George Osborne....Limit amount of children for benefits

Graham_Devon

George Osborne has stated he is looking at limiting the number of children that will attract benefits, as they announce they are determined to wipe £10bn off the benefits bill.

They also want to:
- Limit housing benefits to those under 25....stating they can live at home.
- Possibly cut child tax credits further.
- Look at removing the benefits link to general inflation, and measure it alongside wage inflation.

The lib dems state they will not allow this to happen, and want to see a mansion tax. The tories state they will not allow a mansion tax, as their party members don't like it (in reality - will have to pay it). So we'll probably get some u-turns and a very watered down version in a couple of years.

Theres no detail on limiting the amount of children that will attract benefits.....but can anyone really argue that this is the wrong approach? It's likely, of course, to be going forward, not a reversal for those already in receipt.

ILW

Great idea, but will probably never happen.

CLAPTON

It's likely that little that what was said in the Libdems confernece will ever see the light of day

It's likely that little of what will be said at the Conservative conference will ever see the light of day

Of course nothing was said at Labours conference.

angrypirate

Stop paying the long term unemployed who are breeding like rabbits. If you want lots of kids, you should fund them yourself - not the taxpayer. Finally something sensible

wotsthat

angrypirate wrote: »

Stop paying the long term unemployed who are breeding like rabbits. If you want lots of kids, you should fund them yourself - not the taxpayer. Finally something sensible

What's the difference in birth rate between the employed and the long term unemployed?

angrypirate

wotsthat wrote: »

What's the difference in birth rate between the employed and the long term unemployed?

Im not suggesting all long term unemployed people are breeding like rabbits, merely there are some who are and these people expect the state to fund their children (and sky tv, mobile phones, holidays etc)

WestonDave

Potentially could be traded off for further progress towards the LibDems ambition to see a £10k tax allowance - "sorry Nick - nothing left in the kitty, need to make a few benefit savings to pay for it" would put the LibDems in a tricky place - getting to that £10k figure would be something for them to use to try to save themselves from oblivion at the next election. However with the deficit not falling fast enough they'd struggle to retain their appearance of being responsible with borrowing etc, if they insisted on tax cuts without funding for them.

Once the universality of CB is breached with the income limits, its not so hard to make further limits on its application, but no doubt the child poverty groups will go to town despite the fact that adding more kids into low income families just adds to the number of kids in poverty!

Generali

The argument I heard is a completely reasonable one:

If you are working and you'd like more kids then you have to make a decision, do we have more kids and reduce the lifestyle of my family or do I stay as I am?

However, if you are living solely on benefits then you have a choice: do I stay as I am or do I have another child at the expense of someone else?

The point is, if you are living off benefits then perhaps you should face a choice when you have kids.

Generali

WestonDave wrote: »

adding more kids into low income families just adds to the number of kids in poverty!

Spot on!....................

The_White_Horse

this is right and what MUST happen. the child benefit should not be lost when ONE parent earns more than £50k - but when the household earns over £50k - that will cut it down much further - and be fairer - because two people on a combined £50k are actually much better off than one earner on £50k.

Also, the cutting it for earners over £50k is ridiculous anyway. It should be available for 2 kids only up to the age of 11 (secondary school). By then, the parents should be able to return to full time work.

the idea for cutting housing benefit to the under 25's in genius. they should also make single people over 25 share with other single people. they should also make a two bedroom flat the max anyone can have on housing benefit. if you want umpteen kids, good for you, but don't expect the tax payer to give you housing the MAJORITY can only dream of affording.

The benefits need to be strangled down to a trickle.

Plus, ANYONE who smokes should have their benefits cancelled. At nearly £9 a pack in London, if they can afford these, they clearly don't need any financial assistance.

wymondham

It's a good idea, but there is now a whole generation of people who rely on benefits who would drop into poverty quickly if this were suddenly introduced. It would need to be staged or there will be uproar as wayne and waynetta look glum faced on the Daily Mail....

Just a thought, what about the right to vote being removed from those who receive benefit, then the government have a real incentive to create voters by creating the environment for jobs rather than just buying votes?