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

dawn_rose

itd also be a cut on ctc which pays out more that the child benefit does. It would put a stop to large families who have no intention of working claiming but a bit mean if you already have one child and when you have the second one your allowed to have is a multiple birth, these things do happen.

Graham_Devon

FTBFun wrote: »

If you're calling a radio station in the middle of the day on a Thursday, the chances are you would be annoyed at a reduction in state benefits....

Erm....why?

As I said, they were workers....only know that as they stated they were and a couple stated their jobs. One a nurse, another a foactory worker. Didn't catch the other as she ranted so much and in the end they cut her off.

wymondham

I would guess to pretty much everyone reading this that the first thought is 'yep that makes perfect sense' followed by 'why has it taken so long for a politician to figure it out?' ..... ;-)

FTBFun

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Erm....why?

As I said, they were workers....only know that as they stated they were and a couple stated their jobs. One a nurse, another a foactory worker. Didn't catch the other as she ranted so much and in the end they cut her off.

Just having a dig at people who ring into radio stations.

ukcarper

I think child benefit and child tax credit amounts to about £60 a week plus any extra housing benefit.

I think it is good idea but if you have more than 2 children when you start claiming you should get extra I'm not sure you need £60 a week per child though.

wotsthat

alinwales wrote: »

I'd be worried about the people who wouldn't be able to comprehend this change, and keep churning out sprogs. No, wait I'd worry about the resultant sprogs. Until they end up in a young offenders' institute.. then they'd claw back the taxpayers money. What goes around comes around.

Does seem like a step into the unknown - stupid people are still going to have children that they can't afford and they'll need supporting. Maybe a more sensible approach is to implement a sliding scale and, over time, make the scale more severe.

Can't say I'm against the idea in principle but it's not as if the unintended consequences are that difficult to predict.

GeorgeHowell

It;s a wonderful and long overdue idea. But I very much doubt that it would get through the European Court of Human Rights.

Mind you if Cameron is serious about telling it to b****r off regarding votes for prisoners, will we still be in it ?

DervProf

I heard a woman on Radio 5 this morning, complaining bitterly about this ruling. Something along the lines of "this government are preventing people (especially poorer people) having children". She went on and on, interupting the chap who was trying to make a case for the new rules.

Unbelieveable, the "because we're worth it" attitude of this woman. She was implying that people should be able to have as many children as they want, and how dare the government not dish out benefits to the parent(s). And anyway, some religions don't allow contaception, so there's another good reason to keep dishing the dosh. :mad:

As the (in my opinion) sensible fellow tried to explained to her, the government aren't preventing people having as many kids as they want, they are simply not going to fund unlimited reproduction.

Good ruling, in my opinion, and long overdue.

alinwales

Question: how do you stop women getting pregnant?

Graham_Devon

alinwales wrote: »

Question: how do you stop women getting pregnant?

You can't. But what's the point of your question?