Tony Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 Should the amount of benefits received reduce with each extra child that a 'family unit' (whatever that be) has? So, for example... 1 child = maximum benefits 4 children = no benefits What would be the good things and bad things about such a plan? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Hughes Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 I think there should be a much lower maximum benefit allowance that there is, but I cannot see how reducing benefits in this way could possibly work! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stewboy Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 It is akin to the system in China where it leads to babies being murdered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davyjones Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 It is akin to the system in China where it leads to babies being murdered. or people can be smart and use protection, ****ing hell no one wants responsibility anymore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bojangles Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 It is akin to the system in China where it leads to babies being murdered.No, it isn't. And to the OP - great suggestion! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stan Tamudo Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 Should the amount of benefits received reduce with each extra child that a 'family unit' (whatever that be) has? So, for example... 1 child = maximum benefits 4 children = no benefits What would be the good things and bad things about such a plan? Do you also get a Christmas bonus if you only have 1 child? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted October 4, 2011 Author Share Posted October 4, 2011 I suppose that such a plan might also give you a birthday bonus if you don't have any. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ukdobby Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 Should be child benefit for 1st 2 births then zilch after that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrapeApe Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 Should be child benefit for 1st 2 births then zilch after that. ...I'm guessing you have 2 winkles? The idea is ludicrous and would increase child poverty. How could that be a good idea? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeMaquis Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 Should the amount of benefits received reduce with each extra child that a 'family unit' (whatever that be) has? So, for example... 1 child = maximum benefits 4 children = no benefits What would be the good things and bad things about such a plan? For 4 children do you mean no extra benefits or none at all? Either way it'll just lead to child poverty. I do accept there are people who have kids because anything more intellectual in life is beyond them but there's no point making the kids suffer. Some of them will grow up to be like their parents and others will break out of that lifetstyle. That's right, I don't read the Mail. Child Benefit already falls after the first child. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.