Benefit's Capped By Number Of Children

[AB Editor]

 

This poll is closed.

Should benefits and government hand-outs be capped after the second child?

• Yes - 470 votes
• 84%
• No - 89 votes
• 16%

See final stats

Stats until: 12:38 Sun 28th Apr 2024 (Refreshed every 5 minutes)

© AnswerBank Ltd 2000 - 2024. All Rights Reserved.

[ummmm]

I agree Jim, it certainly won't provide any sort of luxury.

[craft1948]

Things were indeed cheaper then triggs, Mr Craft earned the grand sum of £24 a week when I had the daughter.

[jim360]

I dislike the argument that we need to cap the benefits system in general. The main reason we are in a mess is because of profligate bankers, not people having one or two "too many" children. Any chance we could do something about the first lot, rather than demonising the second? Even assuming there are some people perverted enough to have another child for about £65 a week, they represent such a tiny minority that any cap would end up harming the innocent. And, in order to distinguish the two... well, it's virtually impossible. How can you prove that someone had a baby for the money? Or, perhaps, how can you prove it in a way that costs less money that you would save?

A cap on benefits by number of children is unfair, unworkable and pointless.

[snags]

''It's not the benefits that need capping''

Or put a sock in it!?

[ummmm]

Putting it like that Jim, I agree 100%

[jim360]

Thanks ummm and trig.

[emmie]

most definitely.

[naomi24]

Jim, //What are people proposing if, say, a condom fails for whatever reason, or you happen to forget to take the pill while on benefits and end up falling pregnant again? Or perhaps that you have to give the baby up for adoption, or have to have an abortion?//

There is a third option. Pay for it yourself.

[jim360]

The entire point, Naomi, is that these people can't pay for it themselves. Yes, that means that they should try to avoid having children if it will only lead to extra hardship, but we cannot as a State just tut at them and point the finger, because ultimately it's the Child that needs the money and the care just as much as the parent.

[Baldric]

Naomi, do you mean take responsibility for your own actions?
Gosh! How unpopular would that be?

[LoftyLottie]

Agree with Baldric and Naomi and things might have been cheaper in the black and white days but we certainly didn't have a wonderful life style on meagre wages. I believe benefits should be there for people who have fallen on hard times and that children should be looked after and cherished, but the main responsibility is on the parents not the state. Unfortunately, too many people expect too much from the state.

[emmie]

LL, yes they do. Sadly some are not getting the help they need, whilst some others are coining it in. I don't understand the idea of having children or more than you can afford to keep, they are a major expense, and more so now.

[naomi24]

Baldric, //do you mean take responsibility for your own actions?
Gosh! How unpopular would that be? //

Wouldn’t it though!

Jim, plenty of people don’t have more children than they can afford – even if they would like more. If people make mistakes, it’s their problem. Without hand-outs they might just be a bit more careful in future. Just think what would happen if we all took your attitude. The already struggling welfare state would collapse completely! It was never designed to support people indefinitely or to allow them to live lifestyles of their choosing – it was designed to help them temporarily over difficult times - and that's just as it should be.

[naomi24]

Since we don't have an option to vote for the abolition of child benefit, I've just voted 'A'.

[jim360]

It's also the Child's problem.

The state is right to criticise such people who have children irresponsibly -- but they are in such a minority anyway -- but is, in my opinion, wrong to punish them. That's what a cap would do. That's why I'm opposed to such a cap.

[naomi24]

Jim, If there were no child benefit, there would be no 'punishment' - as you put it - for anyone - and people would have to take responsibility for their own actions and for their own choices. At the moment it's more of a reward! The more children you have, the more money you get!

[jim360]

I've quoted the amount earlier. £60 a week roughly, I think. That's not a reward, that will most likely barely cover the expenses needed, or certainly one would have to scrimp and save. Either way, it's not a life of luxury. So no, it's not a reward. What a ridiculous idea!

[woofgang]

no one has addressed the issue of what would happen to the children?