Plans to cap benefits at two children.

[Pritt Stick]

Well, TZ - that's not a very PC statement! But I agree with what you say.

[tzijlstra]

Haha, well the thing is, the current government is in charge of politics, doesn't that make it PC

 

I realise I am probably an odd-one-out on the grounds of me being a liberal close to libertarian, but I can explain all my views and they are right. :sarcasm:

[lily may]

I think that the way the welfare state has influenced society is obviously mostly positive. However, one negative is that it has removed the need for individual responsibility and replaced it with collective responsibility.

 

People need to take responsibility for themselves, if they can't afford children then they should not have them. Adding to the population should not be a right. I need a licence to drive a car, but not to have a baby, this seems absurd to me.

 

To those of you who think there is real poverty in this country, you are very very wrong. Poverty is classed as earning 60% of the countries average wage. That means that anyone earning circa 15k per year is officially classed as impoverished, this is rubbish.

 

I grew up as poor as you really get in this country. Sometimes we didn't have enough food for dinner and often we would have no heating because the meter had run out. This is about as bad as it can get in the UK. I used to think I had a poor upbringing, until I travelled the world and saw what had poverty really is.

 

I am all for stopping child benefits at 2 children, and feel that this should be applied to all new births immediately. Some notice period should be given (perhaps 24 months) for existing claimants.

 

Agree with everything you say. When parliament asked the public for ways on cutting back on welfare child benefit was my suggestion

[Cyclone]

What are you on about? Do you have 7 kids you can't afford to look after?

 

Is that why you're so excited? Or is it because a nasty Tory said it?

 

I don't have any kids BTW, my point was that families who already have kids and can't afford to support them without govt. help should continue to be supported. But if you make the choice to have kids in the future knowing you can't support them without help then you shouldn't.

 

And then what happens, do we let the children suffer, or do we take them into care (something that costs more than the benefits we've saved)?

 

It sounds easy in theory, but as a society whilst we don't want to reward feckless behaviour by the parents, we also don't want to punish children who end up in that situation.

[Supertramp]

And then what happens, do we let the children suffer, or do we take them into care (something that costs more than the benefits we've saved)?

 

It sounds easy in theory, but as a society whilst we don't want to reward feckless behaviour by the parents, we also don't want to punish children who end up in that situation.

 

True. But maybe they'd be better off with foster parents or adopted anyway if the parents are that feckless.

[Pritt Stick]

And then what happens, do we let the children suffer, or do we take them into care (something that costs more than the benefits we've saved)?

 

It sounds easy in theory, but as a society whilst we don't want to reward feckless behaviour by the parents, we also don't want to punish children who end up in that situation.

 

Hi Cyclone

 

I think the number of three (or more) children families will be reduced if this initiative is passed. The link I posted earlier suggests that this is true. Although I'm sure that some families will continue to have kids without being able to afford it with all the attendant problems that will bring.

[Tess]

What happens if a couple decide to have a baby, can afford one baby, maybe two at a push, but oh look - triplets. Would the benefit be for just two of the children? Would it work slightly differently in that instance?

[CockneyMafia]

In theory it’s a good idea. There are far too many people in this country recklessly having children and expecting the ‘state’ (i.e. other tax paying people) to pay for their upbringing.

 

However, it isn’t exactly foolproof. What happens, for example, if a self-sufficient family with four children suddenly finds the main breadwinner(s) unemployed?

 

Also, as others have pointed out, capping benefits at the first two children is no guarantee that people who can’t afford to have them will suddenly develop a sense of responsibility. Far short of state sponsored sterilisation I’m not sure there is a panacea to this issue.

[Cyclone]

True. But maybe they'd be better off with foster parents or adopted anyway if the parents are that feckless.

 

That's a rather subjective judgement though, I'm sure there are many children who be 'better off' with different parents, but isn't this initiative mainly about saving money? Placing children in foster care is expensive and in most cases isn't good for the children. (Indeed many older children never get fostered, they stay in state institutions).

[truman]

What happens if a couple decide to have a baby, can afford one baby, maybe two at a push, but oh look - triplets. Would the benefit be for just two of the children? Would it work slightly differently in that instance?

 

If child benefit was limited to two children then they'd get the amount for 2 kids I suppose...in 2011 there were 172 sets of triplets born....

 

http://www.multiplebirths.org.uk/media.asp