Cap on benefits for children

  Strawballs 13:33 25 Oct 2012

It is rare I agree with the Tories but I do on this one If I had gone to my boss and said I need a pay rise because we are having another child he would have just said you should have thought if you could afford it first.

Benefit cap

  Forum Editor 14:18 25 Oct 2012

This is a nettle that needed grasping. Successive governments have wanted to do it, but all of them have shied away out of fear for the negative reactions it will generate.

In truth it would contribute little in terms of savings towards our economic recovery, but that's not the main point - it will send a message to those who live inside the benefit culture that the gravy train is slowing.

  oresome 14:27 25 Oct 2012

Not an easy one to call.

I have no wish to see children disadvantaged through no fault of their own.

On another thread I suggest we have too few workers to support the rising number of pensioners. One solution to that problem is to increase the number of workers by encouraging a higher birth rate.

We won't develop a highly skilled workforce by raising children in poverty however.

  interzone55 14:28 25 Oct 2012

It does make me think the the Daily Mail is now the Tories chief policy advisor.

That's not to say I disagree on this particular matter

  SeiyaIkki 14:37 25 Oct 2012

I wish this could happen. However this is a very sensitive subject and there are pros and cons.

  wiz-king 14:39 25 Oct 2012

I think it should be staggered, the first child cost more than the second or third for several reasons - set-up cost of the home, stopping work and earning less money, by the time you get to the second and third you will still have the equipment and probably not yet gone back to full time work so the 'cost' is less. More than three children and you should be 'on yer own' if you can afford more then pay for them.

  Aitchbee 15:31 25 Oct 2012

I totally agree with this proposal as it will discourage the proliferation of foreign 'baby-machines' that milk the system.

  Forum Editor 15:43 25 Oct 2012

UK spending on family benefits as a percentage of GDP is the third highest of all major economies, and I see no reason why people should assume that they can keep on producing children, even if they can't afford to support them, secure in the knowledge that the State will provide them with more money.

Of course there would be problems if this policy was introduced, and of course there will be the 'child poverty' argument, but that doesn't mean it couldn't work. It means that there should be lots of consultation, and a great deal of careful planning, but that's what governments are for, isn't it?

  Nontek 16:28 25 Oct 2012

I mirror wiz-king's comments exactly.

  john bunyan 16:52 25 Oct 2012

I agree with wiz-king and Nontek. Not only on the grounds that "Why should others expect me , via tax,to pay them to have children they cannot afford", but also because the world population is already too high and if anything we should pay to reduce it (Except for the problem of too few youngsters to pay for too many oldies, some of whom have not been able to accumulate a pension on top of the "state" one.)

  cream. 19:11 25 Oct 2012

"A quarter of all babies born in the UK are the children of immigrants"

So no doubt they will all be entitled to child benefit and subsidiary benefits.

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

iMac Pro review

Illustrator Charles Williams on how to create magazines and book covers

iMac Pro review

Les meilleures prises CPL (2018)