Capping benefits at 4 kids?

Lotus-eater

FATBALLZ wrote: »

The only way to both prevent people breeding kids they don't love for a living and prevent kids growing up in poverty is compulsary sterilisation for the !!!!wits who keep breeding kids they can't support. It's still a taboo but in a world with a serious overpopulation problem I fully expect it will hit the agenda in my lifetime.

I've argued that at a dinner party, just to make it interesting.

But it's OK you sitting in your ivory tower and deciding who can have kids or not. But, it makes you a bit of a Hitler, which one could argue, maybe isn't the right way to be heading.

moomoomama27

Lotus-eater wrote: »

How are you going to do it then? Forced abortions? Or kids in poverty, with an even more underclass than what we have now?

I'm not going to do anything! I don't have the power too. I don't think I would be in favour of the suggested at all, but as I've said I do think something needs to be put in place to stop the current trend in children for benefits. There needs to be something put in place to discourage it. I think it has to be finacial, whether that be a cap or locked claim.

victor2

Go and see how "third world" countries manage without a welfare system.
Totally different outlook on life. It doesn't stop them reproducing, they just have a completely different set of values. Children are expected to support their parents as they age. Three or four generations live under the same roof. If necessary, the younger ones are sent out to beg to survive.
We introduced our welfare system to tackle poverty. It gets abused and has contributed to eroding our family values, but which is better? I certainly don't know.

Person_one

moomoomama27 wrote: »

I agree with you, but unfortunatley with parent role models who believe in something for nothing, what hope have they got anyway?

I'm not sure what the solution is tbh, because the ones who always miss out will be the children, not their selfish parents, and before anyone jumps n me, I don't mean all parents on benefits, just the JK type

But something does need to be put in place, because currently, people are suing their children as cash cows, and breeding more and more, and getting paid to do so.

Plenty, with the right support and input. Things like Sure Start centres, health in pregnancy grants, the Bookstart project, and other initiatives of the last government were great ideas.

Cutting all support will not help anybody, you have to think about what you want the next generation to turn out like. All of them, not just the lower middle classes and upwards.

confusedmummy

Maybe there should be more consequences for the fathers of these children so the burden is not on the taxpayer. If the dad doesn't pay for his kids then his benefit should be cut. Like that bloke in the news who keeps getting women pregnant and is on benefits. I would just cut his benefits - would put him off impregnating another woman and leaving the taxpayer to pay the bill.

Person_one

victor2 wrote: »

Go and see how "third world" countries manage without a welfare system.
Totally different outlook on life. It doesn't stop them reproducing, they just have a completely different set of values. Children are expected to support their parents as they age. Three or four generations live under the same roof. If necessary, the younger ones are sent out to beg to survive.
We introduced our welfare system to tackle poverty. It gets abused and has contributed to eroding our family values, but which is better? I certainly don't know.

Ours.............

lostinrates

moomoomama27 wrote: »

I'm not going to do anything! I don't have the power too. I don't think I would be in favour of the suggested at all, but as I've said I do think something needs to be put in place to stop the current trend in children for benefits. There needs to be something put in place to discourage it. I think it has to be finacial, whether that be a cap or locked claim.

I think if we as a country suppor these moves we also have to take responsibility for them whether or not we are personally responsible.

That said, I do not feel things they are support the next generation. I would (relunctantly) support a cap of sorts, but it gets tricky, because I also feel happy to support one parent full time parenting/share full time parenting and very much want to see a fulfilled and successful next generation.

Its clear that there is some abuse of the system, and that the amounts being spoken about (£25k ish?) would be sufficient for a healthy if frugal life for a medium sized family in some parts of the country.


The big sticking point is what will make the children of benefit lifestyle parents not fall into the same trap. It seems being as provident as we are is not stopping the cycle, any one got any other ideas?

Lotus-eater

moomoomama27 wrote: »

I'm not going to do anything! I don't have the power too. I don't think I would be in favour of the suggested at all, but as I've said I do think something needs to be put in place to stop the current trend in children for benefits. There needs to be something put in place to discourage it. I think it has to be finacial, whether that be a cap or locked claim.

When I say how would you do it. In the main of society, it means, how would it be done then?

ie How would your plan be put into action? It's all very well having big ideas, but to actually know what to do, might be a decent thing to know.

Otherwise you tend to sound like large union representatives, ranting at the camera.

elaine373

I dont think it should be capped at any particular number.Someone with 8 children getting enough money for 2 (could be no fault of their own) would find it hard to feed and clothe the children.Children`s welfare should always be the first priority,although i agree some people are irresponsible.

moomoomama27

Lotus-eater wrote: »

When I say how would you do it. In the main of society, it means, how would it be done then?

ie How would your plan be put into action? It's all very well having big ideas, but to actually know what to do, might be a decent thing to know.

Otherwise you tend to sound like large union representatives, ranting at the camera.

That's what I've been saying! I personally don't know how it should be dealt with, just that there are 2 ideas, which could be considered as a start, how one would execute the ideas and make them work? Your guess is as good as mine!

I take it you don't agree with any of it, and that benefits should stay as is?