Help? Are benefits being capped at 3 children?

themull1

Adereterial wrote: »

I'm sorry, what? Terminations are available, on the NHS. They may not be convenient to obtain, but nor should they be. They are statistically safer than continuing a pregnancy, can be performed medically or even without anaesthetic, in the early stages. Religious or moral reasons not to have a termination boil down to choice, not inability or unavailability, and governments should not pay for an individual's choice.

Governments have to draw lines - they cannot do such things on a case by case basis, as everyone would feel they were entitled. 3 children is over the national average per family.

Terminations are very easy to obtain on the NHS, i think benefits should be capped at two kids, and those that want more, pay for them yourselves!

Mortgage_Reduction_Novice

themull1 wrote: »

Terminations are very easy to obtain on the NHS, i think benefits should be capped at two kids, and those that want more, pay for them yourselves!

Well said.

themull1

skylight wrote: »

I have more than average children now as I have taken on my grandson. It was either me or the care system.

I will lose everything I get currently get for him whilst saving the local authority £00's a week in care fees. No CSA from either parent and I will be lucky to get a SGO allowance in court.

Fair? Unfair? Whichever way, I will have to make do along with everyone else in the UK.

Child benefit?

Own_My_Own

Just checked and the cap is £500 PER WEEK for a couple or lone parent, regardless of the number of children.
I understand this includes housing benefit and ct benefit, but £500 is still a awful lot of money !

chris1973

A great idea if it happens.

Much better to cap it at two

Agree 100%. As its perfectly possible to live beyond your means due to the size of the family you have chosen to have, as it is to buy luxuries and take expensive holidays etc.

Two years ago I got rid of a second vehicle, and this year I cancelled a holiday, because times are getting tough and I couldn't justify the expense, but at no point did I expect the tax payer to pick up the shortfall so I could continue with my plans, even though continuing with both would have brought me the same endless joy and happiness, that others seem to get from expanding their family, and its my "human right" to be happy dontcha know!.

Since there is no chance of reversing the decision to have a large family later on down the line, anything that perhaps makes couples stop, think twice and re-examine their financial situation before heading to the bedroom to continue their plans and perhaps seal their financial fate even further,is, IMO, a very good thing.

This country is rapidly heading for ruin, more and more people are joining the unemployment lines, no doubt adding to the number of various benefit pay outs and common sense dictates that very soon a meltdown will occur when the payments going out far exceeds the payments coming in from the taxes of the minority still lucky enough to have a job. The current gravy train will eventually become too expensive to run and I suspect the G'ment can already see this on the horizon, hence the recent discussions on what they could possibly cut and when. When it does happen there is going to be a hell of a lot of hand wringing.

thorsoak

In time to come, I do believe that benefits will be capped at a certain number of children - although I think it would be fair to announce that those families which were above whatever is considered to be the maximum number should continue to receive benefits until the youngest child is out of education - but not for any more children born to a particular mother.

I make the point of "children born to a particular mother" deliberately - otherwise one could have "families" forming and reforming - ie parents breaking up, starting a new relationship with a new partner, therefore new baby - ad infinitum.

To me it seems unfair that the majority of decent working couples have to agonise over whether or not they can afford to start a family whereas the !!!!less amongst us can pop out babies quicker than a cash machine can pop out the readies!

raven83

So what happens if you have 3 or more children and your OH gets made redundant? Do they deserve to have their benefits capped? And to be honest I don't think they will it for sometime, and obviously once labour get in at the next election I doubt it will come into play.

MissMoneypenny

paddedjohn wrote: »

A great idea if it happens.

It would be a disgraceful idea!

It should be capped at 2.:D

EDIT: Dunroamin beat me to it

pickpocketlocket

raven83 wrote: »

So what happens if you have 3 or more children and your OH gets made redundant? Do they deserve to have their benefits capped? And to be honest I don't think they will it for sometime, and obviously once labour get in at the next election I doubt it will come into play.

Economies of scale mean that the marginal cost for each additional cost will be minimal.

I wouldn't take it as gospel that labour are going to be elected next time round ...

annie1975_2

raven83 wrote: »

So what happens if you have 3 or more children and your OH gets made redundant? Do they deserve to have their benefits capped? And to be honest I don't think they will it for sometime, and obviously once labour get in at the next election I doubt it will come into play.

.

That is what i have always thought..its these that keep having kids whilst on benefits thats draining the system.(amongst other things).