Two Cap Child Benefit

[baggieal]

Seems Labour are desperate to tax anyone more doing well who works their backside off.

Looks like they want to get rid of the Two Cap Child Benefit.

My view is you shouldn?t have more than two kids if you can?t afford them and why should the tax payer pick up the cost. There are many women who have kids from 3/4 fathers and some religions don?t believe in contraception so breeding is like rats.

So a big NO to me to scrap the two child benefit.

The benefits system just like illegal immigration is out of control. Can?t remember the last time off in my life as I was brought up on the basis there?s no such thing has a free lunch.

[Omegstrat6]

Seems Labour are desperate to tax anyone more doing well who works their backside off.

Looks like they want to get rid of the Two Cap Child Benefit.

My view is you shouldn?t have more than two kids if you can?t afford them and why should the tax payer pick up the cost. There are many women who have kids from 3/4 fathers and some religions don?t believe in contraception so breeding is like rats.

So a big NO to me to scrap the two child benefit.

The benefits system just like illegal immigration is out of control. Can?t remember the last time off in my life as I was brought up on the basis there?s no such thing has a free lunch.

In principal I agree with the 2 child benefit cap Al but I think the situation is more nuanced.

Certainly, people should take responsibility and not simply expect the state (and, by extension, hard working tax payers) to support their children, however many they have, but then it is not the fault of the children themselves is it? They didn't ask to be born and with increasing levels of child poverty (even if driven in some cases by the feckless behaviour of their parents) surely you wouldn't see any child suffer.

In addition, what about those many cases of blended families where two parents get together and take on each other's children. Certainly, not every ex-partner pays what they should towards the raising of their own children. Clearly those parents should pay the appropriate maintenance, but if they do not (or, in some cases, cannot), would you deny the affected children some state support?

Another example might be of a couple who are financially secure, have kids they can afford and then life throws them a curve ball such as illness or death or redundancy.

The root problem is certain people's behaviour and the difficulty in applying consequences to them without impacting on their children. Certainly you don't want a system that encourages them to behave in this way but very few would countenance letting children suffer.

[baggiematt]

Surely this is incredibly simple. We have an ageing population and one that is expected to decline. A declining population is a disaster as there arent enough people to provide for those that are older.

That, in turn leads to an older retirement age and probably cramped housing of elderly people living with their children.

We support having one child, slightly less for two and nothing for three. Why?

[On Balance]

In principal I agree with the 2 child benefit cap Al but I think the situation is more nuanced.

Certainly, people should take responsibility and not simply expect the state (and, by extension, hard working tax payers) to support their children, however many they have, but then it is not the fault of the children themselves is it? They didn't ask to be born and with increasing levels of child poverty (even if driven in some cases by the feckless behaviour of their parents) surely you wouldn't see any child suffer.

In addition, what about those many cases of blended families where two parents get together and take on each other's children. Certainly, not every ex-partner pays what they should towards the raising of their own children. Clearly those parents should pay the appropriate maintenance, but if they do not (or, in some cases, cannot), would you deny the affected children some state support?

Another example might be of a couple who are financially secure, have kids they can afford and then life throws them a curve ball such as illness or death or redundancy.

The root problem is certain people's behaviour and the difficulty in applying consequences to them without impacting on their children. Certainly you don't want a system that encourages them to behave in this way but very few would countenance letting children suffer.

An another absolutely well thought out and thought provoking argument Omeg. It is sometimes so easy to consider things looking at it in a one dimensional light. There are so many situations to consider when making decisions that perhaps the average person fails to understand that and I would sometimes include myself in that category.

Who the would want to be a prime minister or politician of any party, making decisions that will be divide opinion. I often don?t agree with them but when I seriously consider the options I would fail to come up with a suitable, fair way of dealing with a situation. It is so easy to have an opinion when you do not have a solution.

They, the politicians, can keep their jobs and I?ll keep mine.

[WBA123]

Surely this is incredibly simple. We have an ageing population and one that is expected to decline. A declining population is a disaster as there arent enough people to provide for those that are older.

That, in turn leads to an older retirement age and probably cramped housing of elderly people living with their children.

We support having one child, slightly less for two and nothing for three. Why?

I don't think its as simple as that, although I agree with you in principle about the population needing to grow with more births and younger people.

Firstly, the argument 'the parents are responsible for feeding their child' just doesn't work. Because although that's how the world should work, it doesn't for some kids. And they shouldn't be the ones bearing the brunt of their parents irresponsibility.

Secondly, this is going to make me sound like a stuck up snob, but the people who will benefit from the scrapping of this cap are the ones on universal credit. Particularly those who don't work.

What we should not be doing is incentivising people who don't or won't work to have more children. What we should be doing is incentivising those in work to have more children. We have to try and be selective about it, without penalising the child - which is difficult.

That needs to be breakfast clubs, going further with child tax credits and more nursery hours for the children of those in work.

If children grow up in a house where their parents are on welfare, they are statistically likely to join them later on in life. We have to change that culture.

[Leicesterbaggie]

It is not often that I politically agree with you 123 but I do on this. We should help those in work regarding child benefit and as you say, not those who do not or will not work. I appreciate that is not the fault of the child but making it easier for the feckless to have more children is just going to make the situation far worse. I admit that I do not have the answer but incentivising people to have more children certainly is not.

[baggiematt]

I don't think its as simple as that, although I agree with you in principle about the population needing to grow with more births and younger people.

Firstly, the argument 'the parents are responsible for feeding their child' just doesn't work. Because although that's how the world should work, it doesn't for some kids. And they shouldn't be the ones bearing the brunt of their parents irresponsibility.

Secondly, this is going to make me sound like a stuck up snob, but the people who will benefit from the scrapping of this cap are the ones on universal credit. Particularly those who don't work.

What we should not be doing is incentivising people who don't or won't work to have more children. What we should be doing is incentivising those in work to have more children. We have to try and be selective about it, without penalising the child - which is difficult.

That needs to be breakfast clubs, going further with child tax credits and more nursery hours for the children of those in work.

If children grow up in a house where their parents are on welfare, they are statistically likely to join them later on in life. We have to change that culture.

I suppose my point is, why would we have a policy that doesnt support population growth when this is going to be one of our biggest problems in the next generation.

[Albionic68]

Seems Labour are desperate to tax anyone more doing well who works their backside off.

Looks like they want to get rid of the Two Cap Child Benefit.

My view is you shouldn?t have more than two kids if you can?t afford them and why should the tax payer pick up the cost. There are many women who have kids from 3/4 fathers and some religions don?t believe in contraception so breeding is like rats.

So a big NO to me to scrap the two child benefit.

The benefits system just like illegal immigration is out of control. Can?t remember the last time off in my life as I was brought up on the basis there?s no such thing has a free lunch.

Morning Al. Can't wait for your next thread where you call for the mass sterilisation of the unemployed and suggest anal s ex as a method of birth control for those on Universal Credit instead of subsidised condoms as a means of avoiding free lunches for anyone........ especially if they get here in an inflatable boat 😃 😀 😄 .

[baggiematt]

Morning Al. Can't wait for your next thread where you call for the mass sterilisation of the unemployed and suggest anal s ex as a method of birth control for those on Universal Credit instead of subsidised condoms as a means of avoiding free lunches for anyone........ especially if they get here in an inflatable boat 😃 😀 😄 .

God forbid we get invaded by Russians. He would have to be an asylum seeker, unemployed and probably wont speak the language. Theyll be asking in their foreign tongue ?who is this Jed Wallace he keeps ranting about? 😆😆😆

[baggieal]

God forbid we get invaded by Russians. He would have to be an asylum seeker, unemployed and probably wont speak the language. Theyll be asking in their foreign tongue ?who is this Jed Wallace he keeps ranting about? 😆😆😆

Nah - if we were invaded they would be asking for a leftie like you to make them feel welcome 😂😂.

Jed who? His friend Ryan will have him back in the side soon. As for Bostock who has fantastic potential I hope someone like Villa grab him like all the other promising kids. That’s what happens and if it does - good luck to the kid!