Paying benefits for a maximum of 2 children - solve societys ills?

[bobbie]

A controvertial one perhaps, but perhaps a real solution to societys ills. We pay benefits for 2 children maximum, and any children above 2, then you pay for them yourself.

 

Would this stop feckless and irresponsible men from fathering children all over the place, and then clearing off to repeat their actions again, and again. If men were compelled/forced to pay if they fathered more than 2 children, would this stop their irresponsible actions.

 

The men would be forced to take action, to provide for their offspring.

 

On another level, the women would be forced to pick their sexual partners far more carefully, and perhaps not put themselves into a position whereby an irresponsible man could take advantage ( a drunken night out).

 

The women would be forced to pick a man who could finacially provide, should she find herself pregnant.

 

The resulting children would be more likely to contact with their natural father who would then play a part in their lives a give the children a positive role model to emulate

 

Do you think this is a good idea for society in general, or are we best simply paying people to have kids they cannot afford?

[chem1st]

In the UK you get benefits for having a child.

 

In other places you get tax reductions.

 

Ideally we would have a combination of the two.

 

Where benefits provide a valuable social safety net. But accompanied by tax breaks in order to incentivise work.

 

A single man must pay the same tax as a man with 2 children and a wife to support. But the one with children will get benefits regadless.

 

The man with children and a wife to support should have a greater tax threshold.

 

Perhaps 50% extra of the standard adult threshold per child.

 

So, say the threshold is 10k, it should be 20k for a man with 2 children.

[mickw]

feckless and irresponsible men from fathering children all over the place

 

It takes two to tango you know.

[medusa]

Whenever threads are posted which propose that the state don't pay benefits for more than a certain number of children or whatever this always brings up one question in my mind, and that is:

 

Take a family who pay for themselves perfectly well, and who don't need any help from the state but who have 6 children because they want and can afford 6 children.

 

What happens if the breadwinner of that family dies and leaves the other parent with 6 children, no income and no way to claim any benefits to look after those children?

 

Do you, as the person claiming that we shouldn't be paying benefits, feel any responsibility for those children getting malnutrition because their remaining parent can no longer afford to feed them properly?

 

I have no fabulous solution to not paying benefits to those considered to be feckless by having children that they cannot afford to pay for, but the answer surely has to include not actually making children, the future of our country and of human life in general, die of starvation or the complications of malnourishment just because we resent giving their parents money to look after them?

[bobbie]

feckless and irresponsible men from fathering children all over the place

 

It takes two to tango you know.

 

 

 

Thats what I said in the origional post.

 

THe women would be forced to choose the men more wisely

[mickw]

Sort of, but you still blamed the males:-

 

put themselves into a position whereby an irresponsible man could take advantage ( a drunken night out).

 

I'm not trying to spoil the thread because it is valid, but be unbiased in your opinion.

[bobbie]

Sort of, but you still blamed the males:-

 

put themselves into a position whereby an irresponsible man could take advantage ( a drunken night out).

 

I'm not trying to spoil the thread because it is valid, but be unbiased in your opinion.

 

 

 

Its both a male/female problem really. There are certain types of men who will deliberatly target drunken women, because they know women become easier after a few drinks.

 

WOmen would perhaps be forced not to put themselves in such a vunerable position

[mickw]

There are certain types of drunken women that target men.

But your point is not to apportion blame but to discuss the benefits system.

 

Some couples procreate just to get a better/bigger house paid for by the state, this cannot be legislated for as if it were tried it would leave some deserving families destitute.

There is no real answer to this.

[chem1st]

There are certain types of drunken women that target men.

But your point is not to apportion blame but to discuss the benefits system.

 

Some couples procreate just to get a better/bigger house paid for by the state, this cannot be legislated for as if it were tried it would leave some deserving families destitute.

There is no real answer to this.

 

I don't think people do it to get a bigger house at the expense of the state. Perhaps a garden. After all, the bigger house yields less space per person.

 

Much like the benefit system yields less benefits per person as the family grows.

 

What appears to be the case, is that people think others are doing so, specifically for a bigger house etc.

 

These people tend to be constrained by circumstances. Perhaps living at home well into their 30s as they cannot afford to move out etc., and even then, living partially on credit. When their parents could buy a 3 bedroom home in their early 20s, start a family and still be able to save money for the future, and everyone could get a council flat or house quite quickly, just by putting their name down.

 

Pro-creation seems to have become abnormal behaviour.

[jane2008]

How would the man be forced to take action to pay for the children?

 

If he is already workshy or claiming benefits where is the money to come from?