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

N1AK

Percy1983 wrote: »

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

But where does this odd notion that 2 children is the amount the government should consider supporting, and how many of the extra kids would come from families that used to be able to afford them but can't due to redundancies etc?

Personally I think child benefit needs rolling back considerably. I would prefer we look at a mechanism that says you will only receive it if you could reasonably expect to afford the children when you became pregnant or have been contributing to the economy (working) in the intervening period.

So for example: A mother with 3 children would still be entitled to benefits to support the children if she had them prior to a divorce/separation when the household income was sufficient. However someone who has never worked would not be entitled to child benefit for any children.

I would also seriously consider making some form of insurance (potentially government provided/supported) for loss of jobs etc mandatory for parents so they can look after their children if the wheels fall off.

Percy1983

In the simplest form:

If a child grows up with everything and sees their parents doing nothing for it, they will most likely do the same.

If a child grows up seeing their parents working to get the nice things in life they will most likely work to get by.

Which would you rather had less children?

The end of the day we have enough people in the country, so why pay for more children who are wanted for all the wrong reasons.

Percy1983

N1AK wrote: »

But where does this odd notion that 2 children is the amount the government should consider supporting, and how many of the extra kids would come from families that used to be able to afford them but can't due to redundancies etc?

Personally I think child benefit needs rolling back considerably. I would prefer we look at a mechanism that says you will only receive it if you could reasonably expect to afford the children when you became pregnant or have been contributing to the economy (working) in the intervening period.

So for example: A mother with 3 children would still be entitled to benefits to support the children if she had them prior to a divorce/separation when the household income was sufficient. However someone who has never worked would not be entitled to child benefit for any children.

I would also seriously consider making some form of insurance (potentially government provided/supported) for loss of jobs etc mandatory for parents so they can look after their children if the wheels fall off.

I wouldn't disagree, but it sounds hard to control. But I would agree those who made good choices but where unlucky potentially deserve more protection than those who just made bad choices.

wotsthat

drc wrote: »

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.

I'd bet the same.

However, I can think of plenty of ways in which a government could take a sensible idea but turn the implementation into an expensive disaster that could well increase rather than reduce child poverty.

For example. You've got 4 kids and have another. The 5th child doesn't deliver extra benefits - we've not just introduced one child to the poverty line but all of his/her siblings too.

It's certainly not how a benefits system would be built from scratch but careful thought is needed to unwind it.

Graham_Devon

Deleted my previous post if anyone saw it, as it wasn't Andy Burnham afterall stating what I was writing about.

Was a debate on five live about all this, and at the end of the programme, a left wing thinktank suggested we simply have to stop cheering on and aiming for high house prices, and bigger business profits at the cost of low paid jobs.

If we don't, we'll just end up with more and more people looking for ways in which to prvide a home over the heads....including living on benefits and having more children...as for many, there is no other way. Indeed, they stated in many (most) areas, you simply cannot buy or rent a house and live on "normal" wages starting out today.

Percy1983

wotsthat wrote: »

For example. You've got 4 kids and have another. The 5th child doesn't deliver extra benefits - we've not just introduced one child to the poverty line but all of his/her siblings too.

We've not done anything, the parents have just done that.

Lets not forget the governments current definition of poverty is not have an xbox 360 per child.

Out,_Vile_Jelly

Politicians of all colours appear surprisingly reluctant to even start a rational debate on the subject of limiting child benefit to a certain number of offspring (eg 2 or 3). I don't see the point of fannying around the edges (eg the politically clumsy attempt at taking it away from high-ish earners earlier this year).

There are large numbers of financially harrassed, highly taxed, low- middle income, middle class families who cannot afford to have more kids. The politican who reaches out to them will get a lot of votes.

Graham_Devon

Out,_Vile_Jelly wrote: »

Politicians of all colours appear surprisingly reluctant to even start a rational debate on the subject of limiting child benefit to a certain number of offspring (eg 2 or 3). I don't see the point of fannying around the edges (eg the politically clumsy attempt at taking it away from high-ish earners earlier this year).

There are large numbers of financially harrassed, highly taxed, low- middle income, middle class families who cannot afford to have more kids. The politican who reaches out to them will get a lot of votes.

Listening to 5live today, I can kind of see why. While there are loads of people who would support this policy, the headlines it creates by campaigners are pretty dire.

5 live had a panel on against every cut. But you don't generally get panels FOR every cut. People are only outraged when something is going to get taken away. To be honest, the content of 5live today has been a little saddening. Everyone want's something done, so long as it effects someone else.

wotsthat

Percy1983 wrote: »

We've not done anything, the parents have just done that.

Lets not forget the governments current definition of poverty is not have an xbox 360 per child.

Yes the parents are to blame and it's not your fault. Not their children's fault either - seems to be a little unfair to require them to all live closer to the poverty line as a result. Selfishly I can't help thinking that 5 disgruntled kids are likely to have social problems in the future which might impact on me.

Of course the governments definition of poverty is relative. If that 5th child doesn't deliver benefits and the parents have it anyway then all the children will be poorer whether measured relatively or absolutely.

Percy1983

wotsthat wrote: »

Yes the parents are to blame and it's not your fault. Not their children's fault either - seems to be a little unfair to require them to all live closer to the poverty line as a result. Selfishly I can't help thinking that 5 disgruntled kids are likely to have social problems in the future which might impact on me.

Of course the governments definition of poverty is relative. If that 5th child doesn't deliver benefits and the parents have it anyway then all the children will be poorer whether measured relatively or absolutely.

I agree in many respects, but you have to consider in how many cases does the money make the childs life better or just help mummy get a better iphone contract.

We can but hope that the said 5 children grow up wanting more and work hard to get it.

Lets be honest throwing money at poverty doesn't solve the problem.