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

GeorgeHowell

Osborne's proposal makes so much sense on so many levels that it is difficult to see it ever happening.

olly300

The sensible thing would be to give people increased tax allowances for having kids etc. Other EU countries do that.

That way if you don't work then you get nothing.

Obviously some people would get a rebate every year.

CLAPTON

olly300 wrote: »

The sensible thing would be to give people increased tax allowances for having kids etc. Other EU countries do that.

That way if you don't work then you get nothing.

Obviously some people would get a rebate every year.

gosh

just like years ago

ILW

olly300 wrote: »

The sensible thing would be to give people increased tax allowances for having kids etc. Other EU countries do that.

That way if you don't work then you get nothing.

Obviously some people would get a rebate every year.

Why not make people pay more tax the more children they have?

mazza111

I'm on the fence with this one.

Yes, I agree that someone shouldn't be better off out of work than in work.

I'm a single parent. Not through choice. I was always better off in work. Not by much, but I was better off. But I had the sense (at least I see it that way) not to have more children knowing I am happier on my own.

I can understand where people are coming from that some unemployed keep popping out kids to get more money. I have a family member who's just announced she's expecting baby #3 now that her youngest is 5

The under 25s not getting housing benefit I disagree with completely. It seems the under 25s are caught out at every turn. They can't get tax credits, they can't get HB/CTB (under the proposals) but they pay the same tax when in work as every one else, why shouldn't they get the same benefits as everyone else?

My dd moved out of home, basically because we fought like cat and dog. She was working full time, applied for a 1 bedroom council flat that had been empty for about a year. Decorated it from top to bottom. About a year later, she lost her job through ill health and is now disabled. I downsized my council house due to the shortage of 3 bedroom places for families. She can't move back. 1: I have no room for her. 2: My house has stairs that there's no way she could manage. In fact, she moved back for a few weeks while she was non weight bearing on a broken leg, and lived in my upstairs bedroom. So she could use the loo etc. Not ideal, especially not having to share with her teenage brother but the mobility issues being the biggest problem.

Now if she doesn't get HB, where does she go? Will this not create more homelessness with young people who either cannot find work, or cannot work due to ill health?

I'm sure there are many other children who find themselves homeless due to bad parenting or abuse too. Again, I think this will encourage more homelessness.

PaulF81

Why is any if that the states problem? The under25s are getting screwed because they are apathetic and don't vote. Hence why the boomers are so well protected.

Sad but true.

Emy1501

Can't see this idea working. To be honest Labour had a good idea with sure start centres. The problem is that people do not seem to understand that the type people who are going to have lots of children on benefit are often not the type who are going to look for advice on how to raise their children.

IMO would be better if the government forced these people to attend these sort of centres to teach people how to improve their lives and the lives of their off spring so we can try to stop the generations on benefit claimants.

There is an estate near me and when you see the parents taking the kids to school you can tell in many a case that there is little hope for these kids in the future.

Also yes most of the the parents have a smart phone and are always smoking at the bus stop etc.

Generali

Emy1501 wrote: »

Can't see this idea working. To be honest Labour had a good idea with sure start centres. The problem is that people do not seem to understand that the type people who are going to have lots of children on benefit are often not the type who are going to look for advice on how to raise their children.

IMO would be better if the government forced these people to attend these sort of centres to teach people how to improve their lives and the lives of their off spring so we can try to stop the generations on benefit claimants.

There is an estate near me and when you see the parents taking the kids to school you can tell in many a case that there is little hope for these kids in the future.

Also yes most of the the parents have a smart phone and are always smoking at the bus stop etc.

We had a Sure Start centre near us in Wapping. It was full of middle class mothers from the secure apartment buildings down by the Thames.

Emy1501

Generali wrote: »

We had a Sure Start centre near us in Wapping. It was full of middle class mothers from the secure apartment buildings down by the Thames.

Yep no different to where I am. Personally I would charge £3-£5 a time to those not on benefit to attend and force those who are on benefit to attend.

The kids of the parents being targeted need to be given a better start in life if we are to get out of the generations of benefit claimants.

SingleSue

Why those just on benefits to attend? Would it just be some of those on benefit or all?