Should the UK have a 5 children cap for benefits?

[truman]

I just read the link and to be fair don't understand it and take your word that it won't affect us (hopefully if my wife's studies go as planned and the jobs are there) by the time it comes into play.

 

But what a lot of people have said they feel it should be capped at 2 children. Surely that would affect us?

 

Genuine question..if you can only afford kids 'cos of the benefits you receive then should you really be having them? Wouldn't you rather be self sufficient than put yourself in a position where you have to rely on the state?

[jubby]

We had what we could afford without reliance on benefits..only thing we've ever had is child allowance..

 

So still accepted a benefit!!

 

Child benefit has two rates one for first child and one for each addition child. I believe this should be income linked as not everyone NEEDS child benefit but low earners do.

 

We have what we can afford - I pay for all my training with no grants or anything while some i know have had the government pay for theirs (at least they are working now).

 

We only currently "relie" on CTC/WTC to get my wife through 5 years of studying to escape the benefit system. If this is overpaid when I do my tax return it gets paid back.

[jubby]

Genuine question..if you can only afford kids 'cos of the benefits you receive then should you really be having them? Wouldn't you rather be self sufficient than put yourself in a position where you have to rely on the state?

 

So what should I have done with them when I lost my job? I couldnt predict in 2005 that I would be unemployed in 2007.

 

What about all the Game employees who lost their jobs over night? They shouldn't be allowed to claim if they have "too many children"?

[jubby]

Genuine question..if you can only afford kids 'cos of the benefits you receive then should you really be having them? Wouldn't you rather be self sufficient than put yourself in a position where you have to rely on the state?

 

Already answered - if on out of work benefits shouldnt be encouraged to have more by having payouts.

 

Sure Start grants for new families have been stopped.

[Cyclone]

So what should I have done with them when I lost my job? I couldnt predict in 2005 that I would be unemployed in 2007.

 

What about all the Game employees who lost their jobs over night? They shouldn't be allowed to claim if they have "too many children"?

 

I still don't think you understand, it isn't that they wouldn't be allowed to claim.

It's that they wouldn't get any additional money for their 6th or subsequent child. And frankly why should they, nobody needs to have that many children and if they do they should plan for it appropriately not expect the taxpayer to pick up the pieces if it all goes wrong.

[jubby]

I still don't think you understand, it isn't that they wouldn't be allowed to claim.

It's that they wouldn't get any additional money for their 6th or subsequent child. And frankly why should they, nobody needs to have that many children and if they do they should plan for it appropriately not expect the taxpayer to pick up the pieces if it all goes wrong.

 

It's the ones that say the cap should be if you have more than 2 that I have an issue with. I feel 5 is about right - good mix of ages. Wish I had more than one daughter but hey ho that's life.

 

I am one of 5 and so is my wife so 5 seems quite normal. Some would say one is enough.

 

Most of the employees who lost their jobs at Game were on MW so would have found it almost impossible to plan for what happened which for some was with no notice. I really feel for them and I'm glad a welfare system is in place to act as a parachute until they find work again.

 

We are planning for our future but wouldn't be able to do it without help and thankfully it is there. Years ago before this system was hear - child morality was very high due to poor diet etc and there was a lot more under the poverty line.

[Cyclone]

5 children is about right... The average is <2 today, 3 is IMO the max the government should sponsor.

[jubby]

TBH one of reasons we've stopped is cost and also it takes a lot of energy to have 5.

 

Even if we won the lottery tomorrow we wouldn't have more but enjoy what we have a lot more.

[chem1st]

Council housing is already subsidised and let out at below the market rate.

 

There is no freemarket and the market is fixed, houseprices and rents are forced higher than they would otherwise be. In some places council housing rents exceed private sector rents.

 

Council housing pays for itself and far more, it generates incomes for councils and the state as a whole.

 

You could view this as subsidised rents are gradually catching up with the real market value.

It is that simple. It really is. Skill up, get a decent job, get paid well. It's the capitalist way.

 

Rents are being FORCED UP and in some places now exceed private sector rents. They continue to be forced up and place upwards pressure on the PRS.

 

It ain't that simple. The state sets incomes and the rewards for certain skills. If you knew anything about capitalism, you'd understand why land has to be taxed. Adam Smith himself described land monopoly and said why it was a bad thing.

 

Land sits idle, men are unemployed. Land monopoly exists and land ownership is unjust. To add insult to injury, the landless peasants have to pay taxes to enrich the landowners whom are paid for merely owning land.

[chem1st]

So we should just keep paying out? And if it gets too expensive everyone else who is still working should pay more tax?

 

Tax land. Not people.

 

Land sits idle, men are unemployed.

 

Land should be taxed (idle land is then given up to others so that it can be used for production).

 

Abolishing income tax increases work incentives.