the most at 3 kids. If you have been working for at least 8 years and had your children while working the those children should be entitled to receive benefits. Hard workers who made redundant shouldn't be punished.
And before all the bleeding hearts pleading child poverty, when did you last see a child shoeless, without decent clothes, without a computer or games or the latest TV?:mad:
The birth rate would go down dramaticly if there was a cap. Like many workers i am sick of subsiding other !!!!less parents kids, when i can't afford any more myself, even with us both working.

catkins

clearingout wrote: »

I am an educated, homeowner who has managed her husband's business...the nation needs children like mine to secure it's future (although the first one, to be honest, isn't looking very promising!!!)

kafkathecat wrote: »

Hmmm, DKLS I don't think that Aston Martin would be working to pay your pension 30 years down the line do you?
Children are the future. We already have extremely high rates of child poverty in this country and I do not believe for one second that cutting benefits would stop the poor from breeding (that is what we are talking about here after all). Maybe we all need to dust off our Dickens to see what life was like prior to the welfare state. The real issue is that for the last 30 years there have not been enough jobs to go around. Now some people have accepted that they will not find work we are blaming them for that situation.

I wondered how long it would be before we got the "children are the future" rubbish. So because the population keeps growing people have got to have more and more children to look after all of us?

For a start unemployment is extremely high in this country so a lot of people are not helping in any way. Secondly they are costing us because of benefits and thirdly I think you will find that a lot of workers particularly ones in care homes who are supposedly going to "look after us when we get old" are immigrants or immigrants' children so no need for everyone to have as many children as they want whether they can afford them or not.

I don't see why there is child benefit but if it is going to stay it should be stopped after 2 children.

Why are we paying people to have children? No one pays me to have my dog and I treat him a lot better than a lot of people treat their children

clearingout

georgiesmum wrote: »

And before all the bleeding hearts pleading child poverty, when did you last see a child shoeless, without decent clothes, without a computer or games or the latest TV?:mad:

that's a ridiculous comment and shows total ignorance of how some families in this country live.

lostinrates

kafkathecat wrote: »

Hmmm, DKLS I don't think that Aston Martin would be working to pay your pension 30 years down the line do you?
Children are the future. We already have extremely high rates of child poverty in this country and I do not believe for one second that cutting benefits would stop the poor from breeding (that is what we are talking about here after all). Maybe we all need to dust off our Dickens to see what life was like prior to the welfare state. The real issue is that for the last 30 years there have not been enough jobs to go around. Now some people have accepted that they will not find work we are blaming them for that situation.

DKLS's car might not be the future, but the company making it providing jobs and being in business in a country that is abe to offer favourable environment to busines might well be the future needed for the children!

kafkathecat

Whatever happened to empathy? What most people are advocating is making the lives of poor children even harder than they already are. I find that incredibly depressing.

The people who caused the economic problems we are facing are still getting their pay rises and bonuses but we have all been convinced that the poor are responsible and must suffer.

The birth rate of British born women is 1.84 children by the way which is below replacement rate so that is not the reason the population is growing.

It has been shown that more unequal societies suffer from more crime, mental illness and other social problems. This is what we are all wishing on ourselves.

georgiesmum

clearingout wrote: »

that's a ridiculous comment and shows total ignorance of how some families in this country live.

But why do they live like that? The people who make being on benefits a lifelong thing know the ropes and get a quite decent living allowence, so there is no need for their children to be deprived. It's the ones who come out of work and who have been working all their lives who usually end up on the poverty line.
I am not totally ignorant of poverty,and i sympathise with anybody going through a hard time, i experienced it myself many years ago, when my husband was made redundant. Because i worked for 12 hours a week we got no help.But my children were still well looked after, even if I had little to eat.
There are a couple of families around here who send their kids to kids to breakfast clubs at the school. Beggars believe that they can't afford a box of cereal and some bread.
If you want children work for them.

Marisco

kafkathecat wrote: »

Whatever happened to empathy? What most people are advocating is making the lives of poor children even harder than they already are. I find that incredibly depressing.

The people who caused the economic problems we are facing are still getting their pay rises and bonuses but we have all been convinced that the poor are responsible and must suffer.

The birth rate of British born women is 1.84 children by the way which is below replacement rate so that is not the reason the population is growing.

It has been shown that more unequal societies suffer from more crime, mental illness and other social problems. This is what we are all wishing on ourselves.

The thing is though, if benefits were capped at 2 kids (for everyone IMO) then those kids you talk about wouldn't exist in the first place. People would have to think twice before having kids if they had to keep them themselves. So if they knew that benefits didn't exist for more than 2, then those who had 3+ are being extremely selfish, and don't care if the kids are in poverty or not. It would be entirely their own doing.

SpendlessKaren

I think you should only ever receive benefits for the number of children you have when your first claim, if you then choose to go ahead and have more children then don't expect the state to pay for them.

lostinrates

kafkathecat wrote: »

Whatever happened to empathy? What most people are advocating is making the lives of poor children even harder than they already are. I find that incredibly depressing.

The people who caused the economic problems we are facing are still getting their pay rises and bonuses but we have all been convinced that the poor are responsible and must suffer.

The birth rate of British born women is 1.84 children by the way which is below replacement rate so that is not the reason the population is growing.

It has been shown that more unequal societies suffer from more crime, mental illness and other social problems. This is what we are all wishing on ourselves.

With no disrespect I think you are wrong when you say ''we'' have no empathy. I want those kids to gro up into a healthy economy, be able to find work and live fulfilled happy lives: that is not what we are seing right now...I want contentment, fulfilment for EVERY child in this country, really I do, I just disagree the syste we currently have (and not just benefits per child-I'm not sure it would be viable - but a socil attitude over all) is offering that. I live in a rural area adjoining the ''poorest'' area of a very rich county, and I really would be very happy to see the children born into lo income families be nutured into adults who do not have low aspiration.

Person_one

Marisco wrote: »

The thing is though, if benefits were capped at 2 kids (for everyone IMO) then those kids you talk about wouldn't exist in the first place. People would have to think twice before having kids if they had to keep them themselves.

Do you really believe that? Look at China.

I could post my stats on contraception failure again, I really should have them bookmarked considering the frequency people on here need to be reminded of them!