[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by peanut

The easy option would be to pay (benefits) for the 1st child, 1/2 for the 2nd child and nowt onwards.

This was one of the proposals of the advisory committee, but the Government decided to opt for an overall benefit cap instead to try to reduce the Housing Benefit bill. When a claimants entitlement exceeds the benefit cap, it is their Housing Benefit that is reduced.

The benefit cap does not apply to those who are working, so this has had the effect of many claimants moving into work (even if part time) or them moving out of expensive places like London.

I broadly support the benefit cap in principle, but on the one hand, as Boris Johnson said, it's like Ethnic Cleansing of the poor. On the other hand, many, many working people would love to live in London, but simply cannot afford it.

Originally Posted by Osem

The trouble is these people know their kids also amount to a bargaining chip. So as well as ensuring certain additional benefits they're also the key to better housing and the state will rightly not want to punish the children for the actions of their so called parents.

I watched a programme about High Court enforcement officers last night. It highlighted a couple with 6 kids who'd paid no rent for 10 months and had, for reasons best known to themselves, turned the newly refurbished house they were renting into a filthy tip in that short time. One of the staff commented on how it was often the case that they'd go into properties like this and find all sorts of expensive consumer goods (and indeed this place was equipped with large TVs, apple laptop, xbox, etc. etc.) whilst the kids would be living in total squalor. We all know these people aren't the majority but they are the core of the problem and they know that having kids will put them on the top of the pile when it comes to housing, services and benefits. What do we do about people like this?

This is a very real problem. I think that society will have to make a decision. Either pay up for these people and stop complaining, or take decisive and drastic action to deal with the 'Shameless' style of living. Such measures are likely to be very controversial, as you can see from some of the responses to my suggestion that some people should be forcibly sterilised to save money and halt the cycle of wasteful and parasitic lives.

Up until the introduction of Supplementary Benefit, there was an a condition that all claimants had to meet in addition to all the usual rules. A person had to be a fit and proper person of good character who was suitable to be given assistance from public funds.

This dealt with those who satisfied all the rules, but were taking advantage. For example, a woman and her partner have children. Her partner gets killed in an industrial accident at work. Another woman has had ten children, all to different fathers and has never worked. As it stands, both would be entitled to state assistance.

The reintroduction of this rule would deal with those taking the urine, cut costs in the long term and help to eradicate the wasters in society.

This, however, would not be without it's problems. The children of underclass lifestyle families could not be left to starve on the street, as it wouldn't be their fault. They would have to be taken into care, which would cost more in the long run. However, once word got out that this was new policy, i'm certain that there would be a massive reduction of these types of claimant. This would help to restore public confidence in the welfare benefit system and stop decent people being tarred with the same brush.

Originally Posted by Taf

Whilst Child Benefit did attract more to breeding "excessively", it's Child Tax Credits that has been the biggest factor AFIAC.

I personally would like to see Child Benefit abolished. It was only ever intended to be a temporary measure to encourage people to have children after the second world war (that's why it was initially only paid for the second and subsequent children).

The restrictions on people getting it in the higher tax band is start, as we had the ludicrous position where poor families effectively lost their Child Benefit entitlement because it is taken into account in the calculation of means tested benefits, whilst a millionaire could keep theirs in full!

Abolishing it would save money and allow extra money to be targetted at (responsible) poor families.

Originally Posted by denphone

My parents had nine of us and apart from some child benefit worked to put food on our table so lets not stereotype every family that has large families.

Yes, it's always worth bearing in mind that not all large families have multiple children and expect others to pay everything for them.

---------- Post added at 16:04 ---------- Previous post was at 15:56 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris

Blinking nora, Eugene.

Having children is a biological imperative, a religious observance, a human right ... take your pick of any or all of those. It is also a privilege, but not by virtue of it having been granted or withheld by the State.

I disagree entirely when it's the state that's paying for it. If the Government adopted this policy and people wanted to have children, there would be nothing to stop them- as long as they don't expect taxpayers money in order to have them.

Even if they work to pay for them, they are still getting a good deal. By this I mean that they will be entitled to free healthcare, education etc.