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

[max]

Which of society's ills will this solve? Tax avoidance, slavery in Africa, the arms race, cancer, malaria, etc.? The list is endless but paying benefits to people with children isn't a priority.

[mickw]

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.

 

On both counts incorrect, but thats just my view and based on my own experiences.

[CHEZZFAYE]

it will stop people like one in particular that i knew at school.

 

she said from the age of 14 she was never going to work just do what her mum did and have kids. she was pregnant with the 1st at about 15 - 16, i saw her the other week on the school run and shes now got 5 she is about 25 -26. imho it will stop people like this, have as many as you want but pay for them yourself i think its a good idea.

 

the question is how many more would she have had to never have to work?

[staninoodle]

One solution would be to re open all the old coalmines,anyone with more than 2 children should then send their eldest to work,for a sum in line with benefit payments of course,this would save the country millions in benefit,and at the same time provide us with cost effective sources of energy,or why not re open some of the old cotton mills,run along the same principles,and send all those horrible single parent benefit scroungers to work there,free up social housing by letting them live on site rent free....well almost,maybe charge them just a few quid......capital idea!!

[chem1st]

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.

 

On both counts incorrect, but thats just my view and based on my own experiences.

 

1949 minimum standards;

 

GIFA of single story house;

1 person, 29.7 (m^2)

2 person 44.6

3 person 56.7

4 person 66.9

5 person 75.3

6 person 83.6

 

Parker Morris standards came a decade or so after, and required storage space to be included, making all these figures slightly higher.

 

In both cases, space per person decreases as the number of people rises.

 

And lots of new homes fail these old standards. Some not even a year old and unfit for purpose.

 

And the situation continues to deteriorate in both the private and public sector, yet people have been paying more and more for these unfit for purpose houses. And Conservatives abolish these standards (recently they have done it for the 2nd time).

 

 

Likewise, as an unemployed person has more children the amount per person of benefits decrease.

[retrogo]

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?

 

I'm afraid no government will ever possibly cap benefits for children born into low income families. At the end of the day, restricting funds to punish the parent will only make the child go without and suffer.

[TeaFan]

A society needs a fertility rate of 2.1 (births per woman) to replenish its numbers. Not all women will have children so if you limit births to 2 per woman apart from the most well-off you will have a fall in the population over time and the ratio of older people to younger, working age people will increase. The smaller population might be a good thing but the age imbalance is unlikely to be. The current fertility rate in the UK is 1.9 by the way. I'd imagine that after a year or two of cuts in spending and high unemployment that it will drop a fair bit from that.

[mickw]

1949 minimum standards;

 

GIFA of single story house;

1 person, 29.7 (m^2)

2 person 44.6

3 person 56.7

4 person 66.9

5 person 75.3

6 person 83.6

 

Parker Morris standards came a decade or so after, and required storage space to be included, making all these figures slightly higher.

 

In both cases, space per person decreases as the number of people rises.

 

And lots of new homes fail these old standards. Some not even a year old and unfit for purpose.

 

And the situation continues to deteriorate in both the private and public sector, yet people have been paying more and more for these unfit for purpose houses. And Conservatives abolish these standards (recently they have done it for the 2nd time).

 

 

Likewise, as an unemployed person has more children the amount per person of benefits decrease.

 

Wow those are some very impressive facts and figures.

But what you have failed to realise is that i'm not just talking about child benefit.

There is housing benefit also and the government has to rehouse people(and pay their rent) if the numbers of children increase above the number of bedrooms available in their old house.

[HeadingNorth]

it will stop people like one in particular that i knew at school.

 

she said from the age of 14 she was never going to work just do what her mum did and have kids. she was pregnant with the 1st at about 15 - 16, i saw her the other week on the school run and shes now got 5 she is about 25 -26. imho it will stop people like this, have as many as you want but pay for them yourself i think its a good idea.

 

It would not in any way stop her from having 5 children. It would mean that at least three of them would starve to death, though.

[chem1st]

Wow those are some very impressive facts and figures.

But what you have failed to realise is that i'm not just talking about child benefit.

There is housing benefit also and the government has to rehouse people(and pay their rent) if the numbers of children increase above the number of bedrooms available in their old house.

 

And when you take into account all these benefits, you will find that the benefits per person decreases.

 

The maximum weekly Local Housing Allowance (LHA) rates for Sheffield for January 2011 are below. The calendar monthly figure is shown in brackets.

 

 

Shared accommodation - £65.00 (£281.67)

 

1 Bedroom accommodation - £98.08 (£425.01)

 

2 Bedroom accommodation - £114.23 (£495.00)

 

3 Bedroom accommodation - £121.15 (£524.98)

 

4 Bedroom accommodation - £161.54 (£700.01)

 

5 Bedroom accommodation - £219.23 (£950.00)

 

source

 

Consider then, the rate per room for January 2011;

 

Single U25= £65

Single 25+ = £98.08

2 Bed = £114.23/2 = £57.115

3 Bed = £121.15/3 = £40.5

4 Bed = £161.54/4 = £40.385

5 Bed = £219.23/5 = £43.846

 

For October 2010 these figures were;

SRR = £65 per room per week

1 = £94.36 pr pw

2 = £56.96 pr pw

3 = £40.37 pr pw

4 = £38.83 pr pw

5 = £44.88 pr pw

 

As you can see, the more rooms, generally the less per person, and the 5 bed rate is the maximum, which makes 5bed+ properties yield even less per room.

(Thus they are more profitable if bought on a B2L basis and rented out as HMOs rather than as family homes, which is kind of true for all properties bar 1 bedroomed ones)

 

Now consider, the bedroom calculation...

 

LHA rates will be further broken down into ‘Bedroom Rates’ that will apply depending on the size of the household, including any non-dependants. Size criteria will be based on allowing one bedroom for:

 

every adult couple ( Married or Unmarried )

any other adult aged 16 or over

any two children of the same sex

any two children regardless of sex under age 10

any other child

 

So a couple with 8 children under 16, 4 of them sons and 4 of them daughters, would only be entitled to the 5 bed rate, which is currently £219.23 (£43.846 per room). Per person, this would be less than £22.

 

Yet the housing benefit component of a household containing one person could be as high as (and generally is) £98.08 per person (in Sheffield).

 

Likewise with the council tax, even taking into account the 25% single discount and generally higher bands for larger properties, considering the majority of housing in Sheffield is band A.