Crosswords2 mins ago
Benefit's Capped By Number Of Children
This poll is closed.
- Yes - 470 votes
- 84%
- No - 89 votes
- 16%
Stats until: 11:04 Sun 28th Apr 2024 (Refreshed every 5 minutes)
© AnswerBank Ltd 2000 - 2024. All Rights Reserved.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by AB Editor. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Jim, Well, it's not a punishment, is it! What do you say child benefit is? £60 a week? Five kids - £300 a week - free! Nice work if you can get it! Get real, Jim. The simple fact is people who have children they can't afford have to take responsibility for their actions - as the rest of the population does. They cannot continue to expect that their 'mistakes' - or otherwise - to be paid for by everyone else!
That £300 gets eaten up fairly quickly -- and bare in mind that this is assuming a couple earning between them not more than £15,000 a year and usually far less. It's not £300 a week free, then -- it's £300 a week plus five more children you have to look after. I should imagine there are people far better qualified than I am to tell you what a massive drain on time, money and resources five children can be.
Stop demonising those on benefits. Even the cases where people are abusing the system are so rare that it's ludicrous to bring in a cap to deal with those cases without catching the very people who earlier you were prepared to make allowances for. That is, the usual situation when a large family suddenly falls on hard times.
Stop demonising those on benefits. Even the cases where people are abusing the system are so rare that it's ludicrous to bring in a cap to deal with those cases without catching the very people who earlier you were prepared to make allowances for. That is, the usual situation when a large family suddenly falls on hard times.
Then that's perhaps partly because I could have made my point clearer:
If you introduce some cap on benefits by number of children, then that cap will almost certainly affect those people who have just had a large family but fallen on hard times. You don't want to affect those people, because it wasn't their fault. Good luck writing a system that manages to deal with the tiny, tiny minority of weirdos who might think that it's worth having another child for an extra £60 a week (I don't think that's my idea of a good deal) -- good luck writing that system without also affecting the innocent.
The state benefits system shouldn't judge -- at least, shouldn't judge why people are in the situation they are in. That's what people are for. The state's job is to support those who need help, regardless of how or why they got there, or whose fault it is. We've been getting rid of judgments assigning blame to people in divorce, for example (who cares whose fault it is?) and in general the law has been moving away from moralising. I see this in the same sort of way.
I quite agree with your general point that people should be more careful, should try not to make mistakes and should be more responsible. Once they have made the mistake, however -- too late to judge, now time to support. Tut, chide, try to persuade them to be more careful in future. But, ultimately, once there is a child involved, if you take money away from the parents, you are really taking it away from the children too. And they didn't choose to be born.
Again, please stop demonising people on benefits. This is a problem in so few cases as to frankly not be worth changing benefit laws over.
If you introduce some cap on benefits by number of children, then that cap will almost certainly affect those people who have just had a large family but fallen on hard times. You don't want to affect those people, because it wasn't their fault. Good luck writing a system that manages to deal with the tiny, tiny minority of weirdos who might think that it's worth having another child for an extra £60 a week (I don't think that's my idea of a good deal) -- good luck writing that system without also affecting the innocent.
The state benefits system shouldn't judge -- at least, shouldn't judge why people are in the situation they are in. That's what people are for. The state's job is to support those who need help, regardless of how or why they got there, or whose fault it is. We've been getting rid of judgments assigning blame to people in divorce, for example (who cares whose fault it is?) and in general the law has been moving away from moralising. I see this in the same sort of way.
I quite agree with your general point that people should be more careful, should try not to make mistakes and should be more responsible. Once they have made the mistake, however -- too late to judge, now time to support. Tut, chide, try to persuade them to be more careful in future. But, ultimately, once there is a child involved, if you take money away from the parents, you are really taking it away from the children too. And they didn't choose to be born.
Again, please stop demonising people on benefits. This is a problem in so few cases as to frankly not be worth changing benefit laws over.
Jim, I’ll get back to your post later – got to go now – but just one thing before I go …
//Again, please stop demonising people on benefits//
Where have I demonised people on benefits? This is the second time in your last couple of posts you’ve put words into my mouth – and you do it regularly. Please stop it.
//Again, please stop demonising people on benefits//
Where have I demonised people on benefits? This is the second time in your last couple of posts you’ve put words into my mouth – and you do it regularly. Please stop it.
Child benefit is not £60 pw. It is £20.30 for the first child and £13.40 for each subsequent child.
Nonetheless far too much. Child Benefit should be capped at two children, from April 2014 reduced to just one child and in April 2015 abolished entirely (both these changes for new recipients only so nobody loses money they already receive).
Other benefits should be capped at the rate applicable to the recipients' circumstances when they were first paid. So, if you have more children you must manage with the income you have (just like people in work). Your Housing Benefit would be similarly capped at the original rate. So if you need a bigger house you must either find the money or stay put (just like people not in receipt of HB).
Regretfully people being maintained by taxpayers cannot expect to have their lifestyles maintained at the same level if they have more children.
Nonetheless far too much. Child Benefit should be capped at two children, from April 2014 reduced to just one child and in April 2015 abolished entirely (both these changes for new recipients only so nobody loses money they already receive).
Other benefits should be capped at the rate applicable to the recipients' circumstances when they were first paid. So, if you have more children you must manage with the income you have (just like people in work). Your Housing Benefit would be similarly capped at the original rate. So if you need a bigger house you must either find the money or stay put (just like people not in receipt of HB).
Regretfully people being maintained by taxpayers cannot expect to have their lifestyles maintained at the same level if they have more children.
The figures I was quoting earlier included Child Benefit (at £13.40 pw for second, third etc., children) and Child Tax Credit, although it's possible that I got the calculation wrong. Figure was based on the difference in Tax Credit between having a second and third child, divided by 52 -- freely available figures from HMRC, but I may have misunderstood the table. Either way, the general point I was making is, I think, accurate -- that having children does not suddenly lead to a significant increase in fortune or indeed any real increase at all.
I am mostly with naomi and NJ on this one - having lots of children is a luxury that only the rich should be able to afford, and certainly should not be state-subsidised. But having *some* children is important to society, and we must therefore make it reasonably easy for people to have a reasonable number of children. Therefore I'm not entirely opposed to child benefit, just to unreasonable child benefit - like beyond two or three children.
BTW I think many of the same arguments also apply to maternity/paternity benefits and the costs these place on both employers and the state!
BTW I think many of the same arguments also apply to maternity/paternity benefits and the costs these place on both employers and the state!
I think there should be a cap after two children, or three if your second pregancy results in twins.
It's not your fault you had a double whammy the second time!
But I do think that some people do produce kids without even considering how they are going to provide for them.
Mr P and I planned very carefully how we would manage financially before we had our children. It's up to us to support them, not the rest of the country.
It's not your fault you had a double whammy the second time!
But I do think that some people do produce kids without even considering how they are going to provide for them.
Mr P and I planned very carefully how we would manage financially before we had our children. It's up to us to support them, not the rest of the country.
Latest Posts
Crosswords10 mins ago
Has Anyone Knowingly Eaten Horsemeat?
ChatterBank12 mins ago
Crosswords12 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.