Tories consider limiting child benefit to three children

[D.P.]

Story - "Tories consider limiting child benefit to three children"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31743031

Being the forum it is I can imagine this idea receiving quite allot of support, but before it's hailed as being the best thing since politically sliced bread I thought it would be interesting to see some different views on the matter.

My own view on the matter,

Will it reduce the number of children born?.

I doubt it, this is taking into account the fact that there is not proven correlation between reducing child welfare & a net reduction in population growth. In-fact by looking at other nations we see that the empowerment of women & availability of affordable contraception are strongest factor related to reducing population growth.

Is there a net economic benefit?.

If the above rings true, which there is no reason to think it will benefit us economically - what will be the long term social impact of increasing poverty for large families (if they do indeed continue to have children at the same rate).

Viewing the situation in the long term we already know that poverty (relative poverty/social exclusion & specifically child 'poverty') results in undesirable long term consequences. Be that crime, long term unemployment/inactivity or poor physical or mental health - we as the tax payer will be picking up the tab for this cost.

Based on the above, no I don't believe there will be any economic benefit either.

So we have a proposal with little chance of any economic benefit & virtually no chance of achieving any reduction in population growth.

Who pays the cost of this in reality?.

Children essentially, as child benefit is meant to ensure the child enjoys a certain standard of living - the most likely people to suffer as the result of this are children. Lets also add they are not responsible in any way for the breeding patterns of their parents in question, if anything this is a form of collective punishment.

So why consider it?.

Appeasement of a portion of society who care little for the intricacies of a given social problem & will hail this proposal as the silver bullet to end all woes. When in reality it will achieve nothing, cost the tax payers more & reduce social cohesion.

It makes tactical sense to consider/suggest this kind of solution - but sadly this is due to the ignorance of it's expected supporters.

I tend to agree. I do think people should only have children if they can afford all the costs associate with it but ultimately the removal of of state support means it is the children who suffer and society is left to pick up the pieces in the future.


What I have wondered though is if benefits are received above a certain threshold then they are treated as effective long term loan offset against inheritance. That is if someone with benefits received above the threshold comes into future money due to inheritance then that money is used to pay off the benefits, similar upon death then increased I heritence tax is due. For the poorest it makes no difference.

 

[D.P.]

As long as the policy isn't isn't replied retrospectively it is a good idea.

Don't have children if you can't afford them.

While I agree with the sentiment it just means the children will suffer.

 

[D.P.]

We also pay for other peoples' grandparents, and the "other peoples' children" we pay for now will later be paying for our own dotage - hadn't we better offer them sufficient support today to ensure they are able to take that strain? (i.e. support them in becoming productive and profitable members of society)

This. I have no idea about the intricacies of child benefit, but we sure as heck need to check and possibly reverse the exploding human population.

The trouble is that there doesn't seem to be a neat little solution that we can all agree on. But we do know that population growth isn't a good thing. We're already putting unsustainable pressure on the planet and its ecosystems.

I would happily pay more tax towards measures to reduce the population.

The population is certainly not exploding I the UK, quite the oposite which is why pensioners are such an expensive problem for decades to come.

Even globally population levels are no longer in such a rapid imcrease. Fertility rates have plummeted far faster than the experts predicted. Instead of runaway population growth the latest feelings now is the populations will rapidly age and be very top heavy like the UK.

There are many countries that not all that long ago had fertility rates of. > 8 and are now down to around 2.5. Massive change in dynamics.

 

[daz]

I can't see any real reason for child benefit to exist separately and outside of the normal benefits system at all. It should be entirely means tested.

 

[LordSplodge]

This essentially punishes the children and that is wrong. We should do all we can to stop not increase child poverty.

It's been long popular with the general public so i'm puzzled as to way this is taking so long to roll out

What is popular with our illustrious Great Unwashed is often not the right thing to do...

 

[grumpysculler]

Why just child benefit? Why not tax credits (or universal credit) too? How about social housing and housing benefit?

How would you deal with a family like ours where our planned last child came as a pair? Financially penalise someone because of a biological quirk?

The problem with this is that it is unlikely to change behaviours for those that would make the most difference. So you end up with children growing up in households that are more deprived than they were which makes it harder to break the cycle.

Ideologically, I'd much rather see something like housing benefit be restricted so that you don't get more each time you have another child and have to fund the top-up yourself. Same to social housing moves. But then you get overcrowded families are what are we going to do? Take the kids into care instead?

It's a swear-filter hard problem to solve.

I suspect some voters on the fence between Tory and UKIP might like this. Politicians-in-floating-idea-that-might-appeal-to-marginal-voters-shocker.

 

[mark66]

I can't see any real reason for child benefit to exist separately and outside of the normal benefits system at all. It should be entirely means tested.

I also agree with this but my major gripe with the current policy is the fact it is withdrawn on a sliding scale if one parent earns over £50k and withdrawn completely when hitting £60k.

This has affected my family, where I am the sole earner and I now get nothing for my 3 children. I would be more than happy to accept this 2013 rule if it was fair across the board. The fact that I have friends who collectively (as a married couple) earn nearly £100k and get all their child benefit seems wrong.

The argument put forward by the government was that it was 'too hard' to work out joint earnings and yet the Tax Credits system did exactly that.....even if they did then make numerous errors in peoples payments!!

 

[grumpysculler]

What is popular with our illustrious Great Unwashed is often not the right thing to do...

I respectfully suggest that it is probably exactly the wrong thing to do.

 

[lemonade]

We have a growing aging population, if anything we need more fertility so we have a younger generation, what needs curbing is a limit on immigration as its not sustainable in the long run.

 

[daz]

I also agree with this but my major gripe with the current policy is the fact it is withdrawn on a sliding scale if one parent earns over £50k and withdrawn completely when hitting £60k.

This has affected my family, where I am the sole earner and I now get nothing for my 3 children. I would be more than happy to accept this 2013 rule if it was fair across the board. The fact that I have friends who collectively (as a married couple) earn nearly £100k and get all their child benefit seems wrong.

The argument put forward by the government was that it was 'too hard' to work out joint earnings and yet the Tax Credits system did exactly that.....even if they did then make numerous errors in peoples payments!!

Yeah it's shocking how it's implemented at the moment.

You would hope that there might be a bit of reform coming through with the universal credit system but I wouldn't hold my breath.

 

[NexusK]

We have a growing aging population, if anything we need more fertility so we have a younger generation, what needs curbing is a limit on immigration as its not sustainable in the long run.

Or instead of pension at 67 get out the bolt gun instead

 

[LordSplodge]

We have a growing aging population, if anything we need more fertility so we have a younger generation, what needs curbing is a limit on immigration as its not sustainable in the long run.

What about children born to immigrants? Are only indigenous children valid?

 

[eatcustard]

Why just child benefit? Why not tax credits (or universal credit) too? How about social housing and housing benefit?

How would you deal with a family like ours where our planned last child came as a pair? Financially penalise someone because of a biological quirk?

Thats the risk you take when you have kids, but why should I pay for people who breed like rabbits.

Do what most people do stop at 2

 

[cheesyboy]

Thats the risk you take when you have kids, but why should I pay for people who breed like rabbits.

Do what most people do stop at 2

In fact, the most common number of Children is 1.

 

[Richdog]

Why just child benefit? Why not tax credits (or universal credit) too? How about social housing and housing benefit?

How would you deal with a family like ours where our planned last child came as a pair? Financially penalise someone because of a biological quirk?

It is basically referring to anyone who basically cannot afford to have the amount of children they have pumped out without relying on government benefits to survive. For people who work, having twins to make a total of three kids should not be a huge hardship over two kids. If having three kids has tipped you over the poverty line, then having a second probably wasn't a good idea in the first place.

 

[robgmun]

What is popular with our illustrious Great Unwashed is often not the right thing to do...

The Great Unwashed want wealth distribution on communist scales so not sure way you're mixing your messages.

But i do agree with this statement as the Great Unwashed are usually idealist idiots who live in a fantasy land probably due to brain rot via overuse of LSD

 

[DaleTheWhale]

Most of the people who will kick up in arms about their "Child Benefits" being reduced are the ones that spend it on themselves and the children are in the same situation. Should the benefit amount raise, the children probably won't see the extra money, and if it drops then mommy, daddy and their mates get less Special Brew in the fridge.

However, most other genuine cases where they're struggling there needs to be something place to review claims and cases so Judy and Nick the family that have never worked, claim disability, JSA and child benefits whilst having 3 holidays and a party every Friday night are the ones that lose out rather then them being able to knock another kid out for some extra cash*.

If I was to have a kid in my current situation, I would probably be £400-500+ better off each month, without changing anything.

*I know 3 families that do this.

 

[molinari]

Don't have children if you can't afford them.

I completely agree!

 

[Domo]

This sounds like an excellent way of increasing child poverty. It's cruel to make kids suffer for their parents' mistakes.

What I thought. The reality is such a policy can never work. You can't leave people in poverty - but then I'm probably way too naive there.

 

[cheesyboy]

It is basically referring to anyone who basically cannot afford to have the amount of children they have pumped out without relying on government benefits to survive. For people who work, having twins to make a total of three kids should not be a huge hardship over two kids. If having three kids has tipped you over the poverty line, then having a second probably wasn't a good idea in the first place.

For people who work, having twins to make a total of three kids should not be a huge hardship over two kids??!!

Do you have kids? Any idea how much childcare costs? Another child would cost a full-time working family about £1,000+ per month just for nursery fees.

That's a big ****ing difference to considering the costs of just one more child.