Benefits to be limited to 2 children only
Discussion
Listening to some callers to a radio show arguing that benefits shouldn’t be capped at 2 children because “why should the children pay for the choices of the parents?”
Surely children “pay” for the decisions their parents make in any strata of life so why should this be any different. If working parents chose to have more children than they can afford the children will suffer. Do the people making the argument not to cut benefits think that working parents should be paid to have children they can’t afford?
Can’t understand the logic of their argument.
Surely children “pay” for the decisions their parents make in any strata of life so why should this be any different. If working parents chose to have more children than they can afford the children will suffer. Do the people making the argument not to cut benefits think that working parents should be paid to have children they can’t afford?
Can’t understand the logic of their argument.
Edited by gtdc on Thursday 25th October 11:58
gtdc said:
Listening to some callers to a radio show arguing that benefits shouldn’t be capped at 2 children because “why should the children pay for the choices of the parents?”
Surely children “pay” for the decisions their children make in any strata of life so why should this be any different. If working parents chose to have more children than they can afford the children will suffer. Do the people making the argument not to cut benefits think that working parents should be paid to have children they can’t afford?
Can’t understand the logic of their argument.
Can't understand your post!Surely children “pay” for the decisions their children make in any strata of life so why should this be any different. If working parents chose to have more children than they can afford the children will suffer. Do the people making the argument not to cut benefits think that working parents should be paid to have children they can’t afford?
Can’t understand the logic of their argument.
But, yes, stop the benefits after 2, or 1, or 0.
Limiting benefits for parents who decide they have enough income for more than 2 children is a very good idea.
Also I have always thought that benefits should not be given out in the form of cash/cheques etc., it should be in the form of food stamps and vouchers for particular living essentials.
Also I have always thought that benefits should not be given out in the form of cash/cheques etc., it should be in the form of food stamps and vouchers for particular living essentials.
illmonkey said:
Can't understand your post!
I'm trying to understand the argument against capping extra benefits for people who have more than 2 children while claiming. I don't see why the negative effects of decisions by parents on benefits should be treated differently from any other parent.gtdc said:
illmonkey said:
Can't understand your post!
I'm trying to understand the argument against capping extra benefits for people who have more than 2 children while claiming. I don't see why the negative effects of decisions by parents on benefits should be treated differently from any other parent.pherlopolus said:
Means testing parents before they are allowed to have children... that will go down well.
Maybe only having children based benefits for those that fall on hard times, rather than those that are born into hard times...
As I understand it the proposal is to just not increase child related payments if people have a 3rd child while claiming. (for new claims I think)Maybe only having children based benefits for those that fall on hard times, rather than those that are born into hard times...
pherlopolus said:
Means testing parents before they are allowed to have children... that will go down well.
Maybe only having children based benefits for those that fall on hard times, rather than those that are born into hard times...
not means testing at all, merely limiting States exposure to unsustainable rutting of some people who see and use the birth of a child for their own financial gain or other benefit and then treat the kid as a possession at best (my wife works in a school in an "economically deprived area" and sees and hears far too many examples of this).Maybe only having children based benefits for those that fall on hard times, rather than those that are born into hard times...
I have no problem with parents having 3, 4, 6, 10 kids etc as long as they are financially responsible for them.
I can see various religious groups being up in arms about the suggestion with claims of it leading to more abortions etc
gtdc said:
As I understand it the proposal is to just not increase child related payments if people have a 3rd child while claiming. (for new claims I think)
that makes more sense, but I think 3 is too high. It should be the same for social housing... if you are reliant on handouts to have a house, why should the state pay for you to have a bigger house when you have more children!AJI said:
Also I have always thought that benefits should not be given out in the form of cash/cheques etc., it should be in the form of food stamps and vouchers for particular living essentials.
Terrible Idea. Child benefit is an essential part of paying for Tarquin and Jocasta's annual Skiing trip and anything left over tops up the School Fees.pherlopolus said:
Means testing parents before they are allowed to have children... that will go down well.
Maybe only having children based benefits for those that fall on hard times, rather than those that are born into hard times...
Its not limiting the number of kids, its just not linking your "pay" to it. My salary dosen't go up the more kids I have.Maybe only having children based benefits for those that fall on hard times, rather than those that are born into hard times...
Same goes for the size of my house. We had a 2 bed house when we had our first child, when we had our second I wan't provided with a bigger house. I had to find the cash to extend or move.
98elise said:
pherlopolus said:
Means testing parents before they are allowed to have children... that will go down well.
Maybe only having children based benefits for those that fall on hard times, rather than those that are born into hard times...
Its not limiting the number of kids, its just not linking your "pay" to it. My salary dosen't go up the more kids I have.Maybe only having children based benefits for those that fall on hard times, rather than those that are born into hard times...
Same goes for the size of my house. We had a 2 bed house when we had our first child, when we had our second I wan't provided with a bigger house. I had to find the cash to extend or move.
98elise said:
Its not limiting the number of kids, its just not linking your "pay" to it. My salary dosen't go up the more kids I have.
Same goes for the size of my house. We had a 2 bed house when we had our first child, when we had our second I wan't provided with a bigger house. I had to find the cash to extend or move.
Exactly, so we need to clamp down on those who can only 'afford' to have children if they get the extra benefits. But it's as much a case of proper family planning and education for those of us who are incapable of doing so ourselves, as it is for clamping down on the spongers.Same goes for the size of my house. We had a 2 bed house when we had our first child, when we had our second I wan't provided with a bigger house. I had to find the cash to extend or move.
over_the_hill said:
AJI said:
Also I have always thought that benefits should not be given out in the form of cash/cheques etc., it should be in the form of food stamps and vouchers for particular living essentials.
Terrible Idea. Child benefit is an essential part of paying for Tarquin and Jocasta's annual Skiing trip and anything left over tops up the School Fees.Think about it - if stamps and vouchers were issued with the intention of them being spent on particular things, then in order to ensure they were spent properly, the brands you could buy with them would have to be artificially limited and prices fixed.
Then you'd end up with a government-directed monopoly in favour of a small number of particular large companies, which you can bet would only benefit supermarkets, not independent retailers, which would be a real kick in the nuts for a lot of people running corner shops and market stalls in deprived areas.
The overall effect would be the same as the government supplying 'free' workers on work experience to Poundland, who then profit from it.
Something does need doing to direct the spending of people on benefits, but I think much stricter rules on the issuing of payday loans would be a better way to do it. I'd ban anyone on benefits from using a credit card too.
caz_manc said:
One of the KPI for children being in poverty is if they have to share a room.
If this were changed, the government would not have to move families when they have another same sex child.
This idea would save them money and reduce the number of children classed as in poverty.
This countries definition of poverty is mental!If this were changed, the government would not have to move families when they have another same sex child.
This idea would save them money and reduce the number of children classed as in poverty.
By that metric I was bought up in poverty, and so were most of my mates. As it happens we lived in a new build 3 bed house, and had a perfectly normal life!
98elise said:
caz_manc said:
One of the KPI for children being in poverty is if they have to share a room.
If this were changed, the government would not have to move families when they have another same sex child.
This idea would save them money and reduce the number of children classed as in poverty.
This countries definition of poverty is mental!If this were changed, the government would not have to move families when they have another same sex child.
This idea would save them money and reduce the number of children classed as in poverty.
By that metric I was bought up in poverty, and so were most of my mates. As it happens we lived in a new build 3 bed house, and had a perfectly normal life!
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff