Government says problem families 'have too many children'

[Digsy]

Any system is open to abuse, if they don't trade drugs/alcohol for milk/food tokens they'll trade drugs/alcohol for stolen property or sex. But it would be a start and I think improve the lives of alot of kids.

 

A problem I do see with food/clothing tokens is that they generally are not accepted as tender in places like markets etc where the best deals can be found.

Meaning that each family would receive less than they currently get for the same prices.

 

And to top this off is it correct to penalize 62,641,000 uk citizens because 120,000 of them are undesirables?

[Digsy]

HB doesn't pay the full cost of running a house; CTC can only be given to the first two children under the two child rule, that leaves JSA which they would get by even staying together. So staying together would give them more money, having more than two kids would make them poorer unless they do more work to pay for them.

 

I meant CTB not CTC, sorry my bad.

They get more from JSA living separately than they do together.

 

Who is going to look after these children whilst they are doing more work?

And who pays for them to be looked after, we currently have a system that only pays for 2 children to be baby sat, so those with more than two cannot afford to work part time and pay a registered babysitters fees for the third child.

Edited July 22, 2012 by Digsy

[MrSmith]

 

And to top this off is it correct to penalize 62,641,000 uk citizens because 120,000 of them are undesirables?

 

Why would they be penalized?

[MrSmith]

I meant CTB not CTC, sorry my bad.

They get more from JSA living separately than they do together.

 

What’s CTB? I'm not up on all the benefits jargon.

[JackLakeland]

Would you also apply this to the hard working family who having worked for the last 20 years lose their jobs due to the recession?

 

No I was thinking more along the lines of if you're on benefit then only one new born can be claimed for. Therefore, you just can't keep having kids when unemployed...

[Digsy]

Why would they be penalized?

 

Most of them work hard and pay into a system that currently looks after them and their children should the worst happen.

You expect them to pay into a system that will watch the family suffer because they can't afford the four children due to bank induced recessions and job losses.

 

CTB = Council tax benefit.

 

You do realize that if the government went for this countries share of that £13tn it would reduce the tax burden on average households.

Edited July 22, 2012 by Digsy

[pottedplant]

Why would there be two sets of rent to pay?

Your original scenario was for them to split up and get paid for two kids each, as they won’t get money for two kids each and will only get money for the oldest two kids there would now be no reason to split up. They will be better off financially staying together.

 

I see some of the logic of your post now.

 

I wasn't the original one who suggested the splitting up btw but it did occur "naturally" how many kids would you pay each claimant for?

Edited July 22, 2012 by pottedplant

[pottedplant]

Why would they be penalized?

 

Because they could be having to use the vouchers in places that charge premium prices.

[pottedplant]

No I was thinking more along the lines of if you're on benefit then only one new born can be claimed for. Therefore, you just can't keep having kids when unemployed...

 

Ah- thanks for the explanation. That idea does have some merit (but perhaps day for one pregnancy in case of twins?)

Presumably you would pay for any children already in existence prior to the initial claim?

[MrSmith]

I see some of the logic of your post now.

 

I wasn't the original one who suggested the splitting up btw but it did occur "naturally" how many kids would you pay each claimant for?

 

Personally I would like to see a policy in which no one had more than three children and I would say the state should only help to support children when the parents have contributed to the system.