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

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

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.

Were talking the removal of child benefit for those with over 2 children.

Your point has got to win the award for best overreaction this month.

ukcarper

Percy1983 wrote: »

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.

You look at things in a much to simplistic way and things happen that can put people who are in a good position into one that is very bad and difficult to get out of.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Were talking the removal of child benefit for those with over 2 children.

Your point has got to win the award for best overreaction this month.

I suppose it does look like an overreaction when taken in isolation and out of context from the original post.

The_White_Horse

just have to turn the tap off. people will cope. and if they don't, they don't.

wotsthat

Percy1983 wrote: »

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.

So you think this'll be simpler than just reducing benefits by less than inflation over a period of time?

N1AK

nicko33 wrote: »

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

As amusing as that concept is the idea of a policy based on taking the children off the poor and removing the right to IVF from the middle-class is a non-starter politically.

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

I suppose it does look like an overreaction when taken in isolation and out of context from the original post.

The post which was out of context from the opening post?

drc

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 will be interesting to see if people do stop having more kids if their benefits don't increase each time they have another child. I would bet that there would be a reduction in the number of births each year.

angrypirate

The_White_Horse wrote: »

just have to turn the tap off. people will cope. and if they don't, they don't.

But then, that means the cleverest, most hard working and people with best ethics do best in life and have the children which turn out to be cleverer, harder working and successful.

This sounds awfully familiar, i think ive heard this before. Darwin proposed something very similar called survival of the fittest. You may have heard of it. I dont believe it goes on in the human race in the UK anymore.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

The post which was out of context from the opening post?

Have you actually got a point to make? If so just get on with it.