Help? Are benefits being capped at 3 children?

annie1975_2

pink_princess wrote: »

Ask yourself why? Why would somebody not wish to better themselves or their lives?

Could it be that no-one has made them believe that they can?

Because if they try and better themselves by getting a job they can end up worse off.,,Thats why?

pink_princess

raven83 wrote: »

Quite often people that go to college lose their benefits and end up being worse off. Plus something needs to be in place so that when a single mum does get a job and come of benefits there a safty nets in place, you hear so many horror stories of people not having enough money for the month to live in because their benefits have been stopped and there is a waiting period before their wages kick in. The whole benefit system is very badly thought and there are a lot of grey areas.

But going back to the question, no I don't think a cap is the way forward I think more money needs to be invested into other areas.

In defence of current policy, there is actually a 4 week grace.

You will continue to get your full support for 4 weeks to help you adjust. Again this is something that is hidden and not advertised as well as it should be IMHO.

emweaver

Most people here assume people with kids are solely on benefits, working people who pay tax with more than 3 children would also be affected if this happened. Once again those worse off are being punished as those on good incomes probably dont get much child tax credit anyway so wont miss the money.

pink_princess

annie1975 wrote: »

There are plenty of parents out there who keep having children that have got no income...Sorry they do have an income, a better one than those that are turning out to work 40 hours a week.

You underlined what I had typed yet you choose to completely ignore it :rotfl:

I said average, 3 million unemployed is not an average. The population is around 60 million

emweaver

raven83 wrote: »

But what happens if someone does keep on reproducing while on benefits and it is capped, the children will then grow up in poverty due to their parents being iresponsible? I am not saying there shouldn't be a cap but I don't think it is fair children will have to be punished as a result of their parents actions.

I agree it is unfair on the children, most children whos parents are on benefits are in poverty as it is.

earthbound_misfit

Hmm, we could keep arguing until the cows come home about whether benefits should be cut/how much they should be cut, and whether people are scroungers or simply have fallen on hard times. But unless there are jobs to go to, it's impossible to weed out the scroungers and irresponsible to cut benefits for genuinely vulnerable people.
Politicians need to aim for full employment as in the post-war period. Then those with 4+ children could make their own living, and resources could be targetted at those who need extra help to become more employable. Then welfare provision would be the 'safety net' it was intended to be.

**Patty**

emweaver wrote: »

I agree it is unfair on the children, most children whos parents are on benefits are in poverty as it is.

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

7roland8

Depends how your define poverty though doesn't it?

[Deleted User]

Dunroamin wrote: »

Much better to cap it at two.

what if people already had 4 or even 5 or more kids when they were forced onto benefits through no fault of their own?
hardly fair or better then is it?

raven83

woodbine wrote: »

what if people already had 4 or even 5 or more kids when they were forced onto benefits through no fault of their own?
hardly fair or better then is it?

Exactly what I said, but you know how it is, people in receipt of benefits should all be in the gutter, kids and all, according to benefit bashers.