cap for kids benifits

First topic message reminder :

limiting the number of children in a family that should be supported on benefits.

good idea or not?

I think any government party will be sorting this out 250,000 plus families who are claiming 500 plus each week that cant carry on like the top enders avoiding paying tax cant carry on!!

there's many more things that can't go on too but they still do, what makes this different? nothing

we not talking about other things are we!!

yes but i'm just saying that this will go on just like all the other bad stuff that is allowed to go on, cos you seem to think this is more important or something

it as to be a on the list to do there 250,000 plus families who are claiming £500 a week

there's endless things on the list that don't get on, it's clear you feel that this is so so important so has to be and will be, but you have to face facts, at the end of the day, this has been going on for years so what makes you think it's going to ergently stop now just cos they said it, they say alot of things they don't do, and there are many equally important issues that many people feel just as strongly about, but there is no miraculous answer.

there is by caping what people can claim simple job a good one

nothing is simple with this government, but this is only simple for the simple minded, in reality it is very complex. And the government has promised many things that I hope for and that are important to thousands of people and just as important as the benefit frauders, yet he still hasn't fulfilled those promises, so all i'm saying is don't hold your breath

Mind you, in fairness, when I went to claim dole once I was told I was having nowt - no form of benefits at all - as I'd been self-employed.

When I asked how to get benefits I was told they'd be forthcoming when I'd declared bankruptcy, lost my house and had no assets.

The almost 20 years of paying NI and tax etc meant nothing.

around and around we go!! all government party of full of crap ! but this problem need sorting out before we get million families getting 500 a week!!

Working dog wrote:Mind you, in fairness, when I went to claim dole once I was told I was having nowt - no form of benefits at all - as I'd been self-employed.

When I asked how to get benefits I was told they'd be forthcoming when I'd declared bankruptcy, lost my house and had no assets.

The almost 20 years of paying NI and tax etc meant nothing.

That's awful, shows how this issue needs much more thought and there is certainly no simple answer to fix the ridiculous way this country works!

Steve wrote:around and around we go!! all government party of full of crap ! but this problem need sorting out before we get million families getting 500 a week!!

They really are, and the problem does need sorting out but it's just not that simple, and there are a few other massive things that need sorting out badly, doesn't mean to say they will be, all we can do is hope for the best!

Steve wrote:around and around we go!! all government party of full of crap ! but this problem need sorting out before we get million families getting 500 a week!!

Yes, Steve, around & around as it has done for many years & several governments.

Mind you, I have to say that when me & my oh were out of work & claiming benefits (with 2 kids) we got nothing like the amounts you're talking about! You don't get that much more for an extra 2 kids. It was about 18 years ago, and we got our mortgage interest paid, council tax paid & a small amount each week for food etc. In all it was about £500 per month & prices etc have spiralled upwards since then. It certainly wasn't enough to live a life of luxury.

we had Labour in power since then caryll who allow people who wasn't even born this county to have homes that was costing the tax payer 3,000 / 5,000 a month

Steve wrote:we had Labour in power since then caryll who allow people who wasn't even born this county to have homes that was costing the tax payer 3,000 / 5,000 a month

But that isn't what we're talking about, is it? Neither am I talking about political parties - they're all as bad as each other. You expect loads of immigration when Labour are in power, but the Conservatives were supposed to be halting it, but it's increased since they came in. It makes no difference which political party is involved, they will never sort it out because no matter what they do it'll lose them votes, and that's all they care about.

At the end of the day, it's people choosing the simplest option. What do you think takes more time and effort: limiting the amount of kids people can have, or trying to improve the system that allows people to take advantage of it? It's the easier option, and yeah it'll help with not giving so much money to people sponging off the system, but it'll also cause problems for many, many people (many of whom are already struggling). There won't be any need to limit the amount of benefits people get or the number of kids they can have if the government found a way to crack down on those that are using it unnecessarily.

Very true , crack down on the criminals and not the suspects

I dont know why anyone is even trying to debate with steve u all no its a no win situation haha! His way or the high way x

Did i miss a point i thought the question was that they could have as many as they like but that the benefit would only pay for??? say 4 children?

In my opinion, and it will sound harsh, any benefits should be capped with a certain number of children. If a family is well of and than loses their jobs because of the economy they should be entitled to benefits for no more than a year. That is more than enough time to find a job even if it pays less than they were used to.

People have no right to expect the government to take care of them indefinately unless they are incapable of going to work.

I agree with you - benefits shouldn't be handed out ad infinitum if the claimant is capable of work. Those who are sick/injured etc should be able to claim for as long as it takes to get them fit for work again - maybe for life if they cannot get fit.

However, you can't limit the amount of children you pay benefit for - who suffers? The children!

Get the lazy scroungers back to work & the country will save millions!

I'm all for the right to procreate, however if you can't take care of the family that you already have and have no work prospects it's very irresponsible to have more children. At least until you are back on your feet again

jstaff wrote:I'm all for the right to procreate, however if you can't take care of the family that you already have and have no work prospects it's very irresponsible to have more children. At least until you are back on your feet again

That isn't what we're talking about. This debate is all about those who already have, say, 4 or 5 children and have found themselves out of work (maybe through no fault of their own) and need to claim benefits. They may well have had superbly paid jobs, or they may both have been working with good wages, but maybe the main wage earner (for example) has an accident at work & can no longer do his job, or is long term sick & the company won't keep him on, or the company he works for goes bankrupt etc, etc.

They could afford the children when they had them, had no idea that they may be dumped out of work, and need the benefits system to keep them going until they can work again.

I'm all for supporting that for as long as the situation deserves. Having a large family is a conscious decision though and you should save for a rainy day. So I don't think a cap on 3 or 4 children is unreasonable though

So you would tell people that they must not have any more than 4 children? Surely that takes away their civil rights? It's a slippery slope down to the way things are in China - I cannot believe that's how right-minded people feel things should go.

People save for pensions etc, but they may not have enough put by to cope with a sudden & unexpected loss of income. I would hate for our system to go the way of some other countries whereby if you're out of work, you're out on the street with nothing.

I believe that people should live within their means. If you want and can afford a large family that's within your right. If you can't afford the family you have than you don't have a right to increase the size and expect your government to indefinately pay for you to have more children.

I don't think anyone should live life thinking they have a right to a free handout that never ends.

jstaff wrote:I believe that people should live within their means. If you want and can afford a large family that's within your right. If you can't afford the family you have than you don't have a right to increase the size and expect your government to indefinately pay for you to have more children.

I don't think anyone should live life thinking they have a right to a free handout that never ends.

Round in circles again.

That isn't what I'm saying. I'm saying that sometimes people have a large family that they can afford. Then something happens that temporarily floors them, through no fault of their own. The system in the UK at the moment allows them to claim benefits for themselves & their children until they can get back into work. What on earth is wrong with that?

Nothing wrong at all with that I think we are both saying the same thing. I just think that benefits should be for a limited time unless there are reasons they can't be.

Yes, but you were advocating a cap on the amount of children that can be claimed for. That is so unfair to the majority of good, honest people in this country.

I think that 3 or 4 kids is plenty. If you want more than that you should make sure you can afford it.

Oh, good Lord. I'm talking to myself. The people I'm talking about could afford the number of children they have when they had them, and would not forsee their change in circumstances. All they would need is help by way of benefits until they can find another job, unless, of course, they are unfit for work in which case the benefits would go on longer, as necessary.

jstaff wrote:I think that 3 or 4 kids is plenty. If you want more than that you should make sure you can afford it.

Thats a very sweeping statement.....YOU think that 3 or 4 kids is plenty....give me strength!

Ok so using my example again....what do u think honestly to our situation.....

Hubby was married for however many years to ex wife and had 4 kids all of which he could afford to look after by working as many possible hours as he could. They get divorced and he meets me (with one child from previous relationship) We have another child, all again which we can afford to pay for with him working and me working two jobs. Through certain circumstances other 4 children end up living with us (for a while at least, i wont go 2 much into it). We have always payed tax and never claimed benifits. Now after working for 14 years in the same job and working his way through the company he is faced with reduncey. Are u seriously telling me that i should only be able to claim beneifit for 2/3 of our 6 children..............

Caryll wrote:Oh, good Lord. I'm talking to myself. The people I'm talking about could afford the number of children they have when they had them, and would not forsee their change in circumstances. All they would need is help by way of benefits until they can find another job, unless, of course, they are unfit for work in which case the benefits would go on longer, as necessary.

Exactly my point as well caryll

Caryll wrote:Oh, good Lord. I'm talking to myself. The people I'm talking about could afford the number of children they have when they had them, and would not forsee their change in circumstances. All they would need is help by way of benefits until they can find another job, unless, of course, they are unfit for work in which case the benefits would go on longer, as necessary.

I could say the same thing!! life isn't straight forward you cant say life will go how you want it to. if you choose to have silly amounts of kids you can BUT you cant expect to get silly amounts of money because you choose to have a silly amount of kids!! there should be a cap on all benefit it doesn't matter if you have 1 or 7 kids and only people who desperately need the money should get it. eg disabled, terminally ill, chronic illness and so on

Do u work steve?

no i don't but then again i don't have any kids to support.

Steve, you cannot dictate to people how many kids they can have.

You have to have one law regarding benefits, and you can't discriminate between a family with one child ans a family with 5 childdren - what gives you the right to say that 4 or 5 children is a 'silly' amount?

why didn't you have 4/5 kids caryll?

As I said, it's just the simplest option. Governments have an option of either improving something (policies, rights, benefits, systems, etc.), or they take something away (rights, money, etc.). Taking something away is cheaper, quicker and requires less effort. It's also crap. Look at how well the lack of freedom did in Egypt, Syria, Tunisia, etc. Obviously the UK is nowhere near those countries, but the concept is still the same. That taking away people's rights, not giving help to those that genuinely need it, is only ever chosen because it's easier. If the government chose to put more effort into making the system more fool-proof, then there wouldn't be any need for this discussion because the only people that would be given money are those who we all agree genuinely need it.

the whole benefit system is a shambles iv worked for 20years without ever claiming any benefits then i had a accident at work with left me with limited mobility in my hands which im going into hospital in a few weeks time to try and sort again. after 6 months i was left without any support as my wife works and i am technically still emplyoyed so the 60 quid (joke)i was reserving was stopped.

Now it really boils my wittle when i see people from school with 4/5 kids never worked in there lives and get everything payed for and still have plenty money for 40 ciggs and 8 cans every day

P S
Its acctully my choice to stay employed as my employer offered to finish me so i could claim job seekers allowance but chose not to as i would rather be hardup just making ends meet than be classed as sponger

Steve wrote:why didn't you have 4/5 kids caryll?

Not that it's any of your business, or anything to do with this thread, but I didn't want more than two. My first two children died shortly after birth. My son was going to be my last 'go' at having a child & he was born without problems so I then went for a second, my daughter. Personally (nothing at all to do with money) I don't think I could have coped with more than two so I limited mtself. It had nothing whatsoever to do with finances or whether I'd be able to claim for more or not. So my case is really irrelevant to this subject.

anybody with any common sense would only have 2/3!! and i will only say this once more people who have more then 4 shouldn't be allow to have silly money off tax payer money!

Common sense has very little to do with having children. If we all had common sense, nobody would have kids at all! they're way too much trouble & worry!

Steve, as I said earlier on, we'll have to agree to disagree!