Campaigners have called for the government to scrap the two-child limit on benefits

[UTmaniac]

The UK's pyramid ponzi scheme of population increase from births and immigration needs to stop before it's too late, renting is already now more expensive than having a mortgage in many parts of the country, trapping those on less than average wage into poverty and unable to get on the housing ladder. While green space is diminishing, even though new housing and infrastructure is still not keeping up with annual population increase.

 

[Nasher]

I have two children. I am also in a job and my wife is a nurse...lets say something horrible happens to one of us and we have to quit work.

Are you saying I or my wife shouldnt get benefits?

Why is it people lump it all in one bracket....as if everyone out of work is "workshy".

Why should there be benefits for kids. Isnt 66ish million people on a 500 mile long island enough? Kids are a luxury at this point, why should the public fund luxuries.

We already dont have enough houses, health care, or jobs to go around.

 

[dirtychinchilla]

If I ever came to power, I think my first act would be to scrap benefits completely.

Can't stand the thought of paying for other people (except in the extreme minority of people who genuinely need a bit of help, as mentioned above)

Some of the most successful and happy societies around the world have a massive welfare state. I think that helping others should be a lifetime goal for everyone.

Nothing gets GD frothing like the thought of having to help someone else

Agreed. And god forbid they either smoke or happen to be in the police.

 

[Geodude97AD]

Why should there be benefits for kids. Isnt 66ish million people on a 500 mile long island enough? Kids are a luxury at this point, why should the public fund luxuries.

We already dont have enough houses, health care, or jobs to go around.

If you don't invest in the future you will not have a future, children are not luxuries they are the future adult population. A nation can't be maintained on immigration alone.

 

[Fubsy]

As long as our economies are based on larger and larger populations to grow the consumer/worker levels then we are doomed. Also, who/what will pay for older generations if/when the population growth slows or rescinds? As a species we are idiots.

Despite the above I am not in favour of people that cry for further population growth, including immigration. Not in principal, just there's never the necessary planning or foresight on how to deal with the numbers.

 

[Amnesia]

I'd much prefer to be IQ 84 guy.

 

[Hotwired]

I'd much prefer to be IQ 84 guy.

I think it's a warning against procrastinating.

 

[200sols]

Given the impending climate crisis, we would be better with a smaller population. Fewer people to feed, less strain on the environment, lower demand for water, power etc.

 

[dowie]

That is certainly a good reason to not incentivise it. It isn't like birth control and abortion aren't available or exceptions aren't made for multiple births etc...

Having the lower income/lower IQ sections of society have more kids and at a younger age probably isn't good for the gene pool.

 

[wolfie138]

should be one child cap IMO

 

[Scort]

My wife’s sister boils my blood...

5 kids (3 dads), 40 years old and never worked a day in her life. Complains all the time about money but she’s constantly got a cigarette on the go.

Nearly all the children are “autistic” or “disabled” (admittedly one is) but I feel like she’s pushed to get diagnosis for the rest because she wants more money from the state.

I can’t stand the handout mentality, but then I’ve always worked and couldn’t accept financial aid for sitting on my arse all day. Call me stupid but it is wrong and shameful.

Why should the honest man pay for a family to pump out 3,4,5 or 6 kids just because they get more money per x kid? Silly.

Though I don't have this personal experience, I completely agree with your stance - it's exactly how I feel about the benefits system.

One of the problems I see, is that there are families out there, with at least two (maybe three) generations who have/are living in the handout mentality - and it's the norm to them; the Government/local council/whoever have created a rod for their own backs - as these work shy ******* will likely never want to give up some/all of their benefits, and actually get of their arses to become a working productive member of society.

My brother lives on benefits, has a couple of kids by different mothers, and finds literally any excuse to get out of working - I have worked since leaving college, and aside from once having a bit of a breakdown and quitting my job; I have always been in employment and paying into the system. Funnily enough, the one time I did seek help from the 'job office' (literally the last month of three before I decided I needed to work again) - I was told I could get about thirty odd quid a week. I never did, as I went back to IT.

Though I expect most of us who do work, have a fleeting feeling of "I'd love to have all that time off, to game and do what I like, whilst being given money" - you'd just lose too much self respect, that none of us would do it.

 

[Psycho Sonny]

My wife’s sister boils my blood...

5 kids (3 dads), 40 years old and never worked a day in her life. Complains all the time about money but she’s constantly got a cigarette on the go.

Nearly all the children are “autistic” or “disabled” (admittedly one is) but I feel like she’s pushed to get diagnosis for the rest because she wants more money from the state.

I can’t stand the handout mentality, but then I’ve always worked and couldn’t accept financial aid for sitting on my arse all day. Call me stupid but it is wrong and shameful.

Why should the honest man pay for a family to pump out 3,4,5 or 6 kids just because they get more money per x kid? Silly.

There are much worse cases of abuse out there too sadly.

26 year old with 9 kids (single parent household - no father) was the best one I have seen. thing was she was so loose now they were all slipping out premature and then having millions of £ of nhs treatment to get them through. one of them didn't make it also. however it was clear even after that straight away she had another one she wasn't going to stop. think it was 6 months inbetween the one that died being born that she gave birth again.

2 maximum is a smart policy and how it should always have been. after that you should have to pay your own way.

 

[StriderX]

2 maximum is only smart if you have immigration to add that extra .1 that's needed for stability, otherwise it's needlessly burdening future generations.

 

[200sols]

2 maximum is only smart if you have immigration to add that extra .1 that's needed for stability, otherwise it's needlessly burdening future generations.

Lucky we are importing entire cities worth of people each year then, forget investing in infrastructure to support them all, just get them in and make GDP figures look good yeah.

 

[thegreysquirrel]

I think the 2 child cap is perfectly fine.

Quite frankly, the current scheme of £20.70 a week for the first child and £13.70 for additional children is hardly going to make a dent in childcare costs and even for the lowest incomes, it's not exactly the greatest money making scheme. I don't think scroungers are having kids for the child benefit, but rather the doors it opens for other benefits (i.e. housing).

My wife and I both work and earn about the national average and are just about to start a family. I can't say I've factored in child benefit once. I'm far too panicked about affording one, I can't possibly imagine the stress that these people pumping out kids must be feeling. I'd rather not scrape along the bottom because I wanted loads of kids, but then that's a choice for other people, and one that I think they should be allowed to make, even at the smallest expense to me.

 

[Shadowness]

As someone how doesn't have children, and has no desire to in fact either.....

Is anyone with a child entitled to benefits? Does your salary come into it? How does it work?

 

[StriderX]

Lucky we are importing entire cities worth of people each year then, forget investing in infrastructure to support them all, just get them in and make GDP figures look good yeah.

Forgetting to invest is entirely up to the government that people keep voting in that continue to fail to do so, that shouldn't be blamed on people wanting to live and work here and drawing the bridge will just mean resentment when the pains of looking after millions of people retire unduly burden the system they've stolen from.

Don't be surprised when punitive measures backfire, because you're chasing short term fixes for long term problems (usually self-inflicted).

 

[Dirk Diggler]

We'd love to have another kid, but can't currently afford it, I'll send you my bank details and you deposit £500/month (that should cover the shortfall)

Or are you too horrible and selfish and don't care enough?

That's a lovely little wisecrack, but only confirms you haven't actually thought it through in any capacity whatsoever. If you do the sums, you'll realise that the cost to an individual taxpayer in order to meet the requirement for the additional 600,000 children estimated to be affected, would be around 27p per week.

£13.70 * 600,000 = £8.22M
£8.22M / 31M taxpayers = £0.27 per week

Personally, I have no issue with that.

And here's the part you're really going to struggle with... Of all those millions of taxpayers, there are millions who are hard working PAYE employees earning much less than the threshold for CB - and picture this; lots of them have children.

The beneficiary of child benefit is not exclusively unemployed people, far from it. The beneficiaries are hard working people struggling to get by.

This disgusting, selfish society needs to get some perspective and start seeing the bigger picture.

 

[dowie]

That's a lovely little wisecrack, but only confirms you haven't actually thought it through in any capacity whatsoever. If you do the sums, you'll realise that the cost to an individual taxpayer in order to meet the requirement for the additional 600,000 children estimated to be affected, would be around 27p per week.

£13.70 * 600,000 = £8.22M
£8.22M / 31M taxpayers = £0.27 per week

Personally, I have no issue with that.

Well that isn’t true, the tax payers are likely also going to have to fund their healthcare, education etc...

If it does change the breeding behaviour of some then you save the tax payer way more than just the cost of the child benefit payment. Plenty of theses kids aren’t likely going to be net contributors either.

 

[StriderX]

Well that isn’t true, the tax payers are likely also going to have to fund their healthcare, education etc...

Conveniently forgetting that eventually they are likely to be productive keeping the economy afloat, why not just have a zero child policy then if that's how you feel?

See how long it takes for the economy to collapse.