Two children?

I have this feeling that these proposals are bandied ( right word? ) about to send a message to The Rest of The World: Please be aware you cannot come here any longer and breed to your heart's content.
Well, for starters anyway.

Yes well quite, Bags lots of combined families these days. It does not seem long ago that we had a government that was trying to reduce child poverty does it. They had their faults but that was at the heart of their decision making.
A move such as this would penalise the poorest families most. Some of them are already having to use food banks. And it does go straight to the mother.

The move, if it ever comes to anything, would only affect new claimants. Surely child poverty is closely related to rising population numbers?

Yes, ana it would only affect new claimants.
And to be frank any person who breeds regardless cannot say that they care.
I am sorry I cannot accept that.

Which bit can't you accept, johanna? Sorry, I'm probably being dim but it's not clear to me.

This business of taxing child benefit for higher earning families seems yet another example of this government's inability to think things through. For decades now people have been taxed individually with an individual tax-free allowance rather than as a married couple with a married couple's tax-free allowance and an allowance for a child/children. Now they have decided to tax child benefit in households where someone earns over £50,000–£60,000. So a new partner/husband who is not the child's father may be taxed because of the child benefit the mother receives. Does this also apply if the new partner is another woman? Does it apply to the new woman partner if there is no civil partnership? Does it also apply if, say, two sisters or a brother and sister live together?

Let's face it, when people get pregnant when they are already struggling a bit with their current brood are unlikely to think "Will I or won't I use contraception? Well there won't be any child benefit in 10 months time, will there... hmm, better take precautions"

Sadly, some people refuse all contraceptive advice and support - and some, expect others to pay for the result. One of my ex students had 7 children, the first taken away into care aged one, as she clearly couldn't cope and was dangerous. The other 6 were taken away from her aged a few months, then at birth. My OH had several patients who asked for abortions on a regular basis - and always said 'I don't believe in contraception'.
What about that young guy who prances about, who has 17 children- with different women, and all raised with Social money? And then we talk about his 'right and freedom' to do so. At what stage is enough, enough!?
A hugely complex issue with implementation thought, I agree.

Most of us tow the line, why should we support the feckless who do not like using contraception. Most of us have the number of children we think we can afford to rear and do not continue regardless. There are one or two who feature regularly in our local paper, I would like ten minutes and two house bricks to use on them

Tow ? toe even.

Started my active sexual life early, I've told you before- but went to GP and got on the pill as soon as - with freedom always come responsibility, surely.

Trouble is the reckless breeders are those least likely to think through the consequences for the kids aren't they.
Osborne's new rule about no CB for those earning over 50k beggars belief. Contortions in order not to increase tax I suppose. Sounds like a nightmare for the inland rev though.

Overpopulation together with climate change and resource depletion is one of the world's mega problems. I, personally think it is immoral for any thinking person to have more than two children (unless second pregnancy is twins of course).
However, once a child is born it has to be looked after. Child benefit is for the benefit of the child not the parents. I believe that society has a responsibility towards all children. Once a child is born it is a member of society and is entitled to be looked after and cared for until it reaches adulthood. That requires money.
Of course if people were paid a living wage instead of the megre minimum wage there would not be so much poverty but this government can't seem to understand this. Housing benefit, for instance, goes mostly to people with jobs...........think about that.

A 35 hour week on minimum wage = £11,265.80
A 40 hour week on minimum wage = £12,875.20

that speaks for itself.

I must tell my daughter how immoral it has been of her to have her six children. One is working in conference organising and pays a lot of tax, one is taking a degree in biomedical science, one is taking a nursing degree, one is a foreman on a building site, and two are still at school but will also be taking science degrees. They both volunteer for Riding for the Disabled.
They are all happy, useful, members of society. I wonder which ones should not have been born?
My son in law is a high earner in New Zealand so they don't fit the stereotype, I am afraid -i.e. they are not 'benefit scroungers'. Perhaps that makes it moral!

I agree with you Granjura, Your post about your student and her children being taken into care is the sort of point I wanted to make previously but I sometimes feel if you say anything along these lines you are automatically branded as a typical Daily Mail reader and see all large families headed up by a Karen Matthews type of mother. I am sure there are many large families out there who do a fantastic job. Nevertheless, Granjura you obviously have first hand experience of mothers who do not seem to be cut out for parenting, and lets face it we have a lot of unhappy kids around who are suffering the consequences of being brought up in disfunctional homes by parents who are ill equipped to nurture them properly. I don't see what's wrong in limiting child benefit to the first two children, unless you happen to have a multiple birth, if it would possibly make some think hard about the financial ramifications of having more than that number. As previously stated I think the majority have to plan hard about how they can manage to have the child or children and plan them responsibly, so I'm sure they find it galling seeing money handed out to people who don't give the matter that much thought and just bang them out and to hell with the consequences. It annoyed me when the Labour MP, Emily Whoever on Question Time a week ago, said that now this government (who I don't support on many issues) are trying to dictate how many children people should have just like China, she deliberately skewed her answer to make it sound alarmist, in the same way as someone else said "what next forced sterilisation". All that aside there are also great environmental issues in having large families, I believe both David Attenborough and Jonathan Porritt have both expressed their worries about the world population and just how the future generations will manage. All that said and done, a proposal such as this would need to be implemented gradually and of course not straight away and not retrospectively so it would not affect those who presently have more than two children.

Greatnan - Your daughter sounds a fantastic mother and I have nothing but admiration for those who raise their children in the way you describe. For me, two was more than enough but I do accept that some people have the ability to go on and make a great success of having quite a few kids. Equally there are also those who barely manage and it would be good for them if they didn't carry on procreating if they are making a pig's ear of it.

Greatnan, who on earth has said that is is immoral to have more than 2 children? Your wonderful daughter and OH are wonderful parents, and they do not need child benefit to raise their children- and that is wonderful.
Nobody is saying anything to the contrary.

Scroll back a bit and you find that carboncareful said exactly that!

I'll join the ranks of the immoral, G. Your daughter won't be alone.

Not that she or I care what judgmental people think.

OK - but it is clear that if everybody chose to have 6 children in the world- we would all be in a very large pickle. Our world is under huge pressure to cope with the huge recent rise in population. Nothing personal about this.

I remember when I started my Degree in Environmental Studies, one of our lecturers said that out of all the ecological issues in the world, the only one that was of any importance at all was demographics. As students, and me particularly as a mature student, tried to argue against - and yet- it seems he was right. We are not talking here about a personal or particular case, but as a general principle which is crystal clear if we look at the figures objectively.

I would have loved a third and perhaps even fourth child but for a number of reasons we decided to be grateful for and happy with the two we have. I don't think for a moment it would have been immoral to have had a bigger family.

It's not for anybody other than the parents to decide how many children to have.

I don't think New Zealand has much of an over-population problem, but I think it would be wise for all members to consider if their posts might cause offence to others.

But we are not talking about NZ here- but UK, and perhaps, the world in general. If saying that using abortion as a means of contraception, or that people should take responsibility for their actions- is considered 'judgementa' or upsetting to some, so be it, sorry.

Here is an interesting article from the Guardian about population growth and its (dire) consequences. Is it better to try and control numbers voluntarily, or wait for massive famine and wars to do it for us?

The 7 Billion Day is a sobering reminder of our planet's predicament. We are increasing by 10,000 an hour. The median UN forecast is 9.3 billion by 2050, but the range varies by 2.5 billion – the total world population in 1950 – depending on how we work it out.

Every additional person needs food, water and energy, and produces more waste and pollution, so ratchets up our total impact on the planet, and ratchets down everyone else's share – the rich far more than the poor. By definition, total impact and consumption are worked out by measuring the average per person multiplied by the number of people. Thus all environmental (and many economic and social) problems are easier to solve with fewer people, and ultimately impossible with ever more.

Since we passed one billion in 1800, our rising numbers and consumption have already caused climate change, rising sea levels, expanding deserts and the "sixth extinction" of wildlife. Our growth has been largely funded by rapidly depleting natural capital (fossil fuels, minerals, groundwater, soil fertility, forests, fisheries and biodiversity) rather than sustainable natural income. Our global food supply is heavily dependent on cheap oil and water. Yet peak oil means rising prices, while irrigation is quarrying out vital aquifers in many countries.

Thus our population rises at the same time as the number of people Earth can sustain shrinks, while spreading industrialisation and western consumption patterns only accelerate this process.The poor should get richer; but high birth rates, compounded by resource depletion and environmental degradation actively hinder development.

The crunch point is that indefinite population growth is physically impossible on a finite planet – it will certainly stop at some point. Either sooner through fewer births by contraception and (non-coercive) population policy, the "humane" way – or later through more deaths by famine, disease, war, the "natural" way. As Maurice Strong, secretary general of the 1992 Earth Summit put it: "Either we reduce our numbers voluntarily, or nature will do it for us brutally."

Some people, notably George Monbiot, argue that western over-consumption is the sole culprit, so criticising expanding population means "blaming the victims". Of course he is right that our self-indulgent lifestyles are grossly inequitable, and must become much more modest – each additional Briton has the carbon footprint of 22 more Malawians, so the 10 million more UK people the ONS projects for 2033 would equate to 220 million more Malawians. But all poor people aspire to become richer; if they succeed, their numbers will matter immensely.

That is why Population Matters campaigns to stabilise the UK's as well as the global population, effecting a culture shift in favour of smaller families here, while massively increasing the priority and resources for family planning and women's empowerment programmes in developing countries, enabling the 215 million women with an unmet need for contraception to control their own fertility.

Perhaps we can feed 9.3 billion people in 39 years' time – I don't know. We're barely feeding seven billion now. But Norman Borlaug, accepting his Nobel peace prize in 1970 for his "green revolution", said: "I have only bought you a 40-year breathing space to stabilise your populations."

On a finite planet, the optimum population providing the best quality of life for all, is clearly much smaller than the maximum, permitting bare survival. The more we are, the less for each; fewer people mean better lives.

Roger Martin is chair of the charity Population Matters

I have four children, the youngest being twins. Whether we got child benefit or not was immaterial 30 to 40 years ago. It's the parents' responsibility to be able to provide for them. We need families to reproduce, though, so our government should find constructive ways to assist parents with safe and manageable childcare arrangements when they work to provide for their families and pay tax. Denmark has a well-embedded childcare system, as has Norway. When they get childcare for working parents sorted, child benefit and tax credits won't be needed for so many. The majority of benefit claimants are low paid workers.

The fact that improving living standards leads to smaller family sizes and therefore smaller population growth, even to 'negative' populatiion growth, speaks for itself. It's perfectly clear that the only fair way to reduce population growth and then, gradually human population, is to improve living conditions.

History has proved Malthusianism empirically false.