scrubbedexpat091

You wont get that much in Canada, nowhere close to the much money per week.

The chart for BC doesn't go to 26 dependents, but it does go up to 7, and the basic assistance rate is the same 375.58 regardless if one has 1 kid or 7 kids. Only thing that goes up is the housing supplement.

Parents do get extra money, but there is no chart for it, since its a combination of a provincial and federal program and is variable, but its not part of the social assistance program so not included in the above rate.

http://www.eia.gov.bc.ca/mhr/ia.htm

A single employable parent would receive the amounts listed under column C.

bats

Very few people live comfortably on UK benefits. But they do live.

Piff Poff

I am afraid that I think if you can't afford kids you shouldn't have them. I think benefits should be cut at 4 kids max after that your on your own.

Shard

+1

Although the country could do with a cap on child benefit after say 4-5 children to prevent this sort of thing.

Former Lancastrian

They could also cap the number of MPs and Quangos

Shard

The number of MPs in relation to the population size is ludicrous.

Alan2005

So you'd put the children into poverty even though it's not their fault?

The fact is that if you have a welfare system, then some people will decide that they can just live off it. It's annoying, but the alternative is worse.

Sally Redux

Interesting, thanks.
This is the problem part.

ann m

Who would the cap apply to? The mother or the father?

Shard

Admittedly it's a difficult issue. However as it stands the welfare system is something of an enabler for those who want to procreate beyond what they can afford. Sometime for the wrong reasons (income rather than progeny).

A cap could exist after which subsequent children, to the extent that they are not adequately cared or provided for, could be taken into care.

JamesM

Would taking excess children into care not be more expensive???

Shard

Good point. Perhaps the cap could be joint and several, so if the two adults were a couple it would apply to 5 sprogs in total, but if they had multiple partners it could be 5 sprogs per individual (for a maximum of 10 sprogs per two state-funding claimants). That would work, wouldn't it. Obviously if they wanted to have a large family they would be free to do so, to the extent that they could provide for the large family. As has been the case for most of human time.

Shard

It might be but it would set a parameter and be more egalitarian.

Sally Redux

What if you were a well-off working family with 6 kids, but lost jobs. Would one be taken into care?

These kinds of people are annoying and we all know them, but crazed solutions about 'sprogs' aren't actually workable.

PS I thought the cap thing was a pun

Shard

No, in such circumstances the sixth wouldn't be taken into care. The point is that policy could be enacted to prevent the misuse of child benefits. It's not rocket science and it's not black and white.

I didn't see the pun (initially) but then again, I ain't female.