limit child benefit to three children?

[Platypus]

Is that what you get?

It does if you are already getting housing+JSA. £20pw as the extra cost per child, sounds reasonable(ish).

If you are on housing and JSA then you should NOT be bringing children into the world.

Case closed

[BolshieBastard]

Should be limited to 2 and further means tested. Those in receipt should be made to prove annually the money is spent for the benefit of the child(ren) and not on beer, fags, drugs, cars, holidays etc for the benefit of the parents.

[BrilloPad]

Being the third or fourth child is not really the child's fault though is it?

Personally I'd get rid of all child benefit and introduce a 43-year old man benefit. But that's just me.

But getting food and a roof over your head as a child should be in any civilised country.

If people cannot look after their children they they could be adopted.

Not sure if I would want to adopt one of Suity's kids though....

[BrilloPad]

Should be limited to 2 and further means tested. Those in receipt should be made to prove annually the money is spent for the benefit of the child(ren) and not on beer, fags, drugs, cars, holidays etc for the benefit of the parents.

Why not have child benefit and benefits in general made as vouchers to be spent on food and eating?

No booze, fags, sky, mobiles.

Thet can get internet at public library.

Of course there are plenty who claim benefits and work too. Not sure how to stop them.

[d000hg]

If you are on housing and JSA then you should NOT be bringing children into the world.

Case closed

And how exactly are you going to enforce that?

Should be limited to 2 and further means tested. Those in receipt should be made to prove annually the money is spent for the benefit of the child(ren) and not on beer, fags, drugs, cars, holidays etc for the benefit of the parents.

Hmm, so you're in favour of a micro-managing nanny state now?

If people cannot look after their children they they could be adopted.

I guess it's one of the few viable options, but then you need people to adopt them.



The vouchers scheme makes most sense to me as well but people talk about their personal liberties being removed.

[BolshieBastard]

Why not have child benefit and benefits in general made as vouchers to be spent on food and eating?

No booze, fags, sky, mobiles.

Thet can get internet at public library.

Of course there are plenty who claim benefits and work too. Not sure how to stop them.

In theory its a good idea. In practice, it would stigmatise the poorer members of society. I remember when I was a kid at the beginning of the week, you had to go to the teacher in front of the class and hand over your dinner money. Some kids didnt hand anything over as they were on free meals and they'd get ripped to shreds in the playground later.

Also, if you introduced vouchers, a blackmarket for them would grow and people would sell them on at less than face value to spend on fags or, some retailers would accept the vouchers for fags etc.

[mudskipper]

It certainly used to be the case that child benefit was taken into consideration when calculating your means tested benefits entitlements. The more child benefit you got, the less income support (or whatever it is these days) you got. So reducing child benefit increases the income support benefit. If this is still the case, then it wouldn't be the people that the Daily Mail readers hate who suffer, it would be working families on <50K with 4+ kids.

[d000hg]

In theory its a good idea. In practice, it would stigmatise the poorer members of society. I remember when I was a kid at the beginning of the week, you had to go to the teacher in front of the class and hand over your dinner money. Some kids didnt hand anything over as they were on free meals and they'd get ripped to shreds in the playground later.

I agree but you'd think it could be done in some clever way. Paper vouchers aren't going to be really super-obvious if you can use them as currency in shops. Loading it onto a credit-card thingie would be totally 'secret' to other shoppers but then you'd need a whole infrastructure to support it.

Also, if you introduced vouchers, a blackmarket for them would grow and people would sell them on at less than face value to spend on fags or, some retailers would accept the vouchers for fags etc.

I think you have to be pragmatic and accept no system is perfect. It's like saying having a minimum age for alcohol is pointless because some pubs serve minors.

Doing this could be a criminal offence (which wouldn't stop it) classed as tantamount to child abuse/neglect, and we already have systems to deal with that (like taking the kids away).

I also think such a voucher system should allow some amount of luxury/discretionary spending. I don't begrudge someone on benefits a single can of lager every now and then. Or maybe you get your adult benefits as cash, and child-care benefits only as vouchers which cannot be used on booze, fags, etc.

[SueEllen]

It certainly used to be the case that child benefit was taken into consideration when calculating your means tested benefits entitlements. The more child benefit you got, the less income support (or whatever it is these days) you got. So reducing child benefit increases the income support benefit. If this is still the case, then it wouldn't be the people that the Daily Mail readers hate who suffer, it would be working families on <50K with 4+ kids.

They shouldn't have kids they can't pay for and if it was a multiple birth they should have reduced the number....

Seriously getting people to fight over the scraps of the benefits system is a joke especially as the majority is spent on paying money to pensioners.

Giving £20 a week to future taxpayers is a good investment, in fact the government should work out how to increase the birth rate so there are enough young people around to support the increasing amount of old people.

[MicrosoftBob]

Easy solution, anyone with 2 or more children has the choice be steralised or no benefits