[newts2k]

Do you think there should be a cap to the number of children 'benefit bums' can have? I ask because a lot of them just have children to get more benefits and demand bigger houses. Do you think there should be a 2 child policy or something? I mean there's enough pressure on public finances already without all this going on and 60 million people in Britain.

[College_Dropout]

(Original post by newts2k)
Do you think there should be a cap to the number of children 'benefit bums' can have? I ask because a lot of them just have children to get more benefits and demand bigger houses. Do you think there should be a 2 child policy or something? I mean there's enough pressure on public finances already without all this going on and 60 million people in Britain.

Its not children's fault that there parents are pocketing from the welfare system. They should have a token system instead of giving them hard cash.

[newts2k]

(Original post by College_Dropout)
Its not children's fault that there parents are pocketing from the welfare system. They should have a token system instead of giving them hard cash.

What? Like a token system for example, 5 sets of school uniforms for 5 children or whatever? Wouldn't they just sell the school uniforms though? I know its not the children's fault but obviously if they're not born in the first place, they wont be losing out will they?

[College_Dropout]

(Original post by newts2k)
What? Like a token system for example, 5 sets of school uniforms for 5 children or whatever? Wouldn't they just sell the school uniforms though? I know its not the children's fault but obviously if they're not born in the first place, they wont be losing out will they?

Why would they sell the school uniforms? Most these people have more and more kids to as you say get bigger houses and more money, which a majority of is spent on booze, fags and scratch cards. About the children not being born, are the government going to force women to have abortions when they get pregnant?

[Mr Dangermouse]

(Original post by newts2k)
What? Like a token system for example, 5 sets of school uniforms for 5 children or whatever? Wouldn't they just sell the school uniforms though? I know its not the children's fault but obviously if they're not born in the first place, they wont be losing out will they?

Tokn system to stop people spending benefit money on crack.

[jami74]

(Original post by newts2k)
Do you think there should be a 2 child policy or something?

And how do you propose to enforce this? Forced abortions maybe?

[Martyn*]

I find it hard to believe that every young girl or woman would have a child just to claim benefits. In fact, this sounds like Daily Mail nonsense.

[badcheesecrispy]

I'd advocate a cap at say 3 children but of course it would be a subsidized bill with exceptions, special circumstances etc.

This would especially include those people who are long term unemployed and have had 2 children whilst being unemployed (this is just for example), those already with more children wouldnt be affected but must and would be encouraged to find ways to support the extra children, like jobseeking, eventually that would also be cut when said children got to a certain age.

I have a little girl and work hard to support her, I could not afford 3+ children atm and dont see why others should get them when they don't wish to pay.

Of course, this probably wouldnt happen and I wouldnt want to see any child going without, but encouraging the maybe significant minority of bone idle people to have kids who will be brought up to be work shy also is not a good thing for the country. There isnt enough jobs at the moment for these huge amounts of kids.

[zaliack]

(Original post by Martyn*)
I find it hard to believe that every young girl or woman would have a child just to claim benefits. In fact, this sounds like Daily Mail nonsense.

Nah, not even the Daily Mail can get away with making that crap up.

[newts2k]

(Original post by jami74)
And how do you propose to enforce this? Forced abortions maybe?

yeh, maybe, or just refuse further benefit after 2 children. Im just thinking about that guy who had 15 children, some of whom died in the fire and he was unemployed. He got something like 50k in benefits a year, that is unbelievable

[Holmeboy]

Yes, i think there should be a cap on 3 kids, for family allowance etc, as i wouldn't want to tell people that they should only have a certain amount of children, but if people continue to have lots of kids and then expect everyone else to pay for it, it is plainly wrong and unfair.

[Annoying-Mouse]

Yes. I like the system many US states adopt. You should only receive benefits for the amount of children you've had pre-benefits. If you have more then they shouldn't count hence providing incentives for people to not have more children until they can start funding it themselves.

However, I don't agree with abortions except in some special circumstances and this will also give people an incentive to get abortions so hmmm. But, it will also give people incentives to use long-acting reversible contraceptive like IUD so the government should promote it to those on benefits to prevent any accidents.

[madders94]

My parents had us before it became apparent that my dad will never be able to work and he needs my mom as his full-time carer. What are they supposed to do; choose one of us to give away? And as for a token system; way to make genuine claimants feel even more like social outcasts.

And as for being brought up to be work-shy, I, my siblings and most other children of benefit claimants are more determined to work than usual, because I would never, ever want to be out of work and on benefits. The worst part is the stigma, which needs to be stopped right away - not everyone on benefits is a scrounger.

[Holmeboy]

(Original post by madders94)
My parents had us before it became apparent that my dad will never be able to work and he needs my mom as his full-time carer. What are they supposed to do; choose one of us to give away? And as for a token system; way to make genuine claimants feel even more like social outcasts.

And as for being brought up to be work-shy, I, my siblings and most other children of benefit claimants are more determined to work than usual, because I would never, ever want to be out of work and on benefits. The worst part is the stigma, which needs to be stopped right away - not everyone on benefits is a scrounger.

True, and i think if ever the system were to be reformed, it would have to take into account existing family structures so that people with large families kept there benefits but that the indefinite increasing family benefit was not extended to larger families in the future. Also, it could be that in circumstances were a bread winner has become ill, or died than a claim should be valid there, what i and i think most people don't like is the lifestyle claimants who never do anything, but keep getting a bigger and bigger family, they are the ones that we need to target.

[madders94]

(Original post by Holmeboy)
True, and i think if ever the system were to be reformed, it would have to take into account existing family structures so that people with large families kept there benefits but that the indefinite increasing family benefit was not extended to larger families in the future. Also, it could be that in circumstances were a bread winner has become ill, or died than a claim should be valid there, what i and i think most people don't like is the lifestyle claimants who never do anything, but keep getting a bigger and bigger family, they are the ones that we need to target.

I hate that too, it gives a bad name to everyone because people begin to think that everyone on benefits sees it as a lifestyle choice. My parents would give anything to be able to work, but unfortunately it's never going to happen - my dad will never be well enough to work (and he'd struggle to get employed due to his illnesses even though he was an engineer before he was ill), and he'll never be well enough for my mom to be able to leave him for hours at a time to work either People assume they choose to live like that, which really makes me angry because they don't But I suppose the benefit is that I'm adamant that I'll take absolutely any work I can get, and unless I get ill I never want to have to claim benefits.

[PinkMobilePhone]

Geez no you can't put a cap on how many children somebody can have. That's a total breach of human rights.

You're making the very derogatory assumption that people on benefits will ALWAYS be on benefits - whilst that may be true for some people, that's not the mindset of everybody who is on benefits you know. Some people genuinely use benefits temporarily and then go on to find a job. Not everybody stays on benefits for life.

You cannot force somebody to have an abortion, that's a horrific thing to suggest, and as for refusing benefits for more than 2 children - what are the other kids going to do? Starve? Eat each other? It's not their fault you know.

My husband and I are on benefits because at the moment my husband has mobility problems, and I am his carer. This is not a long-term thing though. My husband is working hard to regain his mobility, and once he does he will be looking for a job again - as will I. We have three children, however when I was pregnant with each and every single one of them, we were not on benefits.

Time line as follows :

Sept 2004 - I was working part time (15 hours a week), and also started university. My husband was working full time in an electrical store.

January 2005 - I became pregnant.

August 2005 - I finished my first year of uni, and left work for maternity leave.

Beginning September 2005 - My husband lost his job. He had to go on JSA.

25th September 2005 - daughter was born.

June 2006 - My husband found a new job in an office (I.T. support).

September 2006 - I went back to uni

November 2006 - I became pregnant

Summer 2007 - I left uni to have baby

14th August 2007 - Our son was born

September 2008 - I went back to uni

November 2008 - I quit uni due to the pressure of raising 2 kids whilst studying

December 2008 - My husband quit his job and we both set up a business together (which did very well for the first 6 months)

January 2009 - I became pregnant

August 2009 - The business fell through

24th September 2009 - Our son was born

November 2009 - Husband started claiming DLA and ESA as his mobility had decreased so much that he could not apply for any jobs. We were facing repossession and had to put the house on the market in order to try and pay off the mortgage.

July 2010 - Moved to our new house, paid off the mortgage on our old house.

And here we are, nearly 2 years later, three kids (Aged 6, 4, and 2) and that's the situation we are in. However my husband's mobility is getting better. He still needs help from me with toilet duties and bathing and dressing, and cannot walk as far as a normal person can, but he's able to walk further than he could do originally, so things are getting better. I'm hopeful that in the next maybe 2-3 years he will be able to look for another job, and by then our youngest son will be in school too so I will be able to find a job also.

As you can see, each time I was pregnant, we were financially stable. We just seem to have had the worst luck as it would happen.

But putting a cap on the number of children is ludicrous. What would you think is wise? Suggest I sell one of my kids?

[OU Student]

Regarding the cap - what happens if someone has triplets or quads?

[Holmeboy]

(Original post by madders94)
I hate that too, it gives a bad name to everyone because people begin to think that everyone on benefits sees it as a lifestyle choice. My parents would give anything to be able to work, but unfortunately it's never going to happen - my dad will never be well enough to work (and he'd struggle to get employed due to his illnesses even though he was an engineer before he was ill), and he'll never be well enough for my mom to be able to leave him for hours at a time to work either People assume they choose to live like that, which really makes me angry because they don't But I suppose the benefit is that I'm adamant that I'll take absolutely any work I can get, and unless I get ill I never want to have to claim benefits.

Too right Madders! People that do that, give the Tories and The Sun ammunition to destroy the Welfare State. I want benefits to be fair, but reasonable, and support people when through no fault of their own fall on hard times, (as seems to be the case with your family), I wouldn't think twice about claiming if i need to at somepoint, that is afterall what they are there for, but we do need to refocus our benefit system so that it is effective in supporting people that need it, not those that crave it.

[MASeeker]

(Original post by newts2k)
Do you think there should be a cap to the number of children 'benefit bums' can have? I ask because a lot of them just have children to get more benefits and demand bigger houses. Do you think there should be a 2 child policy or something? I mean there's enough pressure on public finances already without all this going on and 60 million people in Britain.

lol no, this isn't a facist state!

[Carecup]

I love to know how you police a no more babies policy for benefit claimants. Also what happens if someone with 3-4 kids loses their job and goes onto benefits? Do they not get the full amount because of the amount of kids they have?