Tories plans to scrap child benefit for 3rd child-do u agree?

[Yo_Yo]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...0-5bn-welfare-crackdown.html#comments-2523819

Just read Tories are talking about scrapping child benefit for the 3rd child.

I have mixed feelings on it myself. Kind of feels like this gov dont like familes or sahms.
But then I get the need for money saving and see why they are doing it.
What do you all think?

 

[x Michelle x]

I am behind it, a lot of hard working families are put off having more children because they cannot afford it, why on earth should others who are on benefits not need to put any thought into and just have more as they know that the amount of cash they get will just increase?

 

[lau86]

I'm sick of the Tories trying to manipulate us all into getting married and having little 2.4 children families. I still think you should get child benefit for each child.

 

[x Michelle x]

by the way, i'm not saying that everyone on benefits aren't hard working, i know there are people on benefits due to redundancy etc but i also believe these people would have some common sense and get things back in order before having more children.
I'm meaning the "i have 12 kids, and need a brand new 8 bedroom house and i can't afford anything even though i have a 55" TV, sky and every games console" kind of benefits person. The kind who don't believe they have to work and that its the governments job to provide everything for them...

i'm sure they will all start bleating on about human rights and its their right to have as many children as they want... of course it is.... as long as you can pay for them!!

 

[stephx]

Yes, I agree. The government shouldn't have to support a 3rd child.

 

[suzib76]

No, I am totally against this stopping benefits after a certain amount of kids, be it child benefit or any other benefits

I'm not saying it is right in any way but people will continue to have more kids and ultimately the kids will suffer

 

[Midnight_Fairy]

I think its one step towards being like China,....

 

[Natsku]

No, I am totally against this stopping benefits after a certain amount of kids, be it child benefit or any other benefits

I'm not saying it is right in any way but people will continue to have more kids and ultimately the kids will suffer

This.

 

[Pearls18]

Hmm I don't know, if this is an area they want to save money in I think perhaps they should look at scrapping it altogether and reinvesting the money elsewhere rather than selecting the number of children who should get it. I don't know why 2 children would be the magic number? It kinda feels like it's a punishment to those who want 3 kids, yet there's plenty of families out there who go onto to have 1 or 2 kids irresponsibly they can't afford but it's ok we'll let them off until they get to 3?

It isn't a policy that riles me up either way tbh, I don't think it's criminal to cap it at 2 children buy don't think it's overly fair either. Perhaps instead of it being done on the number of children it should just be a set amount of assistance per family that just so happens to to capped at £130 a month so it doesn't come across as a state capping intervention thing on the number of children, I don't know.

I very much doubt anyone is going to base the size of their families on child benefit, would they have to bring tax credits in line with this too....?

 

[freckleonear]

I think it would be a disaster for this country. 1 in 3 children in the UK are currently living in poverty and that figure will continue to rise under the current government's policies. We have one of the highest poverty rates in the developed world, which is appalling! Two thirds of those children live in working households.

What do they think will happen if they stop the money? Family sizes won't magically shrink overnight, families will still have unexpected children and parents of larger families will still lose their jobs and need to rely temporarily on benefits. Children will be the ones who suffer as a result of the cuts. Not getting a healthy diet, going hungry and cold, not having the cultural capital that would help them to be successful in their education. The long-term cost of poverty would be far greater than the money saved on benefits!

The poor are not the problem, the rich are. Getting some of the big tax-avoiding companies to pay their taxes would go a long way towards paying the welfare bill. A huge percentage of our MPs are millionaires and completely out of touch with the lives of everyday people. Making the poor poorer is not the answer.

 

[MrsT&Ben]

I think it's about time they started looking closer to home! Why do they keep beating families with the 'we must cut back' stick. How about they stop claiming expenses or take a salary cut instead of a pay rise!
I agree that people who choose to have large families should have the means to support them but since when was a 3 child family considered large????

 

[Yo_Yo]

I do find it funny that the government will squeeze everything but give themselves pay rises and allow 'expenses' why should we pay for mps lifestyles?!

 

[Pearls18]

I think it would be a disaster for this country. 1 in 3 children in the UK are currently living in poverty and that figure will continue to rise under the current government's policies. We have one of the highest poverty rates in the developed world, which is appalling! Two thirds of those children live in working households.

What do they think will happen if they stop the money? Family sizes won't magically shrink overnight, families will still have unexpected children and parents of larger families will still lose their jobs and need to rely temporarily on benefits. Children will be the ones who suffer as a result of the cuts. Not getting a healthy diet, going hungry and cold, not having the cultural capital that would help them to be successful in their education. The long-term cost of poverty would be far greater than the money saved on benefits!

The poor are not the problem, the rich are. Getting some of the big tax-avoiding companies to pay their taxes would go a long way towards paying the welfare bill. A huge percentage of our MPs are millionaires and completely out of touch with the lives of everyday people. Making the poor poorer is not the answer.

I think they are saying it would be introduced to families who choose to have a third after 2015 so the benefit wouldn't be stopped for those who already have 3+ children before 2015 (not saying that justifies the policy at all!!)

Those poverty figures are shocking I didn't realise it was that bad in the UK (ignorance) I heard something in the media recently about a lot of poverty being in working families which is so sad.

 

[Yo_Yo]

I think it's about time they started looking closer to home! Why do they keep beating families with the 'we must cut back' stick. How about they stop claiming expenses or take a salary cut instead of a pay rise!
I agree that people who choose to have large families should have the means to support them but since when was a 3 child family considered large????

Ha! Just posted about the expenses! I totally agree, but it's corrupt!

Politicians are the biggest benefit scrounges around

 

[Pearls18]

Oh and it does seem silly that they want to save all this money through CHILD benefit and yet there's that frankly pointless marriage tax relief policy...? Seriously, married people deserve a little help but not a third child. Sounds to me they are trying to appease to certain type of voter before the election....and I have to say, I'm usually more right wing....*ducks*

 

[x Michelle x]

Lol Marinewag, I'll hide with you

 

[lhancock90]

Amusing isn't it? Cutting the benefit for the poor and raising the wages of the MPs by 11%. Both policies that have come to light within the same week.
The poor become poorer and easier to stamp all over whilst the rich become richer to buy the boots to stamp with.

I just love that during these hard times where we are already struggling with bills, heating the houses and feeding the family that WE are being told WE need to cut back even more. Meanwhile our Prime-minister has 3 holidays a year.

Screw this government. You want to help the welfare bill? Take a look at your own bank balance you pillock.

 

[hayz_baby]

I agree that with marine wag that it does seem they are aiming towards a certain voter. Altho I am more left wing and I do find it easy to criticise iykwim!
At first I thought not the third but maybe the 4th? As it is less common and it don't think it's a right to be given money to have more children, child benefit was only introduced after the 2nd ww to help repopulate (I believe) and plenty of countries don't have cb. But after reading some of the comments (freckleoneear) I do feel she made very good points and there has been a lot of cuts that do jeopardise the working family as opposed to the more wealthier families. Cb has already been cut once why does it need cutting again? As well as out of touch np pay rises.the outstanding tax bill of vodafones would take a nice chunk out of the deficit. Also broken promises of no nhs cuts will always have more of an affect on working families compared to wealthier families who have the option of private healthcare should they wish. With the nhs in the state it's in how long will it be fuly universal?
I have said to marine wag before in another thread that I personally feel the government shouldn't cut but invest instead.
Eg raising minimum wage to a living wage will have a greater turn around to the deficit, less wtc and other benefits claimed, more money earned will mean more to be spent, the more we spend the better for te economy the more tax is earned. As well as an investment for employers who don't pay minimum wage to be chased more and stricter fines.

 

[hayz_baby]

Oh and David Cameron won't help those on the breadline but recognises that food banks do this job. But won't invest then in those charities?
Won't take a stance in energy bills but when ed miliband made a stronger stance he started to make some improvement including a £12 rebate.....

 

[Pearls18]

I agree that with marine wag that it does seem they are aiming towards a certain voter. Altho I am more left wing and I do find it easy to criticise iykwim!
At first I thought not the third but maybe the 4th? As it is less common and it don't think it's a right to be given money to have more children, child benefit was only introduced after the 2nd ww to help repopulate (I believe) and plenty of countries don't have cb. But after reading some of the comments (freckleoneear) I do feel she made very good points and there has been a lot of cuts that do jeopardise the working family as opposed to the more wealthier families. Cb has already been cut once why does it need cutting again? As well as out of touch np pay rises.the outstanding tax bill of vodafones would take a nice chunk out of the deficit. Also broken promises of no nhs cuts will always have more of an affect on working families compared to wealthier families who have the option of private healthcare should they wish. With the nhs in the state it's in how long will it be fuly universal?
I have said to marine wag before in another thread that I personally feel the government shouldn't cut but invest instead.
Eg raising minimum wage to a living wage will have a greater turn around to the deficit, less wtc and other benefits claimed, more money earned will mean more to be spent, the more we spend the better for te economy the more tax is earned. As well as an investment for employers who don't pay minimum wage to be chased more and stricter fines.

I think this policy is to make the "stop the scroungers having kids" league happy, when I said I am normally right wing I meant it in a way that I am finding it harder and harder to be and this policy doesn't appease me in the slightest. I agree with you, we should be looking at the top down