Capping benefits at 4 kids?

clearingout

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?

so how would that have worked for me? I had 2 children and was pregnant when my ex husband walked out, taking everything we had financially and I had at that point only one day's work a week. No choice but to claim benefits and they're still chasing him for maintenance 3 years later (no end in sight to that....). Should I have been capped at 2, then? Should I have been forced to have an abortion 'cos I'm a benefit scrounging '!!!!wit'

Lotus-eater

lostinrates wrote: »

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?

It's actually quite easy, you just only give out breeding licences to couples who earn enough money after expenses.

Then you only give out it to people who meet the racial and intellectual values that you embrace in that particular country (apart from the [STRIKE]party[/STRIKE] country club members who you know personally of course.)

That should cut down on the scum breeding.

And if they breed anyway? Maybe some sort of prison camp where they work for the good of the nation? The new motorway gulags? Certainly mean we could build those new roads we need and not have to go into more debt! Win win.

FATBALLZ

Person_one wrote: »

Will you volunteer to get the ball rolling (so to speak )

Well I can support my kid(s) (and I pay enough tax to support numerous other peoples), and I still won't be having more than 2 because I don't want to make overpopulation worse, but if for some reason I couldn't fund any more kids in full myself I can assure you I wouldn't have them.

But it's not people like me (or with my attitude to this, which I like to think most people share) that are the problem, it's those who will never contribute to society and take take take, you can't educate them, you can't bribe them, what can you do?

I'm not really interested in making the case for it to be honest (and making myself even more unpopular on here than I already am;)), but it's the elephant in the room and the reason why this debate always goes round in circles, because everybody is scared of stating the obvious.

lostinrates

elaine373 wrote: »

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.

IMO the current system is not furthering children' longterm welfare. Difference of opinion does not mean that people are oppose to the welfare of people, or children, necessarily, just that they have differences in opinion in how best to improve that.

Lotus-eater

moomoomama27 wrote: »

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?

No I agree that we have got ourselves into a horrible situation, with some people living off the state to an unbelievable degree.

But saying to put the cap on the amount of children you earn benefits for, maybe isn't the right way of doing it.

Certainly alot of it could be sorted out with more diligence paid to the rules already there, which means alot more money being put into the watching where the money goes.
We might not make any difference in the cost for a while, but in the end, it would pay.

cavework

Person_one wrote: »

Unemployment is the highest its been in 17 years. Go to the employment board and see how many motivated people are struggling to find anything.

300 people applied for my minimum wage low status care job. 300.

Just out of interest , how many of the 300 applicants wanted to work just 16 hours, or over 30 because of the effect on their benefits?
I also have had above minimum wage jobs advertised,not low status what ever that may be. (I would not describe caring as a low status job )..
a decent job none the less working Mon to Fri , daytime , above minimum wage and permanent and yet these were the first questions I was asked by some applicants.
Yes times are tough and there are those out there desperately looking for work .. these are the people I want to employ.
The fact remains
Two people make a baby .. not one and until this fact is addressed and dealt with and some absent fathers are made to face up to that responsibility and some Mothers are made aware of the fathers responsibility, other people will still have to subsidise the 'contraception failures' that do happen in what (lets be nice) is called a 'brief encounter while others like Nara take responsibility before expanding her family.

FBaby

People have children either because of a strong desire to become a parent -again-, in some occasions purely because they can gain financially from it, and in most cases of benefits, a combination of both. Many people who earn too much to be entitled to any benefits have to make the heart wrenching decision not to have more children because they just can't afford to. The same restriction should apply to people on benefits.

I agree that a cap of a specific number would be unfair, however, any child conceived whilst on benefits should accrue no extra benefits but for CB if that is to remain universal. If an 'accident' happen, they should make due with what they have just like a couple not entitled to any benefits would need to do.

Person_one

cavework wrote: »

Just out of interest , how many of the 300 applicants wanted to work just 16 hours, or over 30 because of the effect on their benefits?

It wasn't an option, it was a 37.5 hour job.

claire16c

elaine373 wrote: »

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.

How on earth would someone have 8 children through no fault of their own?

Lotus-eater

cavework wrote: »

Two people make a baby .. not one and until this fact is addressed and dealt with and some absent fathers are made to face up to that responsibility and some Mothers are made aware of the fathers responsibility, other people will still have to subsidise the 'contraception failures' that do happen in what (lets be nice) is called a 'brief encounter while others like Nara take responsibility before expanding her family.

I think that's right, the fathers should be pursued for the money to bring up their children.

But in my experience, the ducking and diving that goes on here is unbelievable. They need to get very tough on them and beef up the avoidance laws. Also much stricter sentences if you are caught cheating the system.