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

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

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

The long term unemployed birth rate should be a lot lower. I have no idea what the figure are, but even if it's half the rate of the employed (I highly doubt it is) that's too high.

Why should anyone, bar those truly unable to work, have children if they can't afford to do so? let alone 2,3 or 4 that we all see around us.

N1AK

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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.

Yes. Why should the state decide the correct family size? Why should someone who has never worked be supported for two children but a mother who has worked since school gets no more assistance?

Child benefit exists for two reasons:
1/ A blatant parent vote grab.
2/ To avoid children living in 'poverty'.

The first is the reason why the government can't even consider removing it completely. The second is the reason why the government can't limit the number of children eligible. If they limit child benefit to two children then what is their plan to deal with parents who have 3+ kids that they can't correctly support? Take the children from the parents, produce some other benefit scheme or let the children live in poverty because of their parents.

somethingcorporate

wymondham wrote: »

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 an incentive to create voters by creating the environment for jobs rather than just buying votes?

To quote Wayne directly: "Am I bovvered?"

I think the above are great proposals, having kids should be a sensible decision not a foolish one assuming someone else will pick up the tab.

N1AK

wymondham wrote: »

Just a thought, what about the right to vote being removed from those who receive benefit

And the military in case they vote themselves out of wars, the police who are supposed to be impartial, government employees who get to vote for their boss and tax payers who have an incentive to vote for their own narrow interests over the nations...

The_White_Horse

N1AK wrote: »

let the children live in poverty because of their parents.

i think this is the only option that will teach these people. a shame for the kids, but eventually the parents will learn.

N1AK

WestonDave wrote: »

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.

It wouldn't work. The conservatives have already pledged to support that measure and they'd be seen as the roadblock to it. Additionally, the vast majority of the governments platform is conservative led and the Lib Dems are critical in passing all of it due to the coalition. The conservatives have more to lose by the coalition becoming dysfunctional; the Libs could treat stonewalling benefit cuts etc as acting in the interests of the needy against the rich man's party.

MrsE_2

It's about time it was changed. If workers want more children they have to stretch the same amount of money (perhaps less if you factor in additional childcare) around their family. Their employer does not increase their salary.
I think they should scrap child benefit & give a 5k (or there abouts) tax allowance per child.
I think the basic TA should be raised to at least 10k.

I think rent benefit should be capped at the equalivent council or HA rent for the area & be for a maximum of 3 bedrooms. It should not increase with additional children.

chewmylegoff

preventing under 25s from claiming housing benefit on the basis that they can "live at home" seems to be a bit unrealistic to me.

i would have thought that most people who can stay with their parents instead of claiming housing benefit already do, especially anyone single under 25 (or in fact under 35 i think now) as they only receive enough housing benefit to rent a room in what is effectively a shared doss house. surely you only do that if you have no other choice? so what is the govt going to do with those whose parents wont have them (and there are plenty of people like that), just plonk them on the street?

further, it is just a greater incentive to have children as presumably you will still be able to get housing benefit if you have children, whatever your age.

wotsthat

angrypirate wrote: »

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)

I misunderstood what you had written. It would be interesting though if we could quantify just how many people we're talking about then we could work out whether the savings are realistic or made up £10bn is a wonderfully round media friendly number.

I'm all for these proposals BTW. We would have liked another child but decided that we were unable/ unwilling to accept the drop in lifestyle. If someone's p**s poor then the current benefits system means they won't be any worse off if they have more children.

I know someone who is exactly the type of person we envisage being impacted. Expelled from three schools and never attended after the age of 14, housed by the council at age 16, doesn't work and doesn't intend to, she's got the iphone, sky, the obligatory Staffordshire bull terrier and a non-working boyfriend with a similar attitude. First baby due shortly - she's 17.

We might be deluding ourselves that she might not have got pregnant if the benefits system was different. Why? Because she's a bit stupid. It must be a struggle as it is being born to imbecile parents without being made even poorer as well.

WestonDave

N1AK wrote: »

It wouldn't work. The conservatives have already pledged to support that measure and they'd be seen as the roadblock to it. Additionally, the vast majority of the governments platform is conservative led and the Lib Dems are critical in passing all of it due to the coalition. The conservatives have more to lose by the coalition becoming dysfunctional; the Libs could treat stonewalling benefit cuts etc as acting in the interests of the needy against the rich man's party.

So what - it was never Tory policy and they've got what they wanted with the 50p rate cut. The LibDems desperately need a big headline acheivement to save their necks at the next election - they need that £10k allowance in place far more than the Tories need anything else so whilst there may be some front of house opposition, there may well be a back door compromise. The LibDems aren't going to win many votes from those on benefits anyway, so they are far better off helping their low earner constituency than going too far into bat for people many of their voters might see as idle scroungers.