Help? Are benefits being capped at 3 children?

Ellejmorgan

mumcoll wrote: »

She is not a neighbour and I am not jealous of her. Her day will come.....:D

she may be getting working tax credits...

emweaver

**Patty** wrote: »

Barnardo's would disagree:

*In the UK 58% of children living in poverty are in a family where someone works .*


http://www.barnardos.org.uk/what_we_do/our_projects/child_poverty/child_poverty_what_is_poverty/child_poverty_statistics_facts.htm

Yes exactly a lot of working people rely on these benefits as I mentioned in my previous post not just those solely on benefits.

emweaver

john539 wrote: »

Who cares, get on with your life.

Her day will come, for what, for you false reporting, which the system can do without, as that is what the majority of reports are, from jealous nosey neighbours, friends, ex partners, people with a grudge.

It costs money to investigate these false reports too, another waste of tax payers money.

emweaver

krisskross wrote: »

Why on earth didn't you study with the OU while you had the opportunity? It would have been totally free, in fact they would have given you a grant to do it.

Not everyone knows or is entitled to study free with the OU.

Dunroamin

gregbythesea wrote: »

Since when has it been the case that children should only be brought into this world if and when the parents can demonstrate that they can support them?

.

Don't be silly, Andy, that's the way most people have always decided whether or not to have children. Having children in the expectation that the government would support them is a comparatively recent development.

BurnleyBob

Sbridle82 wrote: »

I am currently 4 weeks away from having my 3rd. Totally unplanned and a shock to say the least. However we could not consider a termination and, yes we will be skint, but we have worked out we can live.
I totally agree benefits should be capped, and maybe even at 2.
We both work and between us earn around 26k. No where near well off. However, even afer this one i will go bk to work. People who dont and live off benefits disgust me and they are the reason the country is in such a mess.
People who say they cannot work as they have kids drive me mad. If your child is in school, work them few hours. If they are younger put them in nursery. I appreciate that nursery is expensive, however this is what the childcare element of tax credit is for. I also understand some people have a child with disablilties, again this is what disability and the carer allowance is for. If they are in school. Work a few hours. If you husband/partner is off work, go to work!
My husband works 5 days and i work the 2 days he is off. We never see each other or have family days. But this is how we get by. I wouldnt dream of quitting work. But seeing how much more tax credits we get from one child (£545 per year) to 3 children (roughly £4500- ive not had a renewal til he is born) is it any wonder people carry on having more and more. Something needs to be done to stop it. If you cant afford them, dont have them.
End of.

I'm not sure if your post is a wind up. It's certainly full of irony, especially the penultimate sentence.

I presume that you do know that the various Tax Credits are benefits? It sounds like you are itching for the new arrival so that you can bag more of them and, I daresay, you'll be equally quick off the mark to submit another Child Benefit claim form.

I strongly suspect that the pair of you would have given a termination an awful lot more consideration than you did had the extra benefits that you'll eagerly pocket were not available.

FBaby

princessdon wrote: »

But surely women should think of that?

I agree with this. Whether married/in a secure relationship or not, the more children, especially without working, the more vulnerable you are. It's not just about divorce/separation, it's about redundancy, illness of the parents, giving birth to a child with disability.

Yu can't make decisions that will affect you for many years to come taking only the present situation into consideration. Of course, that doesn't mean that no one should have more than 2 kids, but you have to be prepared to the fact that you might struggle the more children you have, not the other way round.

Saying that, I agree with everyone that the consideration to stop benefit after 3 children is mainly to stop the number of people already on benefit not having to weigh whether they can afford to have more because they know they will not only not be worse off but actually better off.

I don't care what people say about 'accidents' and those, but anyone choosing to have more kids or not insuring that they don't (and no, I don't believe that it happened when I was on the pill which seems to be an affliction targetting specific people...) are nothing more than selfish and disrepectful to those who are already providing food and shelter to their current family.

Mojisola

As someone else has said, an employer doesn't give you a wage increase if you have an extra child so why should the DWP hand one out?

A family living off benefits shouldn't be getting more money than the take-home pay of a minimum wage worker - wage plus any CB, HB, etc, that can be claimed.

john539

Mojisola wrote: »

As someone else has said, an employer doesn't give you a wage increase if you have an extra child so why should the DWP hand one out?

A family living off benefits shouldn't be getting more money than the take-home pay of a minimum wage worker - wage plus any CB, HB, etc, that can be claimed.

Do you want the government checking up on every child every week or month to check if they are ok ?

leveller2911

john539 wrote: »

Do you want the government checking up on every child every week or month to check if they are ok ?

Obviously not but neither do we want people taking advantage of a system that was set up as a safety net.

I don't don't have any problem with cutting benefits and encouraging people to only have the children they can finance.There will always be anomoly where people will be made redundant etc so I suggest a system where everyone qualifies for benefits but only for a certain number of years of their lives and linked to NI contributions.

I'm 43 and was told at school I will pay NI stamps which will go part way to a state pension when I retire at 65.I like most others have now been told its gonna be 67,68 or even 70 so as successive Governments constantly move the goal posts I have no problem with them moving them now.

The crux of this is we pay more out in benefits than we receive in income tax receipts so it doesn't take a genius to work out we can't afford the massive benefits bill. Besides that why should people still receive benefits which will total an gross annual wage of £32k ?.

For the past 20yrs we have thrown money at the benefits system, a sizeable minority of people have manipulated their working hours to claim maximum benefits or the long term lazy dolites just keep taking the money.

What we need is less carrot and more stick.;) Happy medium between Neo- capitalism and the lefty Socialist sh1te that we have had from the last Nu-Labour clowns.