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

Shakethedisease

It'll never happen. The lib dems won't like it. Thankfully.

And Sue, there's no need to justify yourself. Though I will confess I was more than a little taken aback that you seem so keen to judge others.. 'Those that breed for money'..?? Others will have circumstances such as your's and mine in the future too. I personally would be the last to lump anyone who finds themselves alone with more than 2 kids, or pregnant with a third as simply 'in it for the cash' as the government seems to want. The average age of a single parent is 38 years old...

As a policy it's practically unworkable. Soooo... you put in a policy from x date where you get no benefits other than for the first 2 kids. Fine.

Then you lose you're job when you've got 3 kids.. then what ? Or you have a 3rd kid when you're claiming benefits.. then you get a job, then what ? Then you lose it again ?..Hubby runs off and you can't afford the childcare for the 4 kids you have.. then what ? You get ill after 20 years solid work record.. and you have 4 kids to support ? Well ? Too many variables.

This isn't just child benefit.. it's all child related benefits. So is he talking Housing benefits, tax credits, child care subsidies ? Unworkable.. since the vast, vast majority WILL be working ( part time probably ! ).. and the part time the jobs they work in are insecure by nature.

Its a quagmire this one. And one that would sink the government once the realities of former tax-payers kids going without becomes clear. And most will be. They've made NO effort of distinction between former taxpayers and those that have never worked when it comes to the workfare system... hence 50 year olds that have paid into the system for 30 years are sent out to pick up litter after 12 months unemployment regardless. This will be the same for those that had 3 kid regardless of their previous good standing and work record.

chris_m

parry_hotter wrote: »

What would happen to a working woman in a stable relationship with 1 child who becomes pregnant with triplets and the father !!!!!!s off and for whatever reason she cant go back to work?

The_White_Horse wrote: »

she'd get benefits for two of them.

IMO, in that instance she should get it for all three since there ain't a lot one can do about multiple births. IIRC when China had a ban on more than one child per family, they didn't take sanctions against mothers who had twins.

SingleSue

Shakethedisease wrote: »

It'll never happen. The lib dems won't like it. Thankfully.

And Sue, there's no need to justify yourself. Though I will confess I was more than a little taken aback that you seem so keen to judge others.. 'Those that breed for money'..?? Others will have circumstances such as your's and mine in the future too. I personally would be the last to lump anyone who finds themselves alone with more than 2 kids, or pregnant with a third as simply 'in it for the cash' as the government seems to want. The average age of a single parent is 38 years old...

As a policy it's practically unworkable. Soooo... you put in a policy from x date where you get no benefits other than for the first 2 kids. Fine.

Then you lose you're job when you've got 3 kids.. then what ? Or you have a 3rd kid when you're claiming benefits.. then you get a job, then what ? Then you lose it again ?..Hubby runs off and you can't afford the childcare for the 4 kids you have.. then what ? You get ill after 20 years solid work record.. and you have 4 kids to support ? Well ? Too many variables.

This isn't just child benefit.. it's all child related benefits. So is he talking Housing benefits, tax credits, child care subsidies ? Unworkable.. since the vast, vast majority WILL be working ( part time probably ! ).. and the part time the jobs they work in are insecure by nature.

Its a quagmire this one. And one that would sink the government once the realities of former tax-payers kids going without becomes clear. And most will be. They've made NO effort of distinction between former taxpayers and those that have never worked when it comes to the workfare system... hence 50 year olds that have paid into the system for 30 years are sent out to pick up litter after 12 months unemployment regardless. This will be the same for those that had 3 kid regardless of their previous good standing and work record.

I meant those (the small amount of lone parents who tend to get the rest of us tarred with the same brush), who do have children whilst on benefits for the sole reason of gaining more, or remaining on, benefits.

I agree with your post....there are way too many variables but unfortunately, that small minority (as explained above), is how a fair few people immediately see single parents who just happen to receive benefits for whatever reason.

SAHD_Jim

As someone who chose to delay a family for financial reasons, I agree that the idea of workless families being able to have (and possibly benefit from having) lots of children is wrong. However, we need to keep things in perspective.

Firstly we are talking about a small minority of families receiving these benefits. Anecdotes in rag tabloids like the Mail or Sun about workless families with 10+ kids and flat screen TVs don't help and simply create division and resentment (which is exactly what the government wants). I for one would never want to have the life of these people, flat screen TV or no flat screen TV.

It also needs to be remembered that a large number of these families are not workshy layabouts. Many people receiving these benefits are working part time or/and in low paid employment with little prospect of bettering themselves through a combination of por employment prospects, luck of birth, lack of intelligence, poor education, lack of role models and support systems that us fortunate people often take for granted.

People seem to blame these people for the ills of our economy and yet they are simply the symptom of the problem not the cause. 60+ years ago society required the lower classes to procreate to supply our industrial workforce. We had full employment and most people could earn a living with a full time wage and had a "job for life". Our neoliberal economy that we have had for 30 years that focuses 100% on profit above people no longer has any need for these type of people and initially took the attitude of "just give them the dole". Over 30 years, a culture has been established where the former menial working classes have become the underclass, worklessness has become accepted and the system has provided benefits proportionate to family size.

Simply stigmatising these people is not going to solve a serious underlying problem and the blog attached below suggests that IDS has little idea how much these "plans" would actually save anyway. His statements are more idealogical than economic. Rather than attempting to squeeze an extra £10bn out of the already reducing welfare budget. priority should be given to getting some of the £100bn+ pa that is lost through tax avoidance.

http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-the-truth-about-the-child-benefits-cap/11739

DervProf

SAHD_Jim wrote: »

It also needs to be remembered that a large number of these families are not workshy layabouts. Many people receiving these benefits are working part time or/and in low paid employment with little prospect of bettering themselves through a combination of por employment prospects, luck of birth, lack of intelligence, poor education, lack of role models and support systems that us fortunate people often take for granted.

I`ve heard this argument before, that low paid or part time workers should get financial help if they have kids. And in one respect I can agree that they should get financial help, I don't think anyone of us wants to see a child being under nourished or poorly housed, clothed etc.

However, these low paid workers will also, no doubt, be complaining about the cost of housing (if they are paying rent or have a mortgage). By having children they are adding to the problem. By increasing the population, they are almost certainly putting more demand on the supply of housing. The consequence of helping to fund raising a child is that people who might think twice about having children due to financial restrictions, might well decide to go ahead if they know that the state will help them out. If the state are going to "promote" parenthood in this way, then the state ought to be making sure that the infrastructure of the country these children are going to live in is capable of coping with their needs and demands.

Seems to me that there's has not been a lot of joined up thinking going on. It's OK "doing the right thing" by making sure that parents have enough money to bring up their kids, to promote childbirth to help an ageing population, to allow immigration so that we have enough workers to run the country, but how about making sure that the infrastructure can cope ?

It's not just housing either. I'm sure I'm not alone in noticing (and complaing about) the increasing amount of traffic on some roads. A lot of the typical journeys I do now take a fair bit longer than they did 20 years ago, and it isn't getting any better.

PaulF81

alinwales wrote: »

Question: how do you stop women getting pregnant?

get their tubes cut if they ares on the dole for longer than 3 yearss.

PaulF81

the balance needs to be redressed. its not the natural krder ofthings to support the weak, who are poor due to genetic disposition to sloth or a lack of intelligence.

if we want to progress as a nation, we need to make sure the people who are incentivised to breed are the upper middle class and not the plebs.

chewmylegoff

Shakethedisease wrote: »

It'll never happen. The lib dems won't like it. Thankfully.

And Sue, there's no need to justify yourself. Though I will confess I was more than a little taken aback that you seem so keen to judge others.. 'Those that breed for money'..?? Others will have circumstances such as your's and mine in the future too. I personally would be the last to lump anyone who finds themselves alone with more than 2 kids, or pregnant with a third as simply 'in it for the cash' as the government seems to want. The average age of a single parent is 38 years old...

As a policy it's practically unworkable. Soooo... you put in a policy from x date where you get no benefits other than for the first 2 kids. Fine.

Then you lose you're job when you've got 3 kids.. then what ? Or you have a 3rd kid when you're claiming benefits.. then you get a job, then what ? Then you lose it again ?..Hubby runs off and you can't afford the childcare for the 4 kids you have.. then what ? You get ill after 20 years solid work record.. and you have 4 kids to support ? Well ? Too many variables.

This isn't just child benefit.. it's all child related benefits. So is he talking Housing benefits, tax credits, child care subsidies ? Unworkable.. since the vast, vast majority WILL be working ( part time probably ! ).. and the part time the jobs they work in are insecure by nature.

Its a quagmire this one. And one that would sink the government once the realities of former tax-payers kids going without becomes clear. And most will be. They've made NO effort of distinction between former taxpayers and those that have never worked when it comes to the workfare system... hence 50 year olds that have paid into the system for 30 years are sent out to pick up litter after 12 months unemployment regardless. This will be the same for those that had 3 kid regardless of their previous good standing and work record.

i agree it's a pointless musing by the govt designed to appeal to their core voters, they must understand that it is impractical in any form that will actually save the country a material amount of money. if it is introduced it would be manifestly unfair to, at the very least, (a) people whose circumstances change after having more than 2 children (even more so if they have contributed oodles of tax beforehand - thanks for all your tax but i'm afraid you aren't entitled to benefits, goodbye); and (b) the children affected by it.

i'd like to see some stats on the distribution of children amongst benefits claimants. i wonder if there is even any evidence that people who are on benefits have more children. even if there was that isn't of itself a reason to restrict benefits, but it would at least tell us whether this entire debate is just a complete waste of time or not.

ukcarper

What gets me is that if you are on benefits you get £65 a week for each child after the first to me that seems to high. a single parent with 3 children gets £283 a week after housing costs. A single person gets £71 a week seems to me that a reform is needed.

coastline

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2083998/Benefit-cap-190-families-10-children-cost-taxpayers-11m-A-YEAR.html

A quote from that ...

Nearly 100,000 on benefits have four or more children..with more than 900 claimants having at least eight..

Not all of the above will be unemployed....and of course there'll be millions claiming benefits..