Friday, 26 October 2012

I.D.S. Don't have kids.

The BBC report that Child-related benefits for families may be capped at two children, the work and pensions secretary has said.

Iain Duncan Smith (I.D.S.)said stopping the current system, where families get more benefits the more children they have, was among changes being considered.

Families on benefits were often "freed from" the decision of whether they could afford more children, Mr Duncan Smith said, and must "cut their cloth".

He said,,

"When you look at families across the board across all incomes, you find the vast majority make decisions about the number of children they have, the families they want, based on what they think they can afford."
Many working families decided against having more children even if they wanted to, for financial reasons, he suggested, while there was a "clustering" of large families on welfare who did not have to confront that reality.
"People who are having support from welfare are often freed from that decision. Can there be not be a limit to the fact you need to cut your cloth in accordance with what capabilities and finances you have?"
But where's  the evidence that people are having children just to receive child benefits as I.D.S, seems to be implying

" People who are having support from welfare are often freed from that decision"

So child befits are so large that its profitable for people to have more children
As a guide. The rules for benefits for claimants depend on  individual circumstances and  will  affect the amount they  can get.

But as a guide .

Weekly amounts:

For the eldest child who qualifies £16.50

(Lone parents with protected rights may continue to get £17.55 for the eldest child.)

For each other child who qualifies £f11.05

So that's  £1.57 a day just to feed one extra child. and although it would be cheaper to feed larger amounts . I can see anybody living the god life on this,

Even if you agree that people are having children because of this . Could you support depriving children  already living in poverty because of the decisions of their parents this benefit . Are we really wiling to let them sink even lower in poverty.

But what about the premise that the parents on benefit  made a conscious  decision to have more children how many do that rather than from ignorance of contraception.

However the fact is that this is only a proposal .I.D.S hasn't tun it past his LibDem coalition colleagues and even the Orange Bookers  may have qualms about this proposal.

So I can't this moving any further.

So why has I.D.S. come up with . Could it be part of his ongoing strategy to demonise those unfortunate enough to be out of work and give the impression that . The cause of the UK woes is people deliberately living on benefit and not his banker chums.

Even if we were not in recession (or apparently just out of it) . The Tories would still have loved to make the cuts that they are carrying out .

But as ordinary working families suffer under the recession because of the corruption of our Banking Industry. I tis easy to shift blame on  another target it used to be minorities but now its simply the unemployed and those on benefits . Claiming they are taking money from hard working people and using examples like large families living on benefit to give the impression that all of them are exploiting the system.

As I said I can't see this proposal getting of the grouped : But that not its intention its to shift blame from those who caused the crisis to those who are suffering most under it..



Anonymous said...

What he says makes sense paying out for every child may not be a huge incentive but knowing that your money won't go up would make people think twice about having more kids they can't pay for.

But its not just child benefits is it? an unemployed single woman with kids goes straight to the front of the social housing queue ahead of hard working responsible childless couples who are deliberately putting off having cheildren until they can provide a secure home

housing benefit and other benefits also goes up for every kid, and single mothers arent put onto jsa and required to seek out work until their youngest child reacher a certain age, so its in their interests to keep on having kids.

kids of parents on benefits also get free school meals, free transport to school. do they still also get a clothing allowence per child?

they are also more likely to be involved in crime, more costs and less likely to pay anything back as people usually follow their parents occupation.the govt needs to go further to encourage responsible parenthood

how many of these parents spend the money on drinks or fags or worse not on the kids? even then they get more than kids of working parents who have to pay for housing and food.

for the sake of the kids if they are young enough to turn their lives around they should be given to foster parents and given a decent upbringing, for the others its tragic but the least we can do is stop producing more to suffer

glynbeddau said...

Anon You are using a minority to attack decent people who may have more than two children and find themselves through no fault of they own on benefit.

How much would it cost to take these Kids away from their parents much more than the current benefit.