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

PaulF81

paid to breed.

ALIBOBSY

A better policy is the one they are already bringing in which is the UC so you can gradually reduce the total amount benefit claimants get. I would like them to reduce the amount those not working get and increase the amount the low paid get, we need clear water between the income when unemployed and on even a min wage job.

Re the number of children how about a policy where only those working get increases when a child above 2 is born on the UC scheme. Then when becoming unemployed, the number of kids already on the claim carries over. BUT if you are unemployed and have an extra child after 2, you only get an increase after working for at least 6 months full time-so no increases whilst on beenfits. This means a real incentive to work rather than having large families where no one works and working families who choose to have bigger families aren't penalised when life deals them a blow. Doubt it will save much overall, but can easily be rolled into the UC legislation and stops the small numbers having extra kids just to get extra money.

Ali x

dawn_rose

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.[/QUOTE]

Whilst i know alot do it for the love of children i also know a lot of people who have been abused in care. vetting only shows people have not been caught.

dawn_rose

Graham_Devon wrote: »

It would be difficult to feed them on £13 a week anyway, especially under the circumstances you suggest where the parents don't care.

In the situation you describe, proper social service involvement will do massively more than chucking the parents £13 a week. I believe I am considering the children when I say that.

I agree with the child benefit thing if people dont work and have umpteen kids, never worked ect but i dont think they are are better off in care. every case is judged on its own merits but i dont feel multiple births should miss out (they do in current cb system anyway) I disagree that all people on benefits with tons of kids are scroungers i know of people with large families who work but what if they become out of work?

Sorry my post disgusted you, it wasnt my opinion it was truth. A person i know (a loving foster carer) who is on the board to help recruit foster carers has had this stated to them as a reason for wanting to be a foster carer.

the system should be there to help out those who have paid in, those in need through no fault of their own (the reason it was set up in the first place).

jgh

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Then you lose you're job when you've got 3 kids.. then what ?

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.

olly300

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.

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.)

silverchair

KevinRoberts wrote: »

What will happen to people with more than two children if they are on low wages? Will the children just grow up in poverty?

Thats when planning comes into it. If you are on a low wage and want more children then to prevent the future child and your other children from growing up in poverty then you either wait until you can afford it or you get/ invest in the relevant training to get a better paid job.
Remember babies dont just happen, its not beyond your control and its not as if a stork just blonks one in your house.

By the way it wouldnt actually be true poverty would it! Just poor and not able to have as many toys, things that other kids have.

silverchair

There was a discussion on the Sunday politics show. Cant remember the MP's name, but they were saying that there would be exceptions e.g if someone had been made redundant & already having 3 children or if someone gave birth to twins. That sort of thing.

Shakethedisease

What about devout Catholics and other religions that frown on contraception ?

Moby

The_White_Horse wrote: »

i'd like to socially exclude most of these filth bags. useless pointless people, draining our nation of valuable assets. if they have a roof over their head, heating (when needed) and are not starving, they are not in poverty. the end.

Idiots like you think short term. You squeal about the perceived inherent unfairness of the policy but fail to take the long term view...... Those 'filth bags' as you so disgustingly describe them will have children whether you like it or not and the attendant social problems they bring will continue down the generations.....crime, poverty, social exclusion etc....need I go on. The socially responsible thing is to try and assist people no matter how difficult it is and whether or not they throw it back in your face, take the !!!! etc.....because you take the long view and want to live in a better socially caring society.

Your great hero Winston was like you....he got it wrong as well. He thought we could hold on to our 'Empire'. He thought the 'working classes' would be grateful to him for 'winning the war' but he failed to see returning troops wanted proper health and social services. He failed to see that America and the Soviet Union were now calling the shots on the world stage. He failed to get a grip on Europe and make sure that the 'Common Market' was designed in an advantageous way for British interests. Instead he went poncing around the world and left an emerging Europe to the vagaries of De Gaulle. Short term thinking again and again and again!