Stop linking benefits to children

Rather than reduce child poverty this just encourages the unskilled and least able to bring up children, to have many children to garner the benefits that follow.

All the last governments efforts to reduce child poverty has actually increased child poverty.

Why is this idea important?

Rather than reduce child poverty this just encourages the unskilled and least able to bring up children, to have many children to garner the benefits that follow.

All the last governments efforts to reduce child poverty has actually increased child poverty.

Amendment of the planning process leading to a more appropriate housing stock for future society.

The current planning system and process is slow tired and cumbersome and still involves the cook, baker and candlestick maker who do not have required expertise. The process leads to a point where developers are now no longer able to build developments that they and residents can be proud of, make money, hold their value and are fit for purpose. Developers purchase sites and are then firstly forced by plans to cram attached houses into less room than in the past and setting properties on streets with inadequate parking, no front gardens and on top of each other. Such estates are creating the ghettos of tomorrow by maling families live on top of each and removing the whole street communities. This also creates tension between families living too close. On top of this, current social housing are inappropriate. Firstly the integration of housing with other stock creates issues. Secondly, current regs for houses mean that they are now so expensive to build that developers have another cost issue on top of current economic issues. Developers are currently unable to sell homes due to surveyors downvaluing on orders from banks so they can reduce lending. This means people can’t afford to buy, developers suffer and future housing plans and needs suffer. Idea is to help the developers through these tough times for a longer view of housing needs and also protect and industry and its workforce while making a fair and appropriate future housing plan.

Why is this idea important?

The current planning system and process is slow tired and cumbersome and still involves the cook, baker and candlestick maker who do not have required expertise. The process leads to a point where developers are now no longer able to build developments that they and residents can be proud of, make money, hold their value and are fit for purpose. Developers purchase sites and are then firstly forced by plans to cram attached houses into less room than in the past and setting properties on streets with inadequate parking, no front gardens and on top of each other. Such estates are creating the ghettos of tomorrow by maling families live on top of each and removing the whole street communities. This also creates tension between families living too close. On top of this, current social housing are inappropriate. Firstly the integration of housing with other stock creates issues. Secondly, current regs for houses mean that they are now so expensive to build that developers have another cost issue on top of current economic issues. Developers are currently unable to sell homes due to surveyors downvaluing on orders from banks so they can reduce lending. This means people can’t afford to buy, developers suffer and future housing plans and needs suffer. Idea is to help the developers through these tough times for a longer view of housing needs and also protect and industry and its workforce while making a fair and appropriate future housing plan.

Reducing the numbers eligible for child benefit

e have in this country a mind set amongst individuals that they can keep having child after child and the tax payer will pay for them.  This is totally wrong and if you want a large family then you should pay for it. 

I propose that we look at the average family and, if its say 2.4 children, put a cap on the number of children eligable by rounding up to the nearest whole number, in this case 3.  If you want more than the average then you pay for them.  Not us!

I accept that those who have already got large families must be allowed to continue with their current number of children under the old system until they are no longer drawing benefit.  But then we must draw the line in the sand and say "that's your lot.  No more"

Some will say that its every ones human right to have as many children as you want.  I do not disagree with this but its also the individuals responsibility to pay for their family.  Not ours!

I also must state that I believe we should get rid of all child benefit, but I think this proposal is more palatable to the squeamish.  I am a father and I work and pay for me and mine.  I shouldn't be paying, through my taxes, for other's. 

This should help towards population growth reduction and the restraining of the 'baby factories' who are such a drain on society.

 

Why is this idea important?

e have in this country a mind set amongst individuals that they can keep having child after child and the tax payer will pay for them.  This is totally wrong and if you want a large family then you should pay for it. 

I propose that we look at the average family and, if its say 2.4 children, put a cap on the number of children eligable by rounding up to the nearest whole number, in this case 3.  If you want more than the average then you pay for them.  Not us!

I accept that those who have already got large families must be allowed to continue with their current number of children under the old system until they are no longer drawing benefit.  But then we must draw the line in the sand and say "that's your lot.  No more"

Some will say that its every ones human right to have as many children as you want.  I do not disagree with this but its also the individuals responsibility to pay for their family.  Not ours!

I also must state that I believe we should get rid of all child benefit, but I think this proposal is more palatable to the squeamish.  I am a father and I work and pay for me and mine.  I shouldn't be paying, through my taxes, for other's. 

This should help towards population growth reduction and the restraining of the 'baby factories' who are such a drain on society.

 

reforming child benefit

with the lazy spongers we unfortunately have now it is long overdue to rethink the child benefit.  2 children per family is enough to keep the population going and any more should be up to the couple to pay for.  if the parents become unemployed then that is the time for child benefit for the 3rd and any other children until work is found.

Any type of benefit should not automatically be given to those who have not paid any TAX or NI say for at least 6 to 12 months and especially for those who do not hold a UK passport.

the UK has been an easy target for too long.  We have to start saying no.

i have 4 children, work hard for a fairly comfortable life, have worked most of my adult life and paid my TAX and NI.  i would not have a problem with not receiving child benefit for my 3rd and 4th and if i was struggling, take extra care to make sure that i would not fall pregnant again.

Why is this idea important?

with the lazy spongers we unfortunately have now it is long overdue to rethink the child benefit.  2 children per family is enough to keep the population going and any more should be up to the couple to pay for.  if the parents become unemployed then that is the time for child benefit for the 3rd and any other children until work is found.

Any type of benefit should not automatically be given to those who have not paid any TAX or NI say for at least 6 to 12 months and especially for those who do not hold a UK passport.

the UK has been an easy target for too long.  We have to start saying no.

i have 4 children, work hard for a fairly comfortable life, have worked most of my adult life and paid my TAX and NI.  i would not have a problem with not receiving child benefit for my 3rd and 4th and if i was struggling, take extra care to make sure that i would not fall pregnant again.

Child benefit for one child only

Families should get much more help with the first child.  They should get much less help with subsequent children.  Having a large family is a lifestyle choice and should not be subsidised by the taxpayer.  Of course this is only fair if contraception is free, and easily available.

Why is this idea important?

Families should get much more help with the first child.  They should get much less help with subsequent children.  Having a large family is a lifestyle choice and should not be subsidised by the taxpayer.  Of course this is only fair if contraception is free, and easily available.