Capping benefits at 4 kids?

967stuart

Should be capped at 0 !! if you cant afford to have kids then don't expect the tax payers to give you cushy life.
Bloody spongers.

skipsmum

DKLS wrote: »

I will sort my own pension arrangements thanks.
"children are the future" do you work in marketing for coca cola?
On a more serious note I would dispute your claims of extremely high child poverty, I have yet to see a child begging for food in this country like I have seen in many countries abroad.

Perhaps the poor of this country should be given incentives in exchange for long term contraception.

As a foster carer I have personally looked after children with ricketts due to poor nutrition, who were found (aged 2, 4 and 5) going through peoples bins.
Obviously this is the extreme end of the scale but I feel the need to point out that there are many children born and living in this country who live in poverty and do not have sufficient access to nutritious food.

lostinrates

skipsmum wrote: »

As a foster carer I have personally looked after children with ricketts due to poor nutrition, who were found (aged 2, 4 and 5) going through peoples bins.
Obviously this is the extreme end of the scale but I feel the need to point out that there are many children born and living in this country who live in poverty and do not have sufficient access to nutritious food.

and who have obviously been failed by the current benefit system: their parent were presumably i receipt of benefits? Fwiw, those being three children would be under the four children cap!

FWIW though I agree with the poster above who points out the expense of dealing with such a system.

lynnexxxo

skipsmum wrote: »

As a foster carer I have personally looked after children with ricketts due to poor nutrition, who were found (aged 2, 4 and 5) going through peoples bins.
Obviously this is the extreme end of the scale but I feel the need to point out that there are many children born and living in this country who live in poverty and do not have sufficient access to nutritious food.

This is another argument though, as with the current benefits system the parents of these children are currently given enough money to feed their children properly. However it seems that in too many cases the parents choose to spend their money on things other than food for their children. You could double, triple even give some people ten times the money the currently have, and I bet that some of them will still not look after their kids properly. Sad but true.

DKLS

lynnexxxo wrote: »

This is another argument though, as with the current benefits system the parents of these children are currently given enough money to feed their children properly. However it seems that in too many cases the parents choose to spend their money on things other than food for their children. You could double, triple even give some people ten times the money the currently have, and I bet that some of them will still not look after their kids properly. Sad but true.

Well said Lynne, throwing money at a problem is a sure way of not solving a thing, i have no objection to paying my taxes to support the most vulnerable in society, but for me that doesn't extend to someone who wishes to out out of working and make a career out of breeding.

Its almost become a right to have a child, whether you have the income, skills, patience or love to raise a child to be a useful member of society.

clearingout

DKLS wrote: »

Well said Lynne, throwing money at a problem is a sure way of not solving a thing, i have no objection to paying my taxes to support the most vulnerable in society, but for me that doesn't extend to someone who wishes to out out of working and make a career out of breeding.

Its almost become a right to have a child, whether you have the income, skills, patience or love to raise a child to be a useful member of society.

but who are the most vulnerable? won't many of us slip in and out of the 'vulnerability' category? I was very vulnerable 3 years ago when my ex walked out on me leaving me pregnant with nothing, but with 3 young children and a job, I am no longer vulnerable. I -and consequently my children- my slip back into the realms of vulnerability if I get a new boss at work who decides they won't give me the extra flexibility I might need here and there as a single parent so I lose my job...we might be vulnerable if one of my children becomes ill or disabled, if I become ill myself or if new legislation lowers the rate of tax credit payments or decides that I have too many children and have to take responsibility for them myself...

how many women of child-bearing age suffer discrimination in the work place because their bosses believe that they will leave 'soon' to have children? how do we protect women from this so that they are able to reach their full career potential alongside of having children, if so desired, which will in turn financially protect both mother and children should their relationships break down?

how do you discriminate between a non-working woman who had children whilst married and now finds that she can't mange the shift work she trained hard for as a single mum 'cos there's no childcare available when she should be performing emergency surgery at 3am, and those mums who have chosen not to work and breed? are not the children of both these women 'vulnerable' and should we therefore not support them?

You can't stop people having children. Putting a cap on the benefits received will simply mean more children live in poverty and the gap between the 'have nothing at all' and Daily Mail readers will continue increase

Marisco

But surely if people know, in advance, that there will be no money available for more than say 2 kids, the sensible thing would be to limit it to 2. If only for the reasons you state, that you might find yourself single, widowed whatever. That way it wouldn't discriminate against the "poor". Limiting it to benefit claimants only, doesn't sit well with me, but I do understand why people agree with it. There is enough "them and us" around already! I'm all for limiting it, but to everyone. Maybe people should think more about the "what if's".

Person_one

Marisco wrote: »

But surely if people know, in advance, that there will be no money available for more than say 2 kids, the sensible thing would be to limit it to 2. If only for the reasons you state, that you might find yourself single, widowed whatever. That way it wouldn't discriminate against the "poor". Limiting it to benefit claimants only, doesn't sit well with me, but I do understand why people agree with it. There is enough "them and us" around already! I'm all for limiting it, but to everyone. Maybe people should think more about the "what if's".

You could call it the 'Two Child Policy', now what would the consequences be for people having more than two?

(I don't want any children, can I transfer my child allowance to let two friends have one more each?)

Marisco

Person_one wrote: »

You could call it the 'Two Child Policy', now what would the consequences be for people having more than two?

(I don't want any children, can I transfer my child allowance to let two friends have one more each?)

No extra cash. I said in an earlier post that not paying for a 3rd + would not mean people couldn't have more than 2, but they shouldn't expect any money for it. So with that in mind, it would make people think twice before having any more.

No. Or you could if you were willing to pay them what they would have got in benefits for the qualifying time

clearingout

Marisco wrote: »

But surely if people know, in advance, that there will be no money available for more than say 2 kids, the sensible thing would be to limit it to 2. If only for the reasons you state, that you might find yourself single, widowed whatever. That way it wouldn't discriminate against the "poor". Limiting it to benefit claimants only, doesn't sit well with me, but I do understand why people agree with it. There is enough "them and us" around already! I'm all for limiting it, but to everyone. Maybe people should think more about the "what if's".

marisco, I agree. It's the 'what ifs' that matter....I think most of us don't think about that until either it actually happens or it happens to someone who is close enough to us to make us realise how it would impact us if it had happened to us. But then, perhaps we are cautious people. One of the reasons my ex regular cited for leaving me was that I had an unreasonably high expectation of security and that consequently, I am risk averse. I don't consider this true - for many reasons I won't go into - but being what I consider sensible is definately something that contributed to the breakdown of my marriage. Would you credit it? You ask for your husband to be sensible with money and you end up on benefits when he !!!!!!s off with the book-keeper....honestly!