The cap should be two children. In that I'm being generous as I'm not convinced a modern state should be subsidising a choice like this at all. Free education and free school meals are also provided so enough support is given.
People should be allowed to have as many children as they want and can afford.
Child benefit should be stopped after 2 children, why should the tax payer pick up the bill for other people's irresponsible choices ?
If you can't afford a large family don't have one.
Possibly they are targeting those lazy parents who live on the dole and keep having children? Likes of Kerry Katona and Katie Price you don't need a child everytime you have a new partner.
As many as the parents can support with their income from work.
Absolutely great advice for any prospective parent especially one's with the power to see into the future,
I wonder what the majority of parents who have "as many as they can support with their income from work" should do, if/when one, (or both of them) lose their job/s or become too ill to work, or have a serious accident, or die, or get a divorce, or any of the many things that can cause a significant and sudden drop in their income?
Because the overwhelming majority of parents do have "as many as they can support with their income from work"
People should be allowed to have as many children as they want and can afford.
Child benefit should be stopped after 2 children, why should the tax payer pick up the bill for other people's irresponsible choices ?
If you can't afford a large family don't have one.
agree.... Unfortunately i doubt anyone will bring in a law that makes it retrospective...so anyone from now on having more than 2-3 Children will not receive child benefit for anymore so means they have to beable to support them.....which to be honest they should have to beable to support them before they children in the first place.....but for too many people now (not all) baby making is a way of life and in their view a career choice.....We are not alone in this however and the US are in just a bad a state as we are......
I'm not going to comment on how many children should be had or not, what I will say is that I don't agree with a universal benefit like CB. I would prefer benefits targeted to where there is a need (I went to school with kids whose well off parents simply banked it so the kid had a lump sum when they left).
People should be allowed to have as many children as they want and can afford.
Child benefit should be stopped after 2 children, why should the tax payer pick up the bill for other people's irresponsible choices ?
If you can't afford a large family don't have one.
What about people who get pregnant despite using contraception?
What about people who planned to have one more child, but get pregnant with twins or more?
What about a household where the pregnancy is planned, but then something unforseen happens, the husband walks out, or gets made redundant or becomes ill or injured and unable to work?
What about people whose plan is for the wife to go back to work, but pre-natal screening shows the child will be disabled and need a carer?
Do you expect these people to be "responsible" as in have an abortion?
What about people who get pregnant despite using contraception?
What about people who planned to have one more child, but get pregnant with twins or more?
What about a household where the pregnancy is planned, but then something unforseen happens, the husband walks out, or gets made redundant or becomes ill or injured and unable to work?
What about people whose plan is for the wife to go back to work, but pre-natal screening shows the child will be disabled and need a carer?
Do you expect these people to be "responsible" as in have an abortion?
If would still be their choice to have all these children.
They would then have more choices to make, either support them by means of work, make do with what they have or have the children taken into care if they can't cope.
Its absurd that people feel entitled to breed like rabbits while expecting others to pay for them.
what happens to the children of couples with one child who can afford to support another child but have twins or triplets, do they have to give the "extra" children up because they can't afford them ?
Why do we need an increasing population and why do we need it through increased births?
Andykn will be along shortly with his gcse population bulge nonsense to explain why.:D
The uk is over populated as it is, we need less people not more.
Any problems regarding pensions and debt will have to be addressed at some point, increasing the population merely postpones the inevitable for another generation to deal with.
If would still be their choice to have all these children.
They would then have more choices to make, either support them by means of work, make do with what they have or have the children taken into care if they can't cope.
Its absurd that people feel entitled to breed like rabbits while expecting others to pay for them.
But dont people loss thier jobs, all the time and people income changes when this happens, And people end up in jobs that are alot less pay, so end up with a big drop in income. So people children should be taken into care because of this
what happens to the children of couples with one child who can afford to support another child but have twins or triplets, do they have to give the "extra" children up because they can't afford them ?
A relatively unusual occurrence which could be catered for while still restricting CB to the first two children.
Rubbish. The UK population is rising strongly. Average births 722,000. Average deaths 588,000.
Comparing deaths to births is not valid because it takes no account of the age of the people dying, the effect of increased life expectancy, and any demographic blips as far as age of population, and no account of the number of children born per woman over the lifetime of the woman.
In the UK the Total Fertility rate 1.85 per woman 2013, the Total Fertility rate needed to replace the existing populaiton is 2.075. If women do not have enough children to replace the population then the population demographic will age and will eventually fall because people are not immortal. At the moment our population is still going up due to the effects of increased life expectancy and immigration.
Comments
Is that a decision for anyone other than the parents?
As many as the parents can support with their income from work.
Child benefit should be stopped after 2 children, why should the tax payer pick up the bill for other people's irresponsible choices ?
If you can't afford a large family don't have one.
Absolutely great advice for any prospective parent especially one's with the power to see into the future,
I wonder what the majority of parents who have "as many as they can support with their income from work" should do, if/when one, (or both of them) lose their job/s or become too ill to work, or have a serious accident, or die, or get a divorce, or any of the many things that can cause a significant and sudden drop in their income?
Because the overwhelming majority of parents do have "as many as they can support with their income from work"
agree.... Unfortunately i doubt anyone will bring in a law that makes it retrospective...so anyone from now on having more than 2-3 Children will not receive child benefit for anymore so means they have to beable to support them.....which to be honest they should have to beable to support them before they children in the first place.....but for too many people now (not all) baby making is a way of life and in their view a career choice.....We are not alone in this however and the US are in just a bad a state as we are......
What about people who planned to have one more child, but get pregnant with twins or more?
What about a household where the pregnancy is planned, but then something unforseen happens, the husband walks out, or gets made redundant or becomes ill or injured and unable to work?
What about people whose plan is for the wife to go back to work, but pre-natal screening shows the child will be disabled and need a carer?
Do you expect these people to be "responsible" as in have an abortion?
Spot on.
Rubbish. The UK population is rising strongly. Average births 722,000. Average deaths 588,000.
Why do we need an increasing population and why do we need it through increased births?
If would still be their choice to have all these children.
They would then have more choices to make, either support them by means of work, make do with what they have or have the children taken into care if they can't cope.
Its absurd that people feel entitled to breed like rabbits while expecting others to pay for them.
Andykn will be along shortly with his gcse population bulge nonsense to explain why.:D
The uk is over populated as it is, we need less people not more.
Any problems regarding pensions and debt will have to be addressed at some point, increasing the population merely postpones the inevitable for another generation to deal with.
But dont people loss thier jobs, all the time and people income changes when this happens, And people end up in jobs that are alot less pay, so end up with a big drop in income. So people children should be taken into care because of this
That scenario can be addressed separately, it doesn't require CB to do it.
A relatively unusual occurrence which could be catered for while still restricting CB to the first two children.
In the UK the Total Fertility rate 1.85 per woman 2013, the Total Fertility rate needed to replace the existing populaiton is 2.075. If women do not have enough children to replace the population then the population demographic will age and will eventually fall because people are not immortal. At the moment our population is still going up due to the effects of increased life expectancy and immigration.
But what about other child care costs that the state pays for, what income should be a cut off for state aid.
I'm not sure what you mean.