southcoast Posted November 18, 2011 Author Share Posted November 18, 2011 I think from reading the OP and subsequent posts that this is a debate whether benefits should be paid for people having more than four children. more than four = no benefits. I must say I completely advocate this. Exactly,some people seem unable to understand the post they try to muddle the waters,thank god there are some who talk in plain language. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordonb Posted November 18, 2011 Share Posted November 18, 2011 Do you mean for the first 4 then no more? Yes. Having watched Children in Need tonight we need to improve the welfare state to scoop up all of the kids/people who through no fault of their own find themselves in a situation that was different from when they had their kids. To fund this I think maybe we should reduce child benefit to 2 kids not 4. Obviously it would not be retrospective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southcoast Posted November 18, 2011 Author Share Posted November 18, 2011 Yes. Having watched Children in Need tonight we need to improve the welfare state to scoop up all of the kids/people who through no fault of their own find themselves in a situation that was different from when they had their kids. To fund this I think maybe we should reduce child benefit to 2 kids not 4. Obviously it would not be retrospective. Reducing it to 2 kids might be very hard to get into law but I think most people would be fine with the limit at 4 but I can see where your coming from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted November 19, 2011 Share Posted November 19, 2011 Reducing it to 2 kids might be very hard to get into law but I think most people would be fine with the limit at 4 but I can see where your coming from. Ok, maybe I should have phrased it better. Let's say me and the Missus worked at woolies for the past 15 years and I sired 6 kids. I paid taxes claimed no sick pay then bang, me and my good lady are made redundant and like nearly 3 million others can't get another job. So we are on benifits. So does that mean through no fault of my own, 2 of my kids will suffer more than a family with 3 who have never worked get full fat money ? Or do you mean that kids born into families perpetually on benefits shouldn't get paid for the fifth kid ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southcoast Posted November 19, 2011 Author Share Posted November 19, 2011 Ok, maybe I should have phrased it better. Let's say me and the Missus worked at woolies for the past 15 years and I sired 6 kids. I paid taxes claimed no sick pay then bang, me and my good lady are made redundant and like nearly 3 million others can't get another job. So we are on benifits. So does that mean through no fault of my own, 2 of my kids will suffer more than a family with 3 who have never worked get full fat money ? Or do you mean that kids born into families perpetually on benefits shouldn't get paid for the fifth kid ? Personaly I go with the idea of 4 no more child benefit no matter what,but thats my personal opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted November 19, 2011 Share Posted November 19, 2011 If we are going down that road, don't pay benefits for any then, if it's that black and White. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XXTickerXX Posted November 19, 2011 Share Posted November 19, 2011 Ok, maybe I should have phrased it better. Let's say me and the Missus worked at woolies for the past 15 years and I sired 6 kids. I paid taxes claimed no sick pay then bang, me and my good lady are made redundant and like nearly 3 million others can't get another job. So we are on benifits. So does that mean through no fault of my own, 2 of my kids will suffer more than a family with 3 who have never worked get full fat money ? Or do you mean that kids born into families perpetually on benefits shouldn't get paid for the fifth kid ? How can it not be your own fault? If there was a law in place saying you got no more benefits for more than 4 kids and then you had 6 knowing at some point in the future you "may" be unemployed then it is completely your fault for having more kids than you can look after. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted November 19, 2011 Share Posted November 19, 2011 So ban people having 4 or mote kids then, regardless of their employment status. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloomdido Posted November 19, 2011 Share Posted November 19, 2011 What do they do in China? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southcoast Posted November 19, 2011 Author Share Posted November 19, 2011 So ban people having 4 or more kids then, regardless of their employment status. Thats a different issue,this is about paying money to them in the form of child benefit,NOT limiting people to how many kids they can have,they can have 10 as long as they dont get child benefit for more than 4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.