Child-related benefits may be 'capped' at two children

mrsf16_2

Simple solution: only pay benefits based on your situation when you go onto them. If you go onto benefits straight from school then you will get paid as a single person until you get work, no matter if you pop out 4 babies.

If you have a child already and are pregnant with another then fine, the government pays for those 2, if you chose to have another 3 more, then that's your choice based on the income you have. You know, like working people... we don't get a pay rise from our jobs because we choose to have another child so why should the non working get extra income when they do?

This would not exclude any genuine cases but I believe would genuinely make people think about the life choices they are making!

mrsf16_2

jgh wrote: »

A workable scheme would be that you get benefits for the size of your family at the time you become unemployed. If you want to increase the size of your family, it's encumbent on you to find the financial means of doing so, but not increase your expenses when you have no income to cover it.

The difficulty with all these proposals is finding a way of not rewarding unlimited breeders, while at the same time not punishing the children of said breeders.

Just read through and saw you and I think the same Could not agree more.

mrsf16_2

olly300 wrote: »

Over the years I know a few women who have ended up in this situation whether they have had a partner or not - they get pregnant and then their employer sacks them.

If this new regime was in place while they are fighting their tribunal claim for sex discrimination which is legally allowed to be delayed and the judges will ensure it is because of pregnancy, they aren't allowed any benefits to support their new born child. (To be fair in all the cases only one needed to use the benefits systems as the others had supporting partners.)

Oh and I also know men who have walked out on their partners when they are in late pregnancy.

Again under these new rules the pregnant woman would only be allowed the benefits of a single person if she had to resort to using the system to support her through a very difficult period in life as when she went on benefits she was a single person. (Actually in both the cases the women worked so didn't need the benefits system but you never know.)

A simple letter, form, or proof of pregnancy from midwife at the time of application would mean that benefits were paid for the child when it was born.

Loughton_Monkey

olly300 wrote: »

....Oh and I also know men who have walked out on their partners when they are in late pregnancy.

Again under these new rules the pregnant woman would only be allowed the benefits of a single person if she had to resort to using the system to support her through a very difficult period in life as when she went on benefits she was a single person. (Actually in both the cases the women worked so didn't need the benefits system but you never know.)

As cruel as this sounds, it is certainly capable of other interpretations.

Just take a 'normal' couple. They have lived together for, say, 7 years. They don't claim benefits. Now husband just walks out. So if you now agree that the woman is "entitled" to benefits, you have to ask yourself why 99 other couples in the same situation might not just 'engineer' a similar situation and make money out of it.

Whatever happened to the Child Support Agency? That was supposed to take over and persue the man for money to support the children. Were they closed down?

markharding557

I broadly agree with the idea of a limit for child targeted benefits, however i favor a more tapered approach such as a higher rate for child 1, a reduced rate for he next two and none after that.

johnny_storm

alinwales wrote: »

Cause and effect.
You get pregnant, you have a baby.
You have a baby, you get free money.

If you stop the free money, it doesn't get rid of the root cause of Waynetta getting pregnant in the first place. Because she's still likely to do it regardless of if there's a carrot or not.

The carrot is that she keeps her benefits to spend on drink and cigs rather than have to spend it on the baby.

Contraception is free, so are abortions.