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

ILW

Scrap CB altogether. If you cannot afford to raise children - do not have them.

quantic

There is more chance in me winning the lottery than this actually happening, and I don't even play the lottery.

N1AK

WestonDave wrote: »

So what

The conservatives need to strengthen their position in the poles just to form a coalition, let alone win a majority. If the rest of the term is spent at loggerheads with the Lib Dems then DC and George will be out of jobs and the party will be out of government. The conservatives have tried leaning hard to the right in the previous election and Howard got thrashed by a very unpopular Blair so the ignorant members of the party who think they can go hard right and win that way haven't learnt from recent history.

The £10k tax-allowance isn't critical to the Lib Dems especially if it is obvious the conservatives are the reason it didn't get through. Most of the voters the Libs have lost would love to see the party stick it to the conservatives and being seen as more independent may actually gain them more votes than being helpful. That is especially true if the economy doesn't improve significantly before the next election.

It's hardly rocket science.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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.

Who can really afford to have children these days without state aid? How much does hospital care cost for the birth, the follow-up snotty noses, education and so on.

If people didn't have children until they could afford to we'd see a massive drop in the birth rate and many people would never be able to have children whilst they were still fertile.

State aid is a given as far as children are concerned. Rather than assuming that the birth rate of unemployed people is too high I'd like to see the figures.

Then we could work out whether we are talking about stopping a few chavs having babies (fair enough), something of economic significance or a politician trying to secure the support of the Daily Mail.

nicko33

N1AK wrote: »

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,

They could stop funding IVF treatment and give those who are fertility-challenged other peoples children. WIN - WIN

Percy1983

It is quite simple, benefits for the first 2 children, after that no more.

If they budget well and decide to have a 3rd child instead of sky TV and an iphone then fair enough, but if they have a 3rd and have sky+iphone and then can't afford to pay for the childrens food/clothing then that is clearly child abuse so take said children off them.

As mentioned rather than then spending so much on fertility treatments give them said children.

As it is we are planning children in the not too distant future as we can support them both emotionally and financially, interestingly we know many people who have stuggled and been through IVF etc and we have decided not to follow that path, if it doesn't work then its not meant to be, we either have no children or adopt.

wotsthat

Percy1983 wrote: »

It is quite simple, benefits for the first 2 children, after that no more.

If they budget well and decide to have a 3rd child instead of sky TV and an iphone then fair enough, but if they have a 3rd and have sky+iphone and then can't afford to pay for the childrens food/clothing then that is clearly child abuse so take said children off them.

If someone's on benefits and they've got 5 kids it's likely they've got into that position because they are stupid rather than having made a mistake in a formula in their budgeting spreadsheet.

I'm not sure it's a simple as you think.

Wookster

This is entirely reasonable.

No doubt Labour and the freak leftwing elements in the Lib-Dems (i.e. Simon Hughes) will object and talk about toffs governing for the rich and rich only.

It is so predictably sad.

drc

They should do both.

Introduce a mansion tax (or land value tax) to target unearned income and unearned wealth and close all the loopholes that allows the rich to avoid paying the majority of tax that they would be paying if they didn't have a very expensive accountant. At the same time they should reduce benefits which incentivise people to have more kids as a way of upping their income. If they target both the very rich and those who have made a lifestyle from benefits, then they not only help the economy but presumably appeal to those voters who think the government favour the rich and those voters who think the benefits bill is too high. We are all in it together so everyone should contribute, not just the squeezed middle.

kabayiri

What a shock eh?

Or rather, a complete non-shock.

This government has to get the deficit under control. To me, it's the primary issue.

This means hard decisions like this. I only wish the last lot had made some hard choices too.

The poor won't come and thank you as a government if the nation goes broke doing 'the socially right thing'.