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

wotsthat

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

At least they are vetted, and are unlikely to be f e c k less, ignorant, self-indulgent, irresponsible drunkards and druggies mumping off the state.

Taking children from people because they don't have enough money is even less likely to happen than a two children benefit cap.

The care system is already struggling to place kids that are the victims of neglect and abuse. Putting kids in care because their parents are skint and/ or stupid is never going to work.

ILW

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.

Can you forcefully sterilise people(yes, men too)?... I think that's probably stepping over a line somewhere... blame it on 21st century civilisation or something.

Do we know how many 'large' families are doing it to milk the system, or how many have no idea about money and just can't be bothered with contraception?

Cobblers, go back 50 years or so to when daft girls who got themselves pregnant were not given a flat and a few hundred quid a week, and the level of unsupported pregnancy was a fraction of what it is now.

GeorgeHowell

wotsthat wrote: »

Taking children from people because they don't have enough money is even less likely to happen than a two children benefit cap.

The care system is already struggling to place kids that are the victims of neglect and abuse. Putting kids in care because their parents are skint and/ or stupid is never going to work.

From a financial standpoint redirect some of the money saved to expand fostering and care if necessary.

I don't see why putting kids in care because their parents are skint and stupid should not work -- that just sounds like defeatism and apologism for the welfare dependent underclass. If the parents don't like it, then wise up, get training, and get a job. The opportunities are there for those who want them. We have huge numbers of E Europeans here because so many of our own don't want to work.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

As an aside, your post disgusted me. £25,000 is a pittance for carrying out foster care, and secondly, 99% are truly loving, devoted, and brilliant people. The amount they have to deal with blows my mind.

£25k did seem worryingly high to me - that may well attract the wrong sort of foster carer. It's closer to £10k anyway (LA allowance for 16 year old outside London) - yes it's not much but more than would be saved from the cut in benefits.

Fostering fees aren't considered when benefits are calculated so maybe benefit claimants could take a leaf out of MP's books and rent their kids to each other?

nomoreboomandbust

alinwales wrote: »

Question: how do you stop women getting pregnant?

Bit of anal helps I suppose:rotfl:

wotsthat

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

I don't see why putting kids in care because their parents are skint and stupid should not work -- that just sounds like defeatism and apologism for the welfare dependent underclass. If the parents don't like it, then wise up, get training, and get a job. The opportunities are there for those who want them. We have huge numbers of E Europeans here because so many of our own don't want to work.

Well good luck. According to Barnardo's there are 3.6m children in the UK currently living in poverty. BTW I don't believe that figure for a second but it does indicate the scale of the task you suggest. That's nearly double the number of children evacuated at the start of WWII.

I think my idea's better. Deliver the stick by stealth using inflation and sliding scales of benefits per child. Cheap, easy and can be fine tuned over time.

As well as the stick a carrot is needed. The carrot isn't that we give benefits claimants more money but an acceptance that we may well have to spend more on them in the short term.

Loughton_Monkey

I find the whole concept of subsidising anyone to have children - even the first - to be alien to modern life and common sense. For most working people, they get £1000+ for the first, and £700 for subsequent children. The 'poor' get well over £3,500 'a pop' when child tax credits apply. Mostly cash in hand and untaxable.

Of course the first step must be to limit it to two. Then give 5 years (say) notice to abolish the whole thing. It tends to ensure (but doesn't guarantee) that children are more likely to be born to those that really want them and can afford to bring them up properly.

In essence, this is what China did for a long, long time. The difference was that they were never stupid enough to give huge benefits for children, so it was impossible to remove them. Instead, they did the nearest equivalent, which was to limit the number of children to one (or twins).

Having a second was entirely possible, but resulted in 'fines' and the need for parents to pay for things like health and education for the second child.

Remember that even if all child benefits were eliminated, those who chose to have 3,4, or 5 kids etc. would still become a disproportionate 'drain' on the taxpayer for their first 18 years or so due to direct costs of education & health.

DervProf

alinwales wrote: »

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.

A carrot ?

So that's how it's done ! (I heard a different story).

System

I agree with the idea but it must be implemented across the board for anything that is affected by the number of children. CB, CTC, HB, housing entitlement etc

GeorgeHowell

wotsthat wrote: »

Well good luck. According to Barnardo's there are 3.6m children in the UK currently living in poverty. BTW I don't believe that figure for a second but it does indicate the scale of the task you suggest. That's nearly double the number of children evacuated at the start of WWII.

I think my idea's better. Deliver the stick by stealth using inflation and sliding scales of benefits per child. Cheap, easy and can be fine tuned over time.

As well as the stick a carrot is needed. The carrot isn't that we give benefits claimants more money but an acceptance that we may well have to spend more on them in the short term.

I don't believe it either. The liberal-left defines poverty in relative terms and considers things like "social exclusion". Unlike them, I would not consider the lack of a 50" LED smart-TV, latest X-box/I-Pad/smartphone, foreign holidays, riding lessons, separate bedrooms for every child (even when same sex), 60 ft garden (minimum), and new designer trainers & jeans every three months grounds for pumping in more benefits, or under the regime under discussion taking the kids away.

Not sure about the soflt-softly-catchy-monkey approach, but we have to try something different. Carry on as we are and before that long there will be less than one working person for every one on welfare (excluding pensioners).