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

PaulF81

Moby wrote: »

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!

I don't agree with the above. Remove the funding and little Latifa or Chardonnay will learn not to have children. Force single mothers under 25 in with their parents instead of giving them their own place and whatch the birth rate fall through the floor.

Also, why waste money on lost causes?

Emy1501

Another nonsense idea by an out of touch government.

The thought that in the main benefit claimants sit down and think about the financial implications of having kids before they have them is pretty laughable.

Those who are having multiple kids are in the main having them due to a lack of education and ability to use birth control.

Also this idea does is penalise the kids they will have which in turn which means that the likelyhood is they en up just like their parents.

PaulF81

Emy1501 wrote: »

Another nonsense idea by an out of touch government.

The thought that in the main benefit claimants sit down and think about the financial implications of having kids before they have them is pretty laughable.

Those who are having multiple kids are in the main having them due to a lack of education and ability to use birth control.

Also this idea does is penalise the kids they will have which in turn which means that the likelyhood is they en up just like their parents.

Not the states problem. Not my problem. As jeremy Kyle says "put one on the end of it". They will end up like their patents anyway, a bit of hardship might teach them to get a job when they are older.

Emy1501

PaulF81 wrote: »

Not the states problem. Not my problem. As jeremy Kyle says "put one on the end of it". They will end up like their patents anyway, a bit of hardship might teach them to get a job when they are older.

Of course its the states problem as it will be them paying for the future kids and their kids and so on.

Spend some cash on role models etc and teaching these kids from an early age and you may break the cycle.

We are talking about saving 200m here hardly worth bothering about.

Also maybe if you spend some actual money on educating these people the problem may improve.

wotsthat

Emy1501 wrote: »

The thought that in the main benefit claimants sit down and think about the financial implications of having kids before they have them is pretty laughable.

They don't need to sit down and think about it. They will see from their peer group that there is no financial disadvantage in having children.

I expect that people who are having children without having to consider affordability are more savvy than you give them credit for and are highly skilled at extracting every penny they can from the benefits system.

A reduction in child-related benefits will lead to a reduction in the number of children being born to parents on benefits as claimants react to the new environment.

There will be some (the stupid) that continue to have children in the absence of additional benefits inflicting poverty on themselves and the poor unfortunates that they produce - not sure what we do with them.

Emy1501

wotsthat wrote: »

They don't need to sit down and think about it. They will see from their peer group that there is no financial disadvantage in having children.

I expect that people who are having children without having to consider affordability are more savvy than you give them credit for and are highly skilled at extracting every penny they can from the benefits system.

A reduction in child-related benefits will lead to a reduction in the number of children being born to parents on benefits as claimants react to the new environment.

There will be some (the stupid) that continue to have children in the absence of additional benefits inflicting poverty on themselves and the poor unfortunates that they produce - not sure what we do with them.

No they are not. I have come across a fair few of the people the government are targeting and the financial implications are the last thing many of these people are thinking about.

Many of these parents have a number of children by a number of different dads etc. The vast majority of these kids will not be planned.

You need to try to educate if you want to solve the problem.

he majority of kids born in these household start school way behind their peers and never catch up.

If you are taking to the money away to spend it of educating the offspring of the poor then it may make sense but otherwise this nothing more than cost cutting.

PaulF81

Emy1501 wrote: »

Of course its the states problem as it will be them paying for the future kids and their kids and so on.

Spend some cash on role models etc and teaching these kids from an early age and you may break the cycle.

We are talking about saving 200m here hardly worth bothering about.

Also maybe if you spend some actual money on educating these people the problem may improve.

Pay them in food and book vouchers then. Saves. The child's benefit getting spent on cigarettes and booze.

paulmapp8306

Shakethedisease wrote: »

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

Make their church/religeous sect pay for the children.

paulmapp8306

Id love that conversation:

Benefit claimant: Can I have some more money please, Im pregnant.

Benefit Officer: Why did you choose to have another child?

Benefit Claimant: i didnt choose - it just happened.

Benefit officer: didnt you take prcaucions?

Benefit Claimant: no, my religion doesnt allow it.

Benefit Officer: Then I suggest you seek financial help from your religion.

wotsthat

Emy1501 wrote: »

No they are not. I have come across a fair few of the people the government are targeting and the financial implications are the last thing many of these people are thinking about.

Many of these parents have a number of children by a number of different dads etc. The vast majority of these kids will not be planned.

If the majority are not planned that would imply that the birth rate of benefit claimants would be unaffected by a cut in child related benefits. If that's the case I can see abortion being used increasingly as a method of family planning by benefits claimants whilst birth rates remain static.

More likely is that abortion rates spike as it becomes clear that the pregnancy will not lead to financial gain but over time, as word gets out, this will reduce along with the birth rate.

My own anecdotal evidence (family member is a midwife) is that whilst births may not be planned within fairly short order the woman is requesting that letters be sent to the council explaining that current accomodation is unsuitable etc. Pregnancies may not be planned but there's an assumption, which seems to be correct, that pregnancy will lead to an increase in 'wealth' so planning receives less consideration.

I agree that these ideas are simply cost saving and that education is needed. In the short term we might need to accept that whilst the sums given to this type of benefit claimant are reduced the amount that is spent on them increases - short term no taxpayer benefit but longer term the position improves.