No benefit for your third child if you're on the dole: Tories unveil controversial we

[GastonJ]

OK, so we use Gaston J as a case study, effectivly that's 8 rugrags that have been bred, they say it's 100,000 UKP (no pound sign on this computer) it costs to run per brat from date of manufacture till 18, so that's 800,000 UKP 'needed' for your brats/brats brats. So for all i care have as many as you like there NO WAY tax money of a working person ever create that much in the first place for ONE brat, not that child benefit equaquates to 100k

But I've only got 4, so ?400k and they aren't quadruplets. I'm sure Mrs GJ was very happy about that. You'll need to be reading this:

How much does it cost to raise a child in 2013 compared to a decade ago? | News | theguardian.com

[Snowy79]

The benefits payments for rug rats is only part of the problem. The big problem is the people who work hard to get a job where they can afford to support kids tend to put off having kids until later in life. They also have less kids. The vermin who pop out rug rats as they know they will get better benefits and accomodation without having to work hard tend to produce more rug rats. Lots of these families are now in their third generation where no one in their household has held down a job. The lazy and thick are going to breed the hard workers out of existance if we don't break the chain.

[GastonJ]

Have to agree, so it's about looking at "not worked = no welfare state" but that has to include no NHS and the all the rest that goes with it. Can't have them going into hospital while we're busy starving them can we? So where do we bury the bodies of those kids that starve to death or die of measles?

Surely removing those benefits is punishing the kids through no fault of their own, is it not?

Can't take the kids into care because they'd just go out and have more kids - that and it would cost more to take them into care than leaving child benefit in place. The only cure for them breeding is compulsory sterilistion. Will the Tories be proposing that soon as well so the masses don't multiply and cost money? I do wonder at times. Oh and Snowy, what if you have 4 kids because your'e working and then get made redundant when your kids are 12, 13, 14 and 15. No job, no child benefit, which 2 do you kill because you haven't enough money to feed them?

Means testing child benefit is a much better way, not just taking it from those in society who need it the most.

However removing child benefit will be popular soundbite with those that don't think it through. Just what a right wing party needs.

[Snowy79]

It's easy to keep giving various "what if" examples GastonJ but as we can see daily there's only so much money to go around and ultimately to pay for the reckless, innocent people will suffer. I see no problem with the tax payer supporting up to two kids, any more is just taking the piss unless you can afford to support them yourself. If you want more then you support them yourself regardless. If you're that thick to not realise that you could be made redundant, ill or die without notice and don't have an insurance policy or savings in the bank then don't have more than two kids. Obviously "what if" you have triplets, some burd turning up at your door ten years later holding your rug rat that you never knew about etc could be a factor but common sense should prevail. I'd love to have two cars but can only afford one so being intelligent only have one. Maybe the tax payer should buy me one

[rds60h]

It's easy to keep giving various "what if" examples GastonJ but as we can see daily there's only so much money to go around and ultimately to pay for the reckless, innocent people will suffer. I see no problem with the tax payer supporting up to two kids, any more is just taking the piss unless you can afford to support them yourself. If you want more then you support them yourself regardless. If you're that thick to not realise that you could be made redundant, ill or die without notice and don't have an insurance policy or savings in the bank then don't have more than two kids. Obviously "what if" you have triplets, some burd turning up at your door ten years later holding your rug rat that you never knew about etc could be a factor but common sense should prevail. I'd love to have two cars but can only afford one so being intelligent only have one. Maybe the tax payer should buy me one

It's also easy to dismiss "what if" examples when you are not in that position or think that you will never be in that position. Many realise that they could be made redundant or become ill disabled without notice, but they are on small incomes and are not financially able to afford savings in the bank or redundancy cover for mortgages and wages.
And if they cannot afford the redundancy cover they definitely cannot afford life assurance to cover death, because you should also remember that should you be made redundant or fall ill or become disabled the payments to continue that life cover then become yet another financial burden to be funded.
There are many people who believe they are sufficiently covered should these eventualities actually happen to them, but when it does occur they soon find out that is not the case and that they are actually in a worse situation because the other policies still have to be paid for or that cover expires or it is acutely reduced because the policy is no longer funded.
Only then do some peoples opinions or perspective of things change.

[Snowy79]

You can get free condoms in most health centres.

[GastonJ]

I always look at the what ifs, it's normal for me to plan ahead and look at all the options; good and bad. Right now I only see the motives of the political parties, and being really honest the Tories are only thinking of themselves and how they can lead the sheep while the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Why not take family allowance for any more than 2 children from those that are working if it's supposed to be fairer? If this does get to be policy it will show up the Tory and lib dems for the real evil basseds that they are. The pennies they take will not go to pay off the debt, that's a con, all it will do is line their pockets. It's the kids who will suffer through no fault of their own. If the feel they have to do something, means test it and tell the public how much it will take off the debt year on year..... And how much it will cost in social services costs if the implement it as is.