Child benefit to be capped at 2 children

tiacat · 15/12/13 - 16:36

Is this a good idea or not?

I associate the payment of child benefit with days gone by when the point of it was to ensure that women (who mainly didnt work then) had money for food and fuel to protect the children.

But what is the purpose of it now?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2523819/No-10s-plan-cap-benefit-children-New-mothers-children-lose-700-5bn-welfare-crackdown.html

Robbie01 · 15/12/13 - 16:42

At one time, when it was called Family Allowance, it wasn't paid for the first child. Instead the taxpayer (normally a man) was given a tax allowance equivalent to FA for the first child. Family Allowance was revamped in 1979, extended to being paid also for the first or eldest child and renamed Child Benefit.

I do think it's a good idea. Paying someone for having children is an antiquated idea. Plus Child Tax Credits help people in a far better way. CTC was actually going to replaced CB at one stage but the then Labour government decided to drop the idea.

Personally, I'd abolish Child Benefit altogether. It's a cost of having children that should be passed back to the parents and not to the tax payer.

FriendlyGoat · 15/12/13 - 16:48

Will stop them dirty chavs from popping out kids in order to pay for their **** and booze on my wallet, so it's a good thing as far as I'm concerned.

[Deleted User] · 15/12/13 - 16:51

I can see the arguments for and against, personally I think it should become a means tested benefit that way the people who really do need it will get it.

Unfortunately I think they will eventually just do away with all benefits including state pension. I will be surprised if the welfare state is still around in 10-20 years time.

Pumping Iron · 15/12/13 - 16:54

Yes it is a good idea, although I think it should be started at somepoint in the near future and not be implemented to children already alive/in the womb today. The start of 2015 for all new borns, excluding rare cases of multiple births.

Andrue · 15/12/13 - 16:55

I wouldn't want any of the buggers myself but Children are the future of the country and we need more of them (to pay my pension

). So I'm not in favour of reducing this.

blueblade · 15/12/13 - 17:01

MagiLisu wrote: »

I can see the arguments for and against, personally I think it should become a means tested benefit that way the people who really do need it will get it.

Unfortunately I think they will eventually just do away with all benefits including state pension. I will be surprised if the welfare state is still around in 10-20 years time.

If so, I want back what I've paid in, with inflation proofed interest added.

State Pension is not means tested, it is bloody contributed to by the people who get it. Compulsorily.

Andrue wrote: »

I wouldn't want any of the buggers myself but Children are the future of the country and we need more of them (to pay my pension ). So I'm not in favour of reducing this.

I agree with you. It shouldn't be stopped.

James Frederick · 15/12/13 - 17:02

What if someone has triples or more?

Pumping Iron · 15/12/13 - 17:05

James Frederick wrote: »

What if someone has triples or more?

It should exclude multiple births.

Bedlam_maid · 15/12/13 - 17:05

Personally I think two children are enough for anyone. You can't stop people from having kids but limiting the child benefit to just two is a great idea imo.

jzee · 15/12/13 - 17:06

Send the children to the work houses >:(.

[Deleted User] · 15/12/13 - 17:08

blueblade wrote: »

If so, I want back what I've paid in, with inflation proofed interest added.

State Pension is not means tested, it is bloody contributed to by the people who get it. Compulsorily.

I know that, but the whole system is has become unsustainable and I'm pretty sure the Government would get rid of the whole thing tomorrow if they thought they could get away with it.

cessna · 15/12/13 - 17:10

Andrue wrote: »

I wouldn't want any of the buggers myself but Children are the future of the country and we need more of them (to pay my pension ). So I'm not in favour of reducing this.

>>>>

The five shillings child allowance (for the second child and thereafter) was very welcome by my mother and similar poor families when poverty clearly existed in the 40's - but has no comparison with families and people today.
What is not needed in this overpopulated world is encouragement for couples to have more childre, especially where they expect others to pay for and support their offspring!

FriendlyGoat · 15/12/13 - 17:15

Just read this in the article:

Almost 200 families reliant on out-of-work benefits have at least ten children.

Who the hell needs 10 or more children?!

James Frederick · 15/12/13 - 17:16

The problem is that if it is capped at two children and people do have more it's will be the children who will end up suffering.

FriendlyGoat · 15/12/13 - 17:17

James Frederick wrote: »

The problem is that if it is capped at two children and people do have more it's will be the children who will end up suffering.

The parents will have to start looking for work.

Pumping Iron · 15/12/13 - 17:19

James Frederick wrote: »

The problem is that if it is capped at two children and people do have more it's will be the children who will end up suffering.

If implemented at a future date, it may discourage many potential parents from having anymore until they can afford them. I realise a minority may just keep breeding without thinking of the consequences.

jcafcw · 15/12/13 - 17:20

As a counterpoint Germany runs a very generous child benefit system, have a good kindergarten system, gives generous - and higher than the UK in the first year - unemployment benefits and are considering lowering the age of the state pension to 63.

And they are still running a budget surplus.

Makes you wonder whether it really is welfare that is dragging this country down.

[Deleted User] · 15/12/13 - 17:22

jzee wrote: »

Send the children to the work houses >:(.

I think we have found a solution guys.

Addisonian · 15/12/13 - 17:22

I agree with this. Obviously it wouldn't be fair if someone has eg two sets of twins as this is beyond their control and I think they should receive the benefit for each of their children.
However, if a couple want to try for a 3rd/4th/5th etc child, then they should be ensuring beforehand that they can financially support it anyway.

FriendlyGoat · 15/12/13 - 17:23

jcafcw wrote: »

As a counterpoint Germany runs a very generous child benefit system, have a good kindergarten system, gives generous - and higher than the UK in the first year - unemployment benefits and are considering lowering the age of the state pension to 63.

And they are still running a budget surplus.

Makes you wonder whether it really is welfare that is dragging this country down.

Their unemployment rate is 5.5%

James Frederick · 15/12/13 - 17:23

FriendlyGoat wrote: »

The parents will have to start looking for work.

They are not that many jobs to go around plus they still need time off until the child is old enough to go to nursery at least

Pumping Iron wrote: »

If implemented at a future date, it may discourage many potential parents from having anymore until they can afford them. I realise a minority may just keep breeding without thinking of the consequences.

True enough but even with the best precautions accidents can still happen

FriendlyGoat · 15/12/13 - 17:23

Addisonian wrote: »

I agree with this. Obviously it wouldn't be fair if someone has eg two sets of twins as this is beyond their control and I think they should receive the benefit for each of their children.
However, if a couple want to try for a 3rd/4th/5th etc child, then they should be ensuring beforehand that they can financially support it anyway.

Precisely. I see no reason to have any more than a couple of children at most.

*Clem* · 15/12/13 - 17:24

Yes, it's a good idea and should have been done long ago IMO.

FriendlyGoat · 15/12/13 - 17:24

James Frederick wrote: »

They are not that many jobs to go around plus they still need time off until the child is old enough to go to nursery at least

Wouldn't hurt to try, would it?

zx50 · 15/12/13 - 17:30

James Frederick wrote: »

What if someone has triples or more?

Yeah, triplets+ should be excluded because after all, women can't control what happens after the sperm has entered their body.

Hey there!

Quick Links

Child benefit to be capped at 2 children

Comments