We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Child-related benefits may be 'capped' at two children
Comments
-
Which is exactly why this mess is never going to go away.
The 'mess', in my opinion, will go away (or reduce) when more more is invested in targeted education and benefits reduced.
Arguably the problem is already being effectively tackled - teenage pregnancy rates are lower than the late 1960's. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-171901850 -
Arguably the problem is already being effectively tackled - teenage pregnancy rates are lower than the late 1960's. www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-17190185
Teenage pregnancies are only a small part of the problem.
It's the adult pregnancies where the mother has worked out the system and already has a couple of kids they can't afford yet still chooses to have another, and another, ...0 -
It's the adult pregnancies where the mother has worked out the system and already has a couple of kids they can't afford yet still chooses to have another, and another, ...
You seem pretty sure of that - just how many families are we talking about?
It's too many no doubt but do you have any data?0 -
The 'mess', in my opinion, will go away (or reduce) when more more is invested in targeted education and benefits reduced.
Arguably the problem is already being effectively tackled - teenage pregnancy rates are lower than the late 1960's. www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-17190185
Whilst agreeing that this whole issue is largely about 'education', I have doubts as to how 'targetted' education helps.
As always, with social and behavioural issues, our 'education' or 'conditioning' tends not to come from what many people would term 'education' [i.e. schools, universities, etc.].
Formal education is primarily there to give people reasonable numeracy, literacy, and knowledge-based skills, and hopefully encourage a modicum of common sense and rational behaviour...- I cannot think, for example, of any formal form of 'education' that would reduce murders, crime etc. People learn [or not as the case may be] in the 'university of life' that crime tends to mean punishment, hardship, and being socially outcast etc.. This works for a large majority of people.
- Teach kids accounting, budgetting, investment skills at school. Fine. But then put the young adult in a society in which all his parents, friends, colleagues are spending like crazy, maxing out credit cards, buying 4G on launch day....ultimately the person is most likely to follow suit.
- Teach kids health/diet at school. Fine. But to send him back each day to fat mumma who rams kebabs, fish & chips and coke down his throat is flogging a dead horse...
0 -
These children will end up in care at a much greater expense than the few quid the government may save. Also more poverty will cause more crime.
If your happy with the above then good luck to you.
Im not sure where that jump came from that more children will be put in care because the parent's have less money. The amount of money a parent receives should not determine whether they are good parents are not. A cut in child benefit wont make them suddenly crap parents. They either are or they're not. If they are then those kids would be put in care anyway regardless of a cut in benefits.
" more poverty causes more crime". We need to, as a country move away from this and stop making excuses for poor behavior and hearing out sob stories as a reason for them committing crime.0 -
silverchair wrote: »Im not sure where that jump came from that more children will be put in care because the parent's have less money. The amount of money a parent receives should not determine whether they are good parents are not. A cut in child benefit wont make them suddenly crap parents. They either are or they're not. If they are then those kids would be put in care anyway regardless of a cut in benefits.
" more poverty causes more crime". We need to, as a country move away from this and stop making excuses for poor behavior and hearing out sob stories as a reason for them committing crime.
Quite.
The sooner we stop encouraging people to have innumerable kids without being able to pay for them, the sooner we increase the sense of societal personal responsibility which will in turn reduce the amount of kids born into low aspiration households that predominately and generationally rely mostly on the state for support.
The short termist bleatings from the usual apologists are to be expected. This measure will generate good public support and should be applauded if carried out.Go round the green binbags. Turn right at the mouldy George Elliot, forward, forward, and turn left....at the dead badger0 -
Why should the state support your religious beliefs? I once sat on a Housing Benefit Review Panel where the claimant was demanding extra housing benefit to pay for a house that had an extra room so that he do religious studies. Sorry, that's not what Housing Benefit pays for. If you can't afford room to study that's the sort of thing you seek a scholorship for, not housing benefit.Shakethedisease wrote: »What about devout Catholics and other religions that frown on contraception ?0 -
Most likely, yes.
But things will have to get worse before they can get any better. I'd rather see some kids in care (even if it costs more in the short term) than keep giving money to the wasters they call parents.
Once the adults have realised having more kids no longer gets them more money and a better house, they will stop having them and we will be on the road to solving the problem
No pain no gain.
The point is it dosn't cost more in the short term but in the long term. You are storing up trouble for the future because you are socially excluding whole sections of society who turn into the next decades rioters and burglars. People willl not 'just stop having them'. Having a kid is the only power some young women have. Its a way of getting attention or recognition. Stopping the benefit will just increase the problem and the child, (who after all is the victim in this) will suffer.0 -
KevinRoberts wrote: »If it just happened or it was planned so what, do not expect others to pay for your children.
Cutting back is a good thing, yes some children will grow up in poverty in the UK for the first time in decades but that's what you got when you have an entitlement mentality. This should be a thing of the past.
There is no such thing as poverty in the uk.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards