Benefits child limit

Wolfman

Tour Rookie
Joined
Dec 27, 2011
Messages
1,349
Location
Suffolk
Visit site
Why do they not introduce a change to the benefit system, if you are claiming and out of work its restricted to a max of 2 children. If they want more children we do not keep adding more benefit it wouid down to them to support / fund like its for working famlies
 

drawboy

Tour Winner
Joined
Jul 31, 2009
Messages
4,977
Location
Leeds
Visit site
be8.gif
 

scratch

Q-School Graduate
Joined
Jan 17, 2013
Messages
800
Visit site
Why do they not introduce a change to the benefit system, if you are claiming and out of work its restricted to a max of 2 children. If they want more children we do not keep adding more benefit it wouid down to them to support / fund like its for working famlies

I agree, might put an end to those that think sitting around the house breeding all day is a career choice.
 

Sweep

Journeyman Pro
Joined
Jan 3, 2013
Messages
2,476
Visit site
I have no problem with people having kids they can afford and claiming benefit if they fall on hard times, lose their job etc. Where I do have a major problem is people who have kids they can't afford or have kids as a means to claim benefit. This is first and foremost bad for the child(ren). It is bad for the country and demonstrates rank bad parenting. Of course these people have the government where they want them because no government can or should turn its back on a child. However, as I have said through this forum on previous occasions, it is high time people started to take responsibility for their own actions and this problem will not be resolved until society itself demands it.
 

SwingsitlikeHogan

Major Champion
Joined
Jul 24, 2012
Messages
33,709
Visit site
Why do they not introduce a change to the benefit system, if you are claiming and out of work its restricted to a max of 2 children. If they want more children we do not keep adding more benefit it wouid down to them to support / fund like its for working famlies

And so a family has three children - and then maybe four - and under your plan they only get state support for two. Well that's going to be good for these four children isn't it. You'd be happy with that? Maybe there is a 'limit' above which the incremental per/head impact of losing a child's benefit is relatively low - but that that number of children is (unfortunartely?) going to be fairly high - maybe six? I don't know. There are 40,000 families of 5 or more children so the cost to the state is not great in any case.

And you can't stop people having children - and you can't make the children suffer.

And that is a difficult pill to swallow for those who throw their hands up in shock and horror and demand 'action'.
 

Captainron

Big Hitting, South African Sweary Person
Joined
Sep 25, 2011
Messages
6,573
Location
Rural Lincolnshire
Visit site
My wife and I both work full time and have stopped at 2 kids because we can't afford to have any more. We still want a decent lifestyle and also want the best for our kids. The ability to afford kids should be a factor when deciding to have any/more. We own our house and would have to buy a bigger house if we had any more kids. That costs money. Clothes, food, nursery, holidays, entertainment all cost money. Love doesn't clothe a kid or provide food. I can't abide by people who demand bigger houses because they have had another kid and need more room.
 

SwingsitlikeHogan

Major Champion
Joined
Jul 24, 2012
Messages
33,709
Visit site
My wife and I both work full time and have stopped at 2 kids because we can't afford to have any more. We still want a decent lifestyle and also want the best for our kids. The ability to afford kids should be a factor when deciding to have any/more. We own our house and would have to buy a bigger house if we had any more kids. That costs money. Clothes, food, nursery, holidays, entertainment all cost money. Love doesn't clothe a kid or provide food. I can't abide by people who demand bigger houses because they have had another kid and need more room.

We made exactly the same decision for exactly the same reason - in fact my wife and I were talking about it last night. Buty some people don't make that decision. One reason may be that they simply want more children and the state will help them support their children. We make different decisions. If the state did not provide support dfor more than two children - some families will have more than two - others might stop at two. But a civilised society cannot justify deliberately putting the health and wellbeing of children at risk through policy decisions driven by political pressures and predilections. That is not the answer to what is rightly (in my opinion) seen to be issues we have to deal with - the cost of benefits and the demands of those in receipt of them.
 

SocketRocket

Ryder Cup Winner
Joined
Sep 12, 2011
Messages
18,179
Visit site
I dont understand why we tax people then give them money back in child allowance and tax credits, why not stop the allowances, take less tax and let them spend their money how they want.

When people fall on hard times then it is a different situation , those that have contributed to the fund have a right to be protected in times of difficulty. Those that dont contribute but expect to be treated the same are more of a problem, we all know that it would be wrong for the children to suffer. I would suggest that in these cases where people are making a career by living off others money the children should be cared for by the use of a food and clothing debit card and the adults should do some community service for their money(also paid through a card that only allows them to purchase essential items).

I would also suggest that young women that have children to jump the social housing que should be given hostel type accomodation untill they are at least 30 years of age. The children in many cases would probably have a better quality of life, remember the likes of Baby 'P' and that horrible 'Mathews' woman.

I know we have to look after the childrens welfare but many of these kids are born into an environent that gives them little chance in life.
 

Siren

Tour Rookie
Joined
Aug 18, 2011
Messages
1,399
Visit site
Sorry but if you can not afford children then quite simply you should not have them.

It is not the governments responsibility to look after and pay for offspring, it is your own, if your cant afford them dont have them.

Breeding has become a career choice for many, earlier on today I overheard a 19/20 year old who already has 2 children telling the shopkeeper she had to get pregnant again soon because the youngest child starts school in september and she is afraid that "they" would force her to get a job. She then paid for her 20 cigarettes costing nigh on £7 with the line, same time tomorrow.

People who have fallen on hard times during the recession deserve to be helped out assuming they are actively seeking work and trying their best to rectify the situation.
 

Doon frae Troon

Ryder Cup Winner
Joined
Mar 5, 2012
Messages
19,086
Location
S W Scotland
Visit site
Why do they not introduce a change to the benefit system, if you are claiming and out of work its restricted to a max of 2 children. If they want more children we do not keep adding more benefit it wouid down to them to support / fund like its for working famlies

Great idea.
Surplus children can be shipped off to Australia to work as slaves for the farmers.
It worked really well the first time they tried it.
 

SocketRocket

Ryder Cup Winner
Joined
Sep 12, 2011
Messages
18,179
Visit site
Sorry but if you can not afford children then quite simply you should not have them.

It is not the governments responsibility to look after and pay for offspring, it is your own, if your cant afford them dont have them.

Breeding has become a career choice for many, earlier on today I overheard a 19/20 year old who already has 2 children telling the shopkeeper she had to get pregnant again soon because the youngest child starts school in september and she is afraid that "they" would force her to get a job. She then paid for her 20 cigarettes costing nigh on £7 with the line, same time tomorrow.

People who have fallen on hard times during the recession deserve to be helped out assuming they are actively seeking work and trying their best to rectify the situation.

Good post.

I find it hard to believe the naivety shown by so many people here, either that or they dont get out much. This problem is not a small one, its absolutely everywhere and it's no wonder we are in debt up to the hilt as a nation. Blair, Brown, Balls, Milliband, Harman et al certainly created this 'something for nothing' culture to gather votes.
 

El Bandito

Q-School Graduate
Joined
Jan 9, 2013
Messages
779
Location
Wiltshire/Hampshire borders
Visit site
Always going to be an emotive one this. It strikes me that society feels that a child has rights and that as a society we should protect those rights. I guess if you are a four year old going hungry because you are the fifth child of somebody that for whatever reason cannot provide for you - you might point out (if you were very bright!) that it was not your fault whom you were born to...I guess the question is if the child exists, who should ensure that the child is not treated cruelly/starved etc?

Concerns like the above need to be married to the fact that it is a mathematical impossibility for the country to support the welfare system. By which I mean NHS, Pension, Benefits - the whole lot. At some point soon, one generation is going to have to make some extremely difficult choices.
 

Wolfman

Tour Rookie
Joined
Dec 27, 2011
Messages
1,349
Location
Suffolk
Visit site
Seems like many "working" couples stop having children based on earnable income etc

Doesnt seem wrong to restrict it to non working claimants, if you have a third child then fund it yourself ( stop the fags, bingo, booze )

Benefit problem could be sorted out quickly
 
Top