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

ukcarper

I’m not 100% sure if this is right but I think if you are unemployed you get about £60 a week child tax credit for the first child then about £53 for every subsequent children. I personally think there is scope for a reduction there.

This is on top of child benefit.

Percy1983

wotsthat wrote: »

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.

All the more reason to take children away from that environment.

drc

ukcarper wrote: »

I’m not 100% sure if this is right but I think if you are unemployed you get about £60 a week child tax credit for the first child then about £53 for every subsequent children. I personally think there is scope for a reduction there.

This is on top of child benefit.

If you are an unemployed couple with 2 kids, in my area of London (north suburb) you would get the following;

housing benefit: £230 pw
income support/jobseekers: £111
child benefit x 2: £33.70
child tax credit x 2: £113

Total minimum: £487 per week.

Not to mention all the other things such as full council tax benefit, free school meals, free prescriptions, subsidised nurseries (the one near me suggests those on income support/jobseekers allowance pay half the rate for those not on these benefits etc.

There is definitely scope for some more cuts to the welfare bill.

ukcarper

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.

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.

What if you have more than 2 children when you first go on benefits

ukcarper

drc wrote: »

If you are an unemployed couple with 2 kids, in my area of London (north suburb) you would get the following;

housing benefit: £230 pw
income support/jobseekers: £111
child benefit x 2: £33.70
child tax credit x 2: £113

Total minimum: £487 per week.

Not to mention all the other things such as full council tax benefit, free school meals, free prescriptions, subsidised nurseries (the one near me suggests those on income support/jobseekers allowance pay half the rate for those not on these benefits etc.

There is definitely scope for some more cuts to the welfare bill.

I agree but it needs to be though out properly but we will probably just get the normal knee jerk reaction

wotsthat

Percy1983 wrote: »

All the more reason to take children away from that environment.

It seems that your simple solution isn't so simple if:

a) it doesn't actually stop stupid people having more children

b) it ends up costing more to take the children of stupid people into care.

Percy1983

ukcarper wrote: »

What if you have more than 2 children when you first go on benefits

You will generally find that say if I had 3 children which I could afford and then lost my job and could no longer afford the monthly bills then the budget would be cut back and there would be some reliance on the safety net (be it for only 2 children). With that at that point I would be doing something everyday to get back into work and would get there (In my care probably try to grow my business more aggressively than I currently am too).

You will find those with the work ethic only fall on hard times for short time periods.

With that I would generally see jobloss risks coming and budgetting would be cut back instantly to try and get as far ahead as we could incase the worse happened.

Somerset

wotsthat wrote: »

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.

I disagree. There's different kinds of stupid. The stereotypical five kids chav wil know their benefit/housing entitlement better than most CAB advisor's. Anecdoral from parent's, mate's etc etc.

I remember the time when the guardian reader's claimed nobody would choose a life on benefits, and it was absurd to suggest girls got pregnant to secure a property. Many moon's ago I grew up on a council estate and it was rife then. But it was apparently an urban myth according to the leftie's.

drc

ukcarper wrote: »

I agree but it needs to be though out properly but we will probably just get the normal knee jerk reaction

Yes of course. But it doesn't make any sense to keep paying people to have children. Not only is this economically stupid but it is unfair and encourages people to have children as an alternative to work. This affects the whole of society since the "work ethic" disappears and you get an entitlement culture. Also, at a time when the world is facing population crises and the cost of food, water and fossil fuels are going up, the last thing a relatively wealthy country should be doing is encouraging an even bigger population. The infrastructure in London alone is bursting at the seams!

However, there absolutely needs to be some sort of tax on unearned income and unearned wealth. It is ridiculous that this whole economy is based on house prices forever increasing and we need to revert to an economy based on real industries and not encourage people to speculate on homes as commodities.

Percy1983

wotsthat wrote: »

It seems that your simple solution isn't so simple if:

a) it doesn't actually stop stupid people having more children

b) it ends up costing more to take the children of stupid people into care.

It wasn't so much stop the stupid having children, the point was having more children than you can support is child abuse, be that due being to stupid then so be it, its still abuse.

See the earlier post give the children to those who can't have them, if there is more care needed then it can be cleared against the benefits savings quite easily.