Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
interestrateripoff

No 10's Plan To Cap Benefit At Two Children: New Mothers With Three Children Would Lose £700 In £5Bn Welfare Crackdown

Recommended Posts

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2523819/No-10s-plan-cap-benefit-children-New-mothers-children-lose-700-5bn-welfare-crackdown.html

No 10's plan to cap benefit at two children: New mothers with three children would lose £700 in £5bn welfare crackdown

Parents with three children would lose out on £696 a year in plan

Those earning less than £30k will also be denied credits worth £2,725

Proposed by Tory MP Nadhim Zahawi - recently appointed to No 10's policy board to come up with vote-winning policies

Downing Street has drawn up controversial plans to slash up to £5 billion a year from the welfare bill by limiting child benefit to families’ first two children.

Under the proposal, revealed today, families would also lose their entitlement to child tax credit for any more than two children.

The change would mean parents with three children, who would currently be entitled to child benefit because their annual income is less than £50,000, would lose out on £696 a year.

On top of that, those earning less than £30,000 will also be denied child tax credits worth £2,725 a year – making them in total £65 a week worse off.

Meanwhile the bankers still walk free and keep getting given free bailout cash.

The problem is the benefits are unsustainable however cutting them is going to mean a collapse of discretionary spending within this income group especially as utilities and food are continually going up.

Still when you're an MP getting a 11% pay rise who gives a 5h1t.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2523819/No-10s-plan-cap-benefit-children-New-mothers-children-lose-700-5bn-welfare-crackdown.html

Meanwhile the bankers still walk free and keep getting given free bailout cash.

The problem is the benefits are unsustainable however cutting them is going to mean a collapse of discretionary spending within this income group especially as utilities and food are continually going up.

Still when you're an MP getting a 11% pay rise who gives a 5h1t.

At the end of the day having kids is a choice. I would have thought 2 is more than enough for anyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

not wanting to generalize, but generally the families claiming benefits with loads of children, produce children that are a net drain on society, and who go on to produce more large families claiming benefits.

for scientific peer reviewed evidence of this, watch the first five minutes of Idiocracy

False dichotomy - the fact that the bankers and MPs get paid and get away with whatever they like is a separate matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 is less than replacement rate.

China are realising they've created a mega problem with their 1 child policy.

Kids are the future 'tax payers'. If you're going to do this nazi style social engineering then you're going to end up requiring more immigration to make up the numbers else become extinct.

Still, keeps the Daily Hate in copy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the end of the day having kids is a choice. I would have thought 2 is more than enough for anyone.

I know the numbers will be small but what if you have 1 child then twins come along? Divorce is quite high, a lot of people re marry often having more kids with new partners in the new families.

I'd rather see a banking levy, Tobin tax or taxation of assets to esse the burden of taxation falling so heavily on income. Or even means testing wealthy pensioners for their state pension would be a bigger saving.

Admittedly it would be good to see an end to the large families abusing the welfare state, but their numbers are small, and punishing 10 children for the mistakes of 2 adult parents seems unfair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 is less than replacement rate.

China are realising they've created a mega problem with their 1 child policy.

Kids are the future 'tax payers'. If you're going to do this nazi style social engineering then you're going to end up requiring more immigration to make up the numbers else become extinct.

Still, keeps the Daily Hate in copy.

So we will go extinct ? I somehow doubt that but even if we did so what.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 is less than replacement rate.

China are realising they've created a mega problem with their 1 child policy.

Kids are the future 'tax payers'. If you're going to do this nazi style social engineering then you're going to end up requiring more immigration to make up the numbers else become extinct.

Still, keeps the Daily Hate in copy.

China is going to have a mega fecking problem either way. The population is far too big and needs cutting to be sustainable. However the Chinese way of sorting out the problem has created a massive gender imbalance which isn't going to be fixed overnight.

Still more kids will lead naturally to larger GDP and the need to create more jobs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know the numbers will be small but what if you have 1 child then twins come along? Divorce is quite high, a lot of people re marry often having more kids with new partners in the new families.

I'd rather see a banking levy, Tobin tax or taxation of assets to esse the burden of taxation falling so heavily on income. Or even means testing wealthy pensioners for their state pension would be a bigger saving.

Admittedly it would be good to see an end to the large families abusing the welfare state, but their numbers are small, and punishing 10 children for the mistakes of 2 adult parents seems unfair.

Depending on how this works you might be better splitting up if you have more than 2 kids. 2 live with mum the other with dad. Benefits restored?

Perhaps if these families worked harder rather than making time for sex we wouldn't have this problem?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't afford to have kids, don't have them?

How about making basic needs affordable for people on low income so they don't need benefits.

Its not about the claimants its about landlords and supermarket profits.

Stop blaming the unfortunate for other peoples greed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

Perhaps if these families worked harder rather than making time for sex we wouldn't have this problem?

Yes because there is such a shortage of labour, there is such a shortage of manufactured goods, if only there was some way to incentivise people to take up all those millions of well-paid job vacancies...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Depending on how this works you might be better splitting up if you have more than 2 kids. 2 live with mum the other with dad. Benefits restored?

Perhaps if these families worked harder rather than making time for sex we wouldn't have this problem?

Do you expect nothing to ever go wrong in your life or never to make a bad judgement either in a relationship or financially.

Are you certain you will never fall fowl of a sudden crippling health problem.

Of course you won't, always happens to somebody else and you reassure yourself that it won't happen to you because they brought it upon themselves.

No I'm not a raving lefty, some people need a helping hand, that's all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This isn't going to happen.

It is bound to contravene Human Rights and European Law. They'll just wring their hands and blame others for them being not allowed to do what they want.

Meanwhile they carry on doing f*ck all and picking up their fat salaries, 'consultancies' and expenses.

Yep.....they don't seem to care how much the rest get in debt money.....so long as they continue to get their inflation busting money and benefits they are entitled to because they have been told they work for it, earned it and are worthy of it, so should get it.......the rest are not worth it, don't work for it, but we'll let them get it for the moment, don't want to make big problems and stir up trouble whilst things are still looking good. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you expect nothing to ever go wrong in your life or never to make a bad judgement either in a relationship or financially.

Are you certain you will never fall fowl of a sudden crippling health problem.

Of course you won't, always happens to somebody else and you reassure yourself that it won't happen to you because they brought it upon themselves.

No I'm not a raving lefty, some people need a helping hand, that's all.

Equating having a kid with getting ill is totally illogical. The former you have control of, the latter in most case you don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't afford to have kids, don't have them?

How about making basic needs affordable for people on low income so they don't need benefits.

Its not about the claimants its about landlords and supermarket profits.

Stop blaming the unfortunate for other peoples greed.

If Osborne hadn't spent a trillion quid holding up house prices then we wouldn't have to pay £50-80bn every year in interest on the national debt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

False dichotomy - the fact that the bankers and MPs get paid and get away with whatever they like is a separate matter.

Except it isn't, it all gets back to the sense of entitlement. Bankers support and MP expenses/wages are paid by the taxpayer in one way or another. Just ask someone who relies on their savings and investments income what they think of artificially low interest rates, businesses on current business loan conditions.

These things don't exist in isolation.

Considering that as said before on many threads, unemployed benefits are a tiny amount of the benefit spend and even less consequential when considering what the bankers have cost the country.

I am all for limiting the number of children benefit is paid for, but to soften the blow it should be for kids that are born after the policy comes into effect, this way you do penalise those already trapped in the benefits system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you expect nothing to ever go wrong in your life or never to make a bad judgement either in a relationship or financially.

Are you certain you will never fall fowl of a sudden crippling health problem.

Of course you won't, always happens to somebody else and you reassure yourself that it won't happen to you because they brought it upon themselves.

No I'm not a raving lefty, some people need a helping hand, that's all.

Has yours blown up?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 is less than replacement rate.

China are realising they've created a mega problem with their 1 child policy.

Kids are the future 'tax payers'. If you're going to do this nazi style social engineering then you're going to end up requiring more immigration to make up the numbers else become extinct.

Still, keeps the Daily Hate in copy.

Withdrawing tax payers subsidies for people to have large families, to my mind this not social engineering.

It's more like creating free market sensible family planning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Osborne hadn't spent a trillion quid holding up house prices then we wouldn't have to pay £50-80bn every year in interest on the national debt.

Careful you might have to take up hillwalking with revolutionary thoughts like that!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Equating having a kid with getting ill is totally illogical. The former you have control of, the latter in most case you don't.

I agree with that.....but in the case of having children it is the men that give the children to the women, the women wouldn't otherwise get a child if it were not for the irresponsibility of the man....most men will support their offspring, some do for a while, many others expect and or are reliant on the state to support them.....

A child can't choose their parents, and a parent can't choose their children. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Withdrawing tax payers subsidies for people to have large families, to my mind this not social engineering.

It's more like creating free market sensible family planning.

RK is the new erranta, smile and nod and back away

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And we could reduce the housing benefit bill which is £20 billion plus IIRC.

Housing and general cost of living would be affordable for millions more too, people could afford families like their parents did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What has actual birth control by the PRC got to do with a reduction in benefits for unfettered breeders?

They still have the choice whether to carry on breeding, but we would no longer be required to assume financial responsibility for their children.

I support it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe mothers or fathers could also stay at home and bring up their children and the jobs they are doing now could be done by the unemployed 16 to 25 years-olds. Just a thought, but then the second wage would not feed directly to the banks via mortgage interest. And there was me thinking the aim of government was to work for the benefit of the country rather than the banks.

....only takes a few hours to give birth......doesn't mean it always has to be the mothers responsibility to stay at home looking after the children, their father is just as capable and often just as good or better at doing the job...having to take into consideration whose career has the best prospects or earning potential. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   289 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.