To think capping child tax credits at two children will plunge more families into poverty

(450 Posts)
SoonToBeSix Sun 15-Dec-13 15:08:15

Can't link but article is in the Daily Fail. A Tory mp has proposed capping child benefit and child tax credits at two children in order to win votes.
What happens to those children whose parents circumstances change ie redundancy or there is a contraception failure?
This government is taking welfare cuts too far while continuing to let the very rich avoid paying the correct taxes.

IneedAsockamnesty Sun 15-Dec-13 15:10:52

Please stop reading the daily fail, its very bad for your blood pressure and will give you an attack of the vapours

SoonToBeSix Sun 15-Dec-13 15:14:56

grin I don't read it, I read an online article that referenced the Daily Mail.

YetAnotherNN Sun 15-Dec-13 15:15:43

What Sock said about the Daily Fail.

It does however piss me off that an old school friend has been able to afford 9 kids by never working, but we can only afford 2 because we work. I think there is a great need for benefits but some people take the piss and this ruins it for a lot of people. There's no way in a million years she would have had that many kids if she and her DP (who has also never worked had to pay for them out of their own pocket.

ProphetOfDoom Sun 15-Dec-13 15:17:18

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

ProphetOfDoom Sun 15-Dec-13 15:18:41

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

WooWooOwl Sun 15-Dec-13 15:18:43

Yabu. Families having more children than they can provide for without state help is what would plunge moe families into poverty, not a benefit cap.

I don't think this should, or would, be applied retrospectively, but if in the future people knew that they would only get benefits for two children should they become ill or be made redundant, then they would be more likely to protect themselves. They could make sure they have a lot of savings before they have dc3, make sure both parents are working so that if one isn't working then they still have an income, getting insurance policies, or by only having two children, which is something that plenty of families already do because of finances.

If this were done in conjunction with making JSA more generous then it wouldn't be a problem. I think it would be better to increase JSA because then at least people would be taking responsibility for looking for work, and if they were doing that then their children wouldn't suffer even if there are more than two of them.

SoonToBeSix Sun 15-Dec-13 15:20:23

Woowoo did you read my op where I referred to redundancy and contraception failure?

ConferencePear Sun 15-Dec-13 15:20:35

And then there's the law of unintended consequences -
1. a rise in abortions
2. a third child being a status symbol.

Or am I being too pessimistic ?

notanotherusername1 Sun 15-Dec-13 15:20:56

I think it's only going to be introduced in x or y years so it won't impact on any children now.

About time it was brought in. 'Some' might then stop and think about how many children they have. Does anyone really have children for the CB though?

In a number of years they will scrap it altogether IMO.

LyingWitchInTheWardrobe Sun 15-Dec-13 15:22:49

Agree with WooWooOwl; anybody can have circumstances happen to them but if they have two children - biological or non-biological - then a cap is reasonable. Nobody's saying that people can't have more, just that people won't receive money money for that.

I know that these threads draw posters in who say it's unfair and so on but it's not really. There are people who work who can't afford more children. Bring the benefits in line to benefit them also and then it would be fair.

Cindy34 Sun 15-Dec-13 15:25:28

Childcare element of WTC already has a cap of 2 children, doesn't it? Those with more children have more childcare cost yet still get max of 70% of £300.

I do not read the daily fail, so not sure what is being talked about but is it perhaps something similar, a cap on the max claim of certain elements of benefits? Or is it a cap on all benefit?

Whilst I can see that this would be unfair on those who had their children when they could pay for them themselves but lose a job or get divorced, something needs to be done about the welfare bill.

There are far too any people on lifelong benefits and there is a percentage that see it as a way to stay at home and not have to be actively seeking work by having another child. To know it's not a popular opinion on mumsnet but there are people who do this and see themselves as better off on income support and tax credits combined with housing benefit than going out to work for the same money.

WooWooOwl Sun 15-Dec-13 15:26:17

Yes, that's why I referred to what a couple could to to protect themselves if one became unable to work.

I know contraception failures happen, it happened to me, but when it does happen, it's still the parents responsibility to deal with the consequences.

perplexedpirate Sun 15-Dec-13 15:27:12

You're jealous of your friend who has 9, while you only have 2.
I'm jealous you have 2, while I can only have 1.
Doubtless many are jealous of me, because I have 1, and they don't have any.
It's all relative really.
And both DH and work full-time, so it's not like we're 'skiving off!
Perhaps I should give my child benefit back? hmm

SoonToBeSix Sun 15-Dec-13 15:28:27

But woowoo people in low paid jobs can't afford insurance.
Also what about the children of irresponsible parents are you ok with children going hungry through no fault of their own?

SoonToBeSix Sun 15-Dec-13 15:29:46

Cindy they are proposing to cap Cb and child tax credits at the first two child only.

YetAnotherNN Sun 15-Dec-13 15:31:14

Goodness no, I wouldn't want 9 so no jealously here. Don't know why you think I would be - Jumping to conclusions maybe? Mine were IVF after many years trying so I'm very grateful to have them.

it does irk me that she can just have lots of children and never for a moment consider the cost because of all the benefits she gets, especially when I see friends going through the heartache of wondering if they can afford to have more.

WooWooOwl Sun 15-Dec-13 15:32:47

If people in low paid jobs can't afford insurance, then they can't afford to have more than two children either!

Children who have irresponsible parents will have irresponsible parents regardless of any benefit cap. Society shouldn't be compensating for poor parenting by throwing money at them, we should compensate for poor parenting by having better resourced social services.

notanotherusername1 Sun 15-Dec-13 15:34:07

The word 'jealous' was not used in reference to the 9 children.

throwingstones Sun 15-Dec-13 15:34:42

In an overpopulated world I can't see any justification for paying people to have more than 2 kids. If you aren't certain you can support more than 2 in any circumstances, stick at 2. That said I assume this would only apply to births going forward, not families that already have more than 2 kids.

perplexedpirate Sun 15-Dec-13 15:35:49

Oh, you're right! It was 'pissed off' and an accusation that she was 'taking the piss'.
Much nicer!

EQ2Junkie Sun 15-Dec-13 15:36:41

Don't know about this how would it be applied to a guy who has two kids. Buggers off and has two with another woman and then again. Would his subsequent children be entitled as they are his 3rd/4th etc.

Or a guy who gets with a woman with 2 and wants one if his own? It would be his only but would he be penalised as her previous relationship failed?

Or a man and a woman both with 2 get together and now have 4 which 2 of them are the valid ones?

YetAnotherNN Sun 15-Dec-13 15:37:02

perplexedpirate Sun 15-Dec-13 15:27:12 'You're jealous of your friend who has 9, while you only have 2.'

Yes it was. Hey ho. I don't care really PP has got the wrong end of the stick and jumped to conclusions, so be it.

BerryChristmas Sun 15-Dec-13 15:38:29

are you ok with children going hungry through no fault of their own?

FFS !

SilverApples Sun 15-Dec-13 15:38:34

How long have child tax credits been around?
Because families having way more children than they can afford or support have been around a lot longer.

YetAnotherNN Sun 15-Dec-13 15:38:57

Yes, she is taking the piss. When she had her first she proudly told me that it was great because she could get a council house, sorry to burst your bubble but people like that do exist and if a benefits cap helps stop them then great.

perplexedpirate Sun 15-Dec-13 15:39:31

How about we scrap all child benefit?
That'd be nice and fair wouldn't it.

WelshMaenad Sun 15-Dec-13 15:42:15

Bloody Tories.

Soon, someone is going to suggest that mine and DH's wages should stop increasing by a set percentage every time we choose to have another child, and then I'll be right royally fucked off.

SilverApples Sun 15-Dec-13 15:43:31

Do you mean retrospectively, or for future, as yet unborn children?
Bit like what happened with HE then, it used to be free, now you have to get a loan and pay back.

perplexedpirate Sun 15-Dec-13 15:43:36

I did correct the 'jealousy' quote.
I said you were right and it actually said 'taking the piss', if you'd bother to read my posts properly.
I'm not sure how I've jumped to wrong conclusion.
You seen to begrudge her money from the state to feed her children. You've got more children than me, so it should follow that I begrudge it you, and people with no children begrudge it me. If we were all twats, that is.

YetAnotherNN Sun 15-Dec-13 15:44:02

I live in a country where they did scrap CB a couple of years ago. People learn manage their money better or get second part time jobs. I know plenty of people that have done this. The country couldn't afford it and health and education would suffer if they continued it so it went. After being out of the UK for the last 5 years I'm amazed at the entitledness of it. Benefits should be for those that need it, disabilities, SN etc. Not for a lifestyle choice.

stgeorgiaandthedragon Sun 15-Dec-13 15:44:17

I agree with WooWoo and Lying

YetAnotherNN Sun 15-Dec-13 15:46:31

I don't get anything from the state to feed my children. We don't earn a huge amount but we budget and manage ok. If we were in the UK we would get tax credits and child benefit which we have proven here we can manage without. So yes I think some of it is unnecessary.

perplexedpirate Sun 15-Dec-13 15:49:43

Yes, let's scrap all benefits, then, because some people don't need them.
Let's ditch the NHS, because some people go private.
And universal education. How entitled is it to expect your children to be educated?!
Behold, our brave new world!

enderwoman Sun 15-Dec-13 15:49:57

I think there needs to be exceptions like if child 2/3 are twins or if child 3+ is a foster child.
I think that this will make child poverty worse as people will make the decision to raise 3 children on the 2 children amount rather than abort if contraception fails.

WelshMaenad Sun 15-Dec-13 15:51:17

Pirate, you are David Cameron and I claim my £5. grin

YetAnotherNN Sun 15-Dec-13 15:51:54

Again you're jumping to conclusions. I do not think benefits should be scrapped, far from it. I think it should be managed better and the resources given to those who genuinely need it.

sonlypuppyfat Sun 15-Dec-13 15:52:49

I have a friend who has 8 kids and is trying for more. No one has worked in that house for years surely with the best will in the world that's not right.

YetAnotherNN Sun 15-Dec-13 15:54:05

If it's a choice between benefits for someone that can manage without/doesn't really need it or that money going towards education and healthcare then imo it should go toward the education & healthcare.

perplexedpirate Sun 15-Dec-13 15:54:31

Ha! Yep, I'm shiney Dave all right! What are you all doing on here?!
You should all be at your second part-time jobs.
Bunch of skivers...

It creates a society in which working people on low incomes are discouraged from having more than two children because they will not have adquate support from the system they pay into, should they need it.

But more well off people who have savings and can afford insurance, are able to have more than two because they have the resources to deal with a job loss/illness etc.

I am uncomfortable with a society that is, in effect, saying that those on low incomes are less deserving of having more children, than the rich.

The children in these circumstances will still have irresponsible parents whether its capped at two or not, but we as a society are adding poverty to the list of things they have to deal with. Aren't we great.

Its £13 per week per child. That's £676 per year. David Cameron probably spends close to that on one meal out at the weekend.

WooWooOwl Sun 15-Dec-13 15:57:30

I agree YetAnother. For me, it isn't about spending less tax money. I'm quite happy to be taxed and have plenty of money spent, as long as it's spent fairly and is better managed.

perplexedpirate Sun 15-Dec-13 16:00:03

Applauds Wannabe.

WelshMaenad Sun 15-Dec-13 16:01:12

Wanna, DH and I are working people on low incomes. We have two children. We will not be having more due to affordability. I'm fine with that.

We also won't be having regular breaks in the South of France because, just like a larger family, they are a luxury. A luxury we're unable to afford. Not a right. Is that, too, a societal issue? Won't someone please think of my desire for foreign holidays!!!

annieorangutan Sun 15-Dec-13 16:02:11

I really cant see this happening

WooWooOwl Sun 15-Dec-13 16:03:38

I am uncomfortable with a society that is, in effect, saying that those on low incomes are less deserving of having more children, than the rich.

I can completely understand that POV and relate to it, but at the same time, I am comfortable with a society that provides a secure safety net in times of illness, redundancy, and enables people to have two children even if they don't work.

Child tax credits are more than £13 a week per child if you're on full benefits.

notanotherusername1 Sun 15-Dec-13 16:08:42

Having 9 children with neither parent working is taking the p out of the tax payer. 9 children to support financially for dh and myself would not be possible and we both work. 3 is difficult enough so I dread to think what 9 costs. And not a penny earnt themselves. How can that seem ok to some?

Having a holiday is not a right. FWIW I have never been abroad, never been on a plane. I went on a day trip to Edinburgh once. Woo. Hoo.

Having children is something that most of us have a need to do. Are we going to stop giving couples IVF on the NHS if their income falls below a certain level? Or just stop funding IVF altogether because the world is over populated? Maybe we should sterilise those with less than 5 GCSEs at grade A*-C?

Let's not forget that as a society, we need people to have children, so we have a workforce in the future.

The Tories aim is to create a society in which a few have lots and the rest have nothing. If they keep going it won't only be benefit claimants who are targetted. It will move to anyone who doesn't earn enough to pay for their own care during pregnancy and childbirth, pensioners etc etc. It won't stop until the tories and their cronies are laughing all the way to the bank, while the rest of us eat gruel.

Darkesteyes Sun 15-Dec-13 16:12:17

If the idiots want to do this then they need to put more funding into domestic abuse services instead of cutting funding like they are doing now.
You only have to read the Relationship boards on this very site to find that there ARE abusive men out there who WILL can and DO bully their partner into having another child. Only a year ago there was a long running thread on there about this very situation THe OP in that case was asking about which contraception was easier to hide. She was too scared to have the implant in case he spotted it and she worried about hiding pills in case he found them.
If this is implemented it will harm the women and not the men. Because men like this are financially abusive too.

annieorangutan Sun 15-Dec-13 16:12:34

It might not be ok but there will always be people that do this and having worked closely with social services I know there is no way near enough foster places so either the government lets them starve, takes them away and very high cost to state or forces abortion on them

LyingWitchInTheWardrobe Sun 15-Dec-13 16:14:53

perplexedpirate... What exactly are you applauding?

This country is in a mess and, rightly or wrongly, the super-rich are able to avoid paying commensurate taxes. They still have to pay some just like the rest of us who work. It may be a drop in the ocean for them but that's how the system currently is. The fact remains, this country is in a financial mess and those who can't afford to have more children are paying savvy attention and not doing so.

It's risky; you and your DH work so you know this. It's easy for posters to jump on their biscuit tins and say, in pantomime villain voices... "So, only the rich can have children, eh?"... but children cost a lot of money. Who's going to pay for them? The parents!

I know you didn't raise this point but about the fathers who wander away from the children that they sire - any benefits they would have received should go directly to those children - I don't care about feckless adults who don't take responsibility. I'm guessing that feckless 'mothers' shouldn't be mentioned though so as anti-feminist as it is, let's put all the onus and responsibility on the men.

Make no mistake, this country is facing crisis, you only have to look at what your local authority cuts are going to be next year if you want a 'barometer' to give you an idea. Council tax will be going up though!

If you look at the figures showing the amounts of families who have two children and have never worked in their whole life you will find its miniscule.

Similarly, the number of families with more than 5 or 6 kids who claim full benefits is also miniscule.

So are we tarring everyone with the same brush? Is that a good way to be?

So everyone who earns less than £30k are lazy and lack ambition to earn more money? Yes? Or is it just a fact of life that someone needs to clean offices for NMW and that person has just as much right to have three kids as the office manager?

PresidentServalan Sun 15-Dec-13 16:19:05

I don't think people should be able to have more children than they can afford, simply because the pot of money isn't bottomless and it isn't right that some people who genuinely can't afford to have more don't, whilst others think it's fine for the state to pay.

This isn't benefit bashing as it is right there is a safety net for people, as circumstances can change in the blink of an eye, but perhaps the irresponsible ones would have to think twice about choosing to have more children than they can afford to pay for.

stgeorgiaandthedragon Sun 15-Dec-13 16:24:00

Again I agree with Lying.

I can relate to the point about a society where only the wealthy can afford more than two children. My concern is however that at the moment that is on its head - very few families with two parents working can afford more than two children. At present, having more children is beneficial if you are wholly reliant on benefits.

Usual disclaimer - I don't think that's why people have them, but it doesn't change the fact that if I have three children, my salary won't increase. If someone reliant on benefits has a third child, theirs does.

Goerge Osborne intends to take the UK spending back to similar levels as those in 1949.

Someone on here said, I think on another thread, that there are two ways to cut the deficit, spend less or tax more.

So we are spending less. Yes? Then why are MPs getting a pay rise?

Perhaps there is a third way. Spend money on investments to make money.

Take money out of the economy through benefit cuts = businesses going under = job losses = more people claiming benefits. And repeat.

dreamingofsun Sun 15-Dec-13 16:24:28

wannabed - i don't see why someone should have the right to have 3 kids, especially if they can't support them by themselves. in this crowded country 2 would seem more than adequate. higher paid workers cut their cloth according to their income, so why shouldn't lower paid?

Sadoldbag Sun 15-Dec-13 16:28:42

I suggest if you need £17 to raise a child lest they starve then you cannot afford that child

stgeorgiaandthedragon Sun 15-Dec-13 16:30:46

I think you can be 'for' one thing and not others, though wanna

I am in favour of taxing the (very) rich more, it doesn't mean I think we should hurl money at anybody capable of reproducing.

Sadoldbag Sun 15-Dec-13 16:30:53

poster stgeorgiaandthedragon

Agreed the only people who can currently afford as mNy children as they wish Re those on welfare and the very we'll off.

stgeorgiaandthedragon Sun 15-Dec-13 16:31:22

iPad,*Sad*? fgrin

LyingWitchInTheWardrobe Sun 15-Dec-13 16:31:29

Wannabe... the MPs pay raise should be attracting widespread condemnation. I don't know of ANYBODY (as I don't personally know any MPs) who thinks that they are in any way deserving of a payrise above what the national average is.

In fact, I think they should be subject to 'league tables' and KPIs like many of us are to determine how effective their work is.

What is actually being done about it though, other than lots of moaning on forums (yes, I know it should be 'fora')? Normally, one would write to their er... MP. I can't imagine that communication being passed where it needs to go.

Mushypeasandchipstogo Sun 15-Dec-13 16:33:11

Totally agree with President. Why do some people think that there is a totally bottomless pit of money which can be given out to families where there is no intention of anybody working? I would like to see more money given to older people who have contributed to 'the system' but that would be another thread.

FWIW we have two kids, we are on benifits atm, but I am retraining and dp is starting a business. It really gets my goat that a person I know also has two kids, has no intention of ever working again, will most likely have another as her youngest reaches school age, and what's worse, she doesn't even look after them herself, they are always with other people.

We would love another, but we can't afford it and probably won't be able to for the next 5 years atleast.

I just do not like the way this cap is heading. There is too much mud throwing by the tories, and no real discussion about the things that are not working. The millions of pounds being written off by DWP due to the failed rolling out of Universal Credit anyone?

Yet people with children (read women) are fair game.

Sadoldbag Sun 15-Dec-13 16:38:38

wannabedomesticgoddess there is discussion however when any body try's to talk about benefits

You either get told

Your bashing

Or people who don't want to work don't exist

In order to shut down the conversation

LyingWitchInTheWardrobe Sun 15-Dec-13 16:38:59

It's not JUST women, wannabe but it's a question of where the money is to come from. What bit don't you understand? It's all very well to deplore the waste of money but other than hand-wringing, what does it achieve? There ISN'T the money available, the wasting of it on failed projects just makes the problem more acute, but the money wasn't really there in the first place, it's just been called in to 'prop up' as needed because the alternative is unthinkable. The country is in severe debt.

I would like to see more money given to older people who have contributed to 'the system' but that would be another thread.

I worked for 5 years before having my first. And when my youngest starts school I should have a degree. I will be 31. As the pension age is now 70, that's 39 more years I will be working and contributing.

But as I am 26, I am not older. So you would rather I didn't receive help. That's logical. hmm

LyingWitchInTheWardrobe Sun 15-Dec-13 16:40:17

Agrees with sadoldbag yy to the attempts to shut down any conversation on this subject (that affects EVERYBODY).

Darkesteyes Sun 15-Dec-13 16:40:35

If the idiots want to do this then they need to put more funding into domestic abuse services instead of cutting funding like they are doing now.
You only have to read the Relationship boards on this very site to find that there ARE abusive men out there who WILL can and DO bully their partner into having another child. Only a year ago there was a long running thread on there about this very situation THe OP in that case was asking about which contraception was easier to hide. She was too scared to have the implant in case he spotted it and she worried about hiding pills in case he found them.
If this is implemented it will harm the women and not the men. Because men like this are financially abusive too.

Darkesteyes Sun 15-Dec-13 16:42:15

They want to implement things like this AND cut domestic abuse services. How the fuck is this not discriminatory against women

annieorangutan Sun 15-Dec-13 16:42:53

I agree with wannabe many people are working from 16-70 which is 54 full years so dont see the problem in those people getting help.

needaholidaynow Sun 15-Dec-13 16:44:17

we should compensate for poor parenting by having better resourced social services

Wow. So if I was to have DC3 I should have him/her taken off me, whether planned or unplanned if I'm on a low income?

Lying.

I understand that there is money to fund the lowering of the higher tax rate from 50% to 45%. There is money to ringfence foreign aid. There is money to fund an 11% payrise for MPs.

Why can't you understand that while the country is in severe debt, there is money, the deficit is being used as a front for tory ideology, and that the numbers of these workshy useless feckers who sleep all day and breed all night, is tiny?

Sadoldbag Sun 15-Dec-13 16:45:34

We all know what's wrong with the welfare situation

Farmers pay poles and others to pick there fields while the government pay our young people to sit at home.
why

People now feel more shame working in somewhere like mc Donald's than claiming.
why

And people who claim don't see how who they money they draw is directly taken from people who work but earn little more than they do on benefits
And cannot or will not see why there is resentment.

Things have to change sadly the many have spoiled it for the few and I do believe it's only a tiny tiny minority who can do any work not the vast amount who are claiming now.

stgeorgiaandthedragon Sun 15-Dec-13 16:46:03

Darkesteyes

I am fully in favour of this proposal, and am far from an idiot.

I (yet again) agree with Lying and others about the shutting down conversations.

I disagree it will harm women - we have a choice not extended to men about whether or not to continue with a pregnancy. I had a termination because of contraceptive failure and decided ultimately I could not afford to give that child a good life. It still upsets me when I think about it. But I had that choice and it was the right one. A man does not have that choice - once pregnancy occurs, it is up to the woman if she continues with it or not (and rightly so!)

We cannot keep paying for people to have more and more children because of some abusive men - the problem in that instance is the abusive man, not the benefits cap!

Sadoldbag Sun 15-Dec-13 16:47:09

Needahoilday * or course you shouldn't have a3rd child taken off you however you should not expect the tax payer to fund your choice*

Oh, and as DP is the same age as me, that's another 40 odd years of contributions from him.

So, 7 years say, of help, compared to 80 odd years of contributions.

Jesus, we are such scroungers.

stgeorgiaandthedragon Sun 15-Dec-13 16:49:46

Wanna - didn't you say you had two children and could not afford a third?

If so, I can't understand why you think anyone here thinks you're a scrounger?

bronya Sun 15-Dec-13 16:53:15

I would imagine it would be for future children. So if you have four children now, you'd continue to get CB and tax credits for all four. If you had a fifth, you wouldn't get anything extra.

TheBigJessie Sun 15-Dec-13 16:53:21

What darkesteyes said.

Mushypeasandchipstogo Sun 15-Dec-13 16:53:52

In reply to Wannabe why is it not logical that many in their late 60s onwards who have worked all of their lives should deserve a decent pension? FWIW I got a degree and worked FT for over 14 years before I had my DC!

There was a saying on another thread I saw yesterday.

The only time you should look into your neighbours bowl is to make sure they have enough.

That might not be word for word but you get the gist.

I am no benefits. Therefore I am a scrounger. Or are we deciding scroungerness on a case by case basis?

farrowandbawlbauls Sun 15-Dec-13 16:54:51

If this policy goes through...does this mean that it's just the mothers that are going to bear the brunt of this or are the fathers still going to be allowed to father children here there and everywhere without any responsibilty?

farrowandbawlbauls Sun 15-Dec-13 16:55:33

and not or.

Well then you deserve your DCs more than I deserve mine Mushy.

Pensioners get plenty. Ofcourse there are many who are in poverty, but pensions and pension related benefits aren't under attack.

Sadoldbag Sun 15-Dec-13 16:59:44

poster wannabedomesticgoddess again trying to shut conversation down no I one called you a scrounger you are attaching that word to yourself

I don't blame those who claim for doing so it's the system is broke only blame them for not seeing why those who work and ear less than if they were on welfare get cross

And ALS they can never seem to answer why me and others should pay for other to have more children when I can not afford more

WooWooOwl Sun 15-Dec-13 17:00:05

Needaholiday

Wow. So if I was to have DC3 I should have him/her taken off me, whether planned or unplanned if I'm on a low income?

Yeah, that's what I said, you should have any future children taken away from you. hmm

FFS

I have no idea about your circumstances. But if two people have a child when they are already receiving full benefits for themselves and two children, then they find themselves struggling to provide food and shelter for the third child out of the money they get because they can't find any type of work, then they may well need social services intervention and support.

BakerStreetSaxRift Sun 15-Dec-13 17:00:07

A previous poster mentioned how will this be enforced for people who go on to have second families?

I'm really struggling to get my head sound this, will each one person be entitled to one child each with benefits? Or will it only apply to women?

Hmmm.

Mushypeasandchipstogo Sun 15-Dec-13 17:01:23

Pensioners get plenty. Really?

annieorangutan Sun 15-Dec-13 17:01:25

Social services intervention costs a lot more than the benefits so thats pointless.

Sadoldbag Sun 15-Dec-13 17:01:26

farrow this needs to be addressed as well I really think that men should be made to top up ex partners wages not the tax payer they are not MY kids the fathers should pay

annieorangutan Sun 15-Dec-13 17:02:29

How will that be enforced though sadoldbag?

farrowandbawlbauls Sun 15-Dec-13 17:02:41

What about blended families where both parteners have full custody of all the children?

WooWooOwl Sun 15-Dec-13 17:03:06

It could be dependant on households, so no household can receive benefits for more than two children.

LyingWitchInTheWardrobe Sun 15-Dec-13 17:03:22

wannabe... It actually matters little what anybody thinks. The purse strings are controlled by Government and the rights and wrongs of policy aren't decided by people. All the people can do is get the elected politicians out and replace them with... more politicians, making yet more bad policies.

If the Government decides on a 'cap' there will be one. As the quote goes, we can't control the wind but we can adjust our sails. <shrugs>

stgeorgia, thank you! smile

Darkesteyes Sun 15-Dec-13 17:04:12

georgia i wasnt referring to you. I was refferring to the ppl coming up with the idea.
With some of the attitudes towwards women/mothers today im SOOOOOOOOOO glad i gave motherhood a huge swerve.

Darkesteyes Sun 15-Dec-13 17:06:01

BakerStreet i have a feeling you answered your own question. I too have a nasty feeling it will only apply to women.

annieorangutan Sun 15-Dec-13 17:06:20

So men could have 10 kids by 5 women and women can only have 2. Yeah that will work hmm

WooWooOwl Sun 15-Dec-13 17:07:30

Blended families with two lots of children should also have two lots of parents to pay for them. There are also two parents in the household that are able to work, and they still get help with the first two children if they need it.

If that's still not enough, then they will have to rethink blending their families, because it's not a decision that the state should have to pay for.

Sadoldbag Sun 15-Dec-13 17:07:31

I think we need to get hard on dads

My auntie lives in Florida

And they say you only really have two bills state tax and child support

If you can afford child support you won't get a marriage licence because who you can you take on another family if you can't pay for your first also you won't get a drivers licence either

Road tax, ECt costs Money I would like to see this sort of system

WooWooOwl Sun 15-Dec-13 17:10:01

How do you suggest it should work anniorangutan? Is the system we have at the moment one that you think works well for the country?

Mushypeasandchipstogo Sun 15-Dec-13 17:10:16

Yep I'm with you Sadoldbag

Darkesteyes Sun 15-Dec-13 17:10:31

Sadoldbag A policy like that will allow a finnancially abusive man to continue abusing his ex by paying one week but withholding odd payments at random.
This is why it was decided that income support should be payable whether the child support was paid or not because it was a. unworkable and b. our Goverments seem to be less willing to implement strict policies against absent fathers.

No Sadoldbag I am trying to demonstrate how tarring everyone with the same brush is a flawed plan. I am on full benefits and I am cross too. But the fact is, these policies come in to "deal" with the few people that are taking advantage, and every single person who finds themselves in need of help loses out.

There has to be a fairer way. I think having 9 kids is ridiculous, but there's a lot of difference between 2 and 9.

I can tell you now, that even if I was working a 60 hour week for NMW I would still feel the same. I know that because I have been there, and I would never begrudge anyone the pittance that is benefits.

annieorangutan Sun 15-Dec-13 17:13:20

Yeah I think it is woowoo as not that many people have lota of children and I would prefer money going to children than politicians wages or 100k 'art' things in towns or god knows what else.

annieorangutan Sun 15-Dec-13 17:15:16

I also do not admire anything about the american system.

Who is shutting down the conversation now Lying?

Of course it matters what people think.

LyingWitchInTheWardrobe Sun 15-Dec-13 17:16:22

Agrees with WooWooOwl and sadoldbag again; it's not about penalising mothers. It's about making parents take responsibility for the children they choose to bring into the world.

... in respect of wannabe's last post, I wouldn't call benefits a 'pittance' either. If they're so meagre then not worth having? It might not be sufficient money for what somebody expects to have but it adds up when there are multiple (millions of) 'pittances' paid out.

Thank heavens we have the 'backstop' in this country, I'm grateful for it and I'm not receiving benefits.

mummymeister Sun 15-Dec-13 17:17:01

I have a foot in both camps. on the one hand there are lots of people with > 2 children who then lose jobs or find themselves on benefits. on the other its unfair that people already on benefits who have been on them for many years just keeping having child after child after child knowing that the state will pay for them. we cant all keep going on about the earths resources running out and the cost of energy and all that stuff without accepting that one of the biggest threats to the planet as a whole is the number of people on it. I guess if I had to make a decision it would be no extra benefits for more than 2 children if you haven't worked for longer than you have been on benefits and if the child was conceived whilst on benefits.

LyingWitchInTheWardrobe Sun 15-Dec-13 17:17:49

What are you talking about, wannabe? I'm not shutting down anything - I said that the Government pays no heed. Obviously it's not just them as you don't seem to comprehend much either.

farrowandbawlbauls Sun 15-Dec-13 17:19:15

The number of people who have 9 kids or more is very low but time and time again these numbers are dragged out to fuel the fire in order to gain support for a policy (usually about benefits) that wouldn't work if most people took 5 minutes out to read about and applied a little common sense.

WooWooOwl Sun 15-Dec-13 17:19:51

Well if you think the current system works well then I can accost that, but there a lot of pole that disagree, and for very valid reasons.

I don't particularly want more money going into politicians bank accounts or into town art either, but there are plenty of other services that society needs that could do with it.

stgeorgiaandthedragon Sun 15-Dec-13 17:22:03

Farrow - I don't think it's about not applying common sense, it's about not having children you cannot afford to feed, clothe and house yourself whether that is three or nine.

Do people honestly think the government - any government - should just keep giving people money?

Can people really not see why this is an issue?

WooWooOwl Sun 15-Dec-13 17:22:47

Accept, not accost, that would be weird.

Get personal sure.

They are meagre and my point is that all these people getting cross are under the impression people on benefits are living it up. Its not an easy life, and we are fortunate enough to not have any debts to pay off, so we have all the money we are given to live on. I don't know what we would have done if we had credit cards and finance and a mortgage when we had to claim.

Yes it all adds up, but the percentage of the whole countrys spending that goes on benefits is small, and the majority of that goes into pensions. So the amounts we are talking about here are tiny in relation to the whole budget.

Which is why I mentioned upthread that the next thing to be attacked will be NHS provision for maternity care, and it will keep going until we are America.

annieorangutan Sun 15-Dec-13 17:25:26

The system that needs to be sorted is finding jobs for the people that need them.

dreamingofsun Sun 15-Dec-13 17:29:55

stgeorgia - agree with your point. Its not actually the 'government' though is it? Its the taxpayer. Its that person who is struggling to cover the cost of the 2 children they could afford, forking out tax for the person who just decided they would have as many as they fancied

farrowandbawlbauls Sun 15-Dec-13 17:30:17

I can't see it being an issue when they waste billions on a poxy railway, millions on an IT system that doesn't work, pay rises for politcians that are not up to the job and expenses that the rest of us can only dream about.

So no, for the sake of giving money to the miniscule number of families with 9 children to ensure that everyone get's help - then no, I don't see the problem.

What about those who were able to afford to have 3 or more children and never claimed anything before - disater is only an illness away and you are closer to loosing everything than you realise - will you still say to these people "Well tough, you should have made arrangements in case it happens so you can't have any money"

Sadoldbag Sun 15-Dec-13 17:31:46

Annie the problem is many people don't want a mc job or to tend a fields my bil prime example has a 1st but has no job and feels he's above working in KFC

But not above claiming.

This is what gets many peoples goats many would simply rather claim then get ay job till they get something that suits

annieorangutan Sun 15-Dec-13 17:33:43

Even if he wanted to there is no way near enough jobs and I totally agree with farrow. The government wants to lower living standards for all and is attempting to get the public on side

dreamingofsun Sun 15-Dec-13 17:34:13

farrow - nothing in life will ever be perfect, but you can't just give up because there are issues with other totally non related things such as railways.

its not 9 its 3+.

If you have 3 children then you make sure you have some savings in case things go pear shaped. you take some responsibility for yourself and your family. you do some planning

Sadoldbag Sun 15-Dec-13 17:34:53

Farrow it's not about people with 9 children it's about people with *any amount of children they can't afford.

The people opposite to me don't have 9 children they have 4 why SHOUD me any my family work to support there children we would have loved to have 4 children but can't afford it

farrowandbawlbauls Sun 15-Dec-13 17:35:18

It's the race to the bottom again annie.

custardo Sun 15-Dec-13 17:36:20

the 9 kids thing is a Daily mail orgasm and trotted out every time they have some benefits bollocks to 'report' on

these famililies are very rare - and concentrating on the larger families and introducing fucking wide spread policy based on this is bullshit

bulllllllllllllllllll

shiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit

its all smoke and mirrors
if austerity was really a thing we should be concerned about

if it was

MPs shouldnt get a 11% pay rise

MPs claimed £23.8 million in a year, (parliamentary watchdog IPSA)

The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority said our Commons representatives claimed £23.8 million in non-payroll expenses in 2012/2013

and there is ...............*35 BILLION*

35 FUCKING BILLION

IN uncollected taxes

this benefit bollocks is an attack on the poor pure and simple.

it feeds the greed eyed monster that lives in people and fuels the individualistic mentality and evil evil stance of 'how dare the poor...'

AUSTERITY MY FUCKING ARSE

yet everyone gets free school meals - utter bullshit

the fucking Red Cross are championing FOOD drives..... the red cross in this country doing this for the first time since SECOND world war

if being on or receiving benefits is so fucking luxurious, quite your fucking job you green eyed monsters

this country is disgusting, distgusting

the Conservatives are vile disgusting creatures who banquet on ill gotten gains and links to rich company chums - they dont collect taxes from

sitting in golden chairs telling the rest of us to tighten out belts

when MPs such as LIAM FOX claim 3p for expenses

and that utter badgerfucking arse shit wank of a COCK IDS claims for underpants

i pay for IDS *Y-FRONTS*

THE CHEEKY FUCKER

i am apoplectic with rage

then they all pay their sister/ brother/ wife/mistress/best friend to be their "secretary

IDS and betsygate en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betsygate

yet people looking for work in this climate are fucked. leeks from inside the DWP are abound at the moment
targets to sanction job seekers - for nothing

people are killing themselves, see callumslist

utter bastards

stgeorgiaandthedragon Sun 15-Dec-13 17:36:46

That's exactly it, dreaming

I am certainly not in favour of everything done by the government but I can't see how saying, "Well, I don't want a railway, so here, have as much money as you like!" to others is productive or helpful.

"Most people are only an illness away from disaster" - true. That applies to those of us who do not claim benefits as well as those who do! As a result, we ALL need to plan our families around our individual circumstances.

It's lunacy to have a situation where those who work cannot afford large families while those who do not can.

annieorangutan Sun 15-Dec-13 17:37:15

Totally agree that anyone who falls for this is very naive.

MoreThanChristmasCrackers Sun 15-Dec-13 17:37:30

Doesn't most of the welfare bill go on pensioners.
Also, is Tax credit counted as welfare, it seems sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't.
It used to be two separate things altogether.

We all have choices in the number of children we have, except the odd surprise.

Sadoldbag Sun 15-Dec-13 17:37:39

But Annie he was offered a job working with my oh but apparently he has a 1st and would not contemplate such a job a porter

And why has he such a view because he knows he will be taken care off and won't lift a finger until he finds the perfect job in a gallery

stgeorgiaandthedragon Sun 15-Dec-13 17:38:29

WHY are people going on about nine children!?

I had ONE child I couldn't afford - I made the extremely difficult decision not to continue with the pregnancy as a result.

I am not saying everyone who gets pregnant without financial backing should terminate it but they DO need to take responsibility for that pregnancy and if continuing with it is a must then THEY need to take the financial impact - not the state.

That applies to one child, or nine.

Sadoldbag Sun 15-Dec-13 17:38:58

Agreed people with twins should be exempt and people who have adopted

And that's pretty much it really

stgeorgiaandthedragon Sun 15-Dec-13 17:40:35

It's unlikely someone would be given the go-ahead for adoption without having reasonably stable finances. Says a lot, really.

I think the cap would come down to births rather than actual children - thereby excluding twins and triplets and any other multiple births.

custardo Sun 15-Dec-13 17:40:35

i want to take responsibility for not paying for MPs underpants

custardo Sun 15-Dec-13 17:41:08

i want to take responsibility for not paying for their fucking sister to be a 50k a year fucking secretary

TheBigJessie Sun 15-Dec-13 17:42:40

The idea of encouraging people to cut their cloth according to their means is appealing, I get that, but you can't build government policy around the assumption that the population is entirely made up of reasonable, rational people who weigh up the pros and cons of each decision. Because it really isn't. And so people will suffer as a result of such a policy. Including children who didn't choose to be born.

In fact, there is, among other things, a plentiful supply of women who didn't grow up in supportive families, witnessing gender equality.

There is no shortage of women, who from the very start of their dating life, have been prepped to take financial, physical, and emotional abuse as what men do. There's also lots of women who will believe any lie their boyfriend says about his ex, and never question why he shows no interest in his children with her. And have a child(ren) with him. And then be genuinely shocked when he pays sweet FA for their support in a few years.

Sadoldbag Sun 15-Dec-13 17:42:59

stgeorgiaandthedragon but I do think if you have adopted 5 children which are very difficult to place you should keep your CB as your saving the county thousands by adopting

custardo Sun 15-Dec-13 17:43:40

What: Elephant lamps

Who: Michael Gove

How much: £134.30

bastard

Here here Custardo.

I had to laugh at the Y fronts.

IDS complains about tax payers paying for benefit claimants third child, while wearing Y fronts paid for by said tax payer. You couldn't make this shit up.

custardo Sun 15-Dec-13 17:44:44

What: Moat cleaning

Who: Douglas Hogg

How much: £2,115

MOAT CLEANING

custardo Sun 15-Dec-13 17:45:12

What: Trimming hedge around “helipad”

Who: Michael Spicer

How much: £609

HELIPAD

farrowandbawlbauls Sun 15-Dec-13 17:45:31

Custardo - who was it who claimed for the heating of their stables?

I can't remember.

dreamingofsun Sun 15-Dec-13 17:48:18

PM's pay is totally unrelated to how many children per family taxpayers should fund.

If you are an MP living in the south it actually isn't a vast amount of money - especially not for someone who one hopes is educated, and is living away from home doing a responsible job with long hours. But thats not relevant to this argument

Sadoldbag Sun 15-Dec-13 17:48:32

Two wrongs don't make a right mps filling there boots is not on NOR is having children you can't afford to look after

LyingWitchInTheWardrobe Sun 15-Dec-13 17:50:42

wannabe... I apologise for my glib comment but it didn't seem as if you were listening to anybody but those agreeing with your point. The politicians are not listening to anybody.

It's not just the 'meagre' benefits it's the other costs that we ALL contribute to (by way of being beneficiaries, for clarification). The NHS - it can't afford treatment costs as it is. Bringing multiple more people into the world really doesn't make sense, or at least it doesn't to me. The costs come from somewhere. If the benefits 'pot' is kept limitless (as it currently is) then something has to give.

There just isn't the money available and I think the cap should come into being. Each child has two parents (whether they're together or not or deceased - there were two) and the cap is applicable.

I think that the politicians' salaries should be looked at and capped very stringently indeed, along with all the other perks that they seem to amass.

custardo Sun 15-Dec-13 17:50:43

it is completely related

why do you give a shit how many children people have?

why have you been sucked in to this utter bullshit looking at people on benefits and saying 'how dare they'

custardo Sun 15-Dec-13 17:51:08

Shaun Woodward claimed mortgage payments on a flat in London, despite the fact that he owns at least seven houses with his wife Camilla, a member of the Sainsbury family. Between 2004 and 2008 Woodward claimed £98,000 in mortgage interest payments.
Others have been up to similar schemes. Senior Tory Francis Maude billed the taxpayer £35,000 in two years for mortgage interest payments on a London flat, when he owned a house just a few hundred yards away

stgeorgiaandthedragon Sun 15-Dec-13 17:51:13

Absolutely, Sad and dreaming.

And, if I may, I think this is an example of shutting down discussion - posting with lots of capitals a load of unrelated arguments.

If you want to discuss MPs pay, start a thread about it. This is about capping benefits.

It's like saying we shouldn't prosecute shoplifters at all because armed robbers don't get enough time in jail. The latter may be wrong - it doesn't mean the former is OK either.

farrowandbawlbauls Sun 15-Dec-13 17:51:27

"PM's pay is totally unrelated to how many children per family taxpayers should fund"

It is when they are about to get a rise despite the country being broke and all these cuts are needed.

Sadoldbag Sun 15-Dec-13 17:51:33

I know dream girl it's like saying people commit fraud so we all should be allowed to speed

Both wrong and unrelated hmm

stgeorgiaandthedragon Sun 15-Dec-13 17:52:26

Custado I can't speak for others, but I care because I pay a fuck of a lot of tax and I think there are priorities for the country which don't involve offering an incentive for people to have large families.

OK?

Worried3 Sun 15-Dec-13 17:52:35

Many couples make the decision to limit their family to the number of children they can afford, not the number the might have preferred. That is called being responsible.

My salary will not rise if I chose to have another child- I will have to support any further children on my current income. I think the same should apply to those relying on benefits (whether solely or supplementing their wages) to bring up their children.

If you cannot support another child on your current budget, then the answer is not to have more children. Mistakes happen, but at the end of the day it is still up the couple involved to take responsibility for their actions.

The bottom line is that having more children than you can afford to support is irresponsible- whether that is 1 child or 10 is irrelevant. Why should the state pick up the bill for your decision to reproduce?

I think having a cap is sensible- although I don't think it would, or should, apply retrospectively and there would need to be exceptions for multiple births.

MoreThanChristmasCrackers Sun 15-Dec-13 17:53:21

StGeorge

There are plenty people who adopt and receive tax credits what rubbish.
There are also plenty people who work and receive them too.

Sadoldbag Sun 15-Dec-13 17:53:48

Custodo we only care about the amount of children people have if we the tax payer is footing the bill

LyingWitchInTheWardrobe Sun 15-Dec-13 17:53:56

sadoldbag re: adoption of children - I agree with that but also think that the parents of the children should not receive further child benefits if they have subsequent children, ie. be subject to the same cap. The benefits due to those adoptive children should pass to the adoptive parents, irrespective of any other carer benefits they may receive.

stgeorgiaandthedragon Sun 15-Dec-13 17:54:03

I've been on a pay freeze for 6 years, I am not thrilled about the MPs pay either.

But that isn't what we're discussing. Or is it? Should all discussions about how money is spent in this country go "shut up because MPs get this amount so because of that everyone and everything should get all the money they want?"

stgeorgiaandthedragon Sun 15-Dec-13 17:55:02

I didn't say otherwise MoreThan; I said you would need to be stable financially before adopting. Stable finances does not equate not claiming tax credits.

sunshine401 Sun 15-Dec-13 17:56:14

Until they sort out the tax payments of the rich, cut down mps money spends and increase nmw to be in percentage of inflation reducing the welfare bill more is not going to solve anything.

I don't know how to put what I want to say so bear with me.

It is not the notion of a cap that I disagree with, more the notion of a cap being introduced and the reasoning behind it being explained as Austerity Measures, or "there is no money" when in actual fact, there is money. There is money being directed to people who are well off in various ways.

I would call someone with 9 kids irresponsible whether their income was 10k or 100k. But why can't people see that while we have turned our heads to look at them, the wealthy are making off with tax, getting pay rises, and generally living it up?

custardo Sun 15-Dec-13 17:58:39

the government are bringing in these measures becuase of the bullshit they claim is needed - they spin this as austerity

it is in this guise that there is a systematic attack on people who claim benefits

whilst some 340 MPs, including ministers, have used the parliamentary expenses system to recoup the cost of heating their second homes, they spout this 'spare bedroom' nonsense and tax people on it

how can you not see it is related

farrowandbawlbauls Sun 15-Dec-13 17:58:48

Wannabe - I think you explained that perfectly.

custardo Sun 15-Dec-13 18:00:13

yes i believe all discussions of this ilk should start

The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority said our Commons representatives claimed £23.8 million in non-payroll expenses in 2012/2013

and there is ...............*35 BILLION*

35 FUCKING BILLION

IN uncollected taxes

it is in this context i am going to whinge about poor people

absolutley

ThingsThatGoBumpInTheNight Sun 15-Dec-13 18:03:01

Actually it was a stolen idea blogged by a UKIP member and nicked by the Tories. The blog (by a disabled lady) funnily enough said a cap shouldn't be placed on the household if one child had a disability.

Fwiw I wouldn't like to see any child go hungry because of the decisions made by its parents, and as a lot of people have already said, what about those who are working then lose their jobs?

We'll be like china next with a one child limit then they'll realise later on that they fucked up when one child has to support both parents and possibly grandparents.

farrowandbawlbauls Sun 15-Dec-13 18:04:24

The idea actually goes back to the 70's...I think it was a royal who suggested it.

LyingWitchInTheWardrobe Sun 15-Dec-13 18:06:06

Custardo... I'll add my voice to the others who say that you're 'off point' and I think you're trying to shut down the discussion by making the same unrelated points again.

All of what you say is correct but to keep bleating about it doesn't change it a whit does it?

The capping of child benefits is going to receive support. Capping MPs' benefits would receive universal support but guess what - only the former is up for consideration. Fair in the grand scheme of things? No. Fair in terms of making parents in receipt of benefits consider the decision to have more than two children, in line with some working parents who can't afford more than one or even less than that? Absolutely.

stgeorgiaandthedragon Sun 15-Dec-13 18:07:07

Can't add anything more to that, Lying.

ThingsThatGoBumpInTheNight Sun 15-Dec-13 18:14:23

Custardo and wannabe I'll add my voice to the ones who think you have a point.

Love these sheep who flock to bahhh at the latest thing politicians point at saying 'how dare they' while your backs are turned people, they are stuffing their pockets.

They grab as much as they can during their time in office like some fucked up supermarket sweep despite most of them being rich to begin with

HappyMummyOfOne Sun 15-Dec-13 18:15:04

Its about time a party was brave enough to do it. Better to have scrapped it completely but a good start.

Children are a choice, nobody is forced to have them and contraception is free and widely available. Used properly, doubled up if need be, there are few "accidents". If you cant afford children, then save, get a better job etc. Far too many have them expecting others to pay. First question a lot of new parents seem to ask is "what benefits can i now claim"? Personal responsibility seems to have gone out of the window with so many choosing not to work or working few hours. You see it on here and other boards, people asking how to maximise WTC, how to get around the change from IS to JSA (amazing how many people study at this point when they could have done so in the five years of doing nothing) or how much extra in benefits another child would add.

The money could be far better spent on education, hospitals, hospices etc. Let people be responsible for themselves. Its them, not the government, who control their lives.

custardo Sun 15-Dec-13 18:15:23

i am trying to widen the context, to narrow the context to this one point is short sighted and to suggest that it is unfair on working parents ( many claim benefits btw) is bizarre - like this is a fairer comparison than the one i am suggesting which is to collect 38 billion pounds worth of taxes.

paxtecum Sun 15-Dec-13 18:15:59

Of course MPs expenses are relevant to this argument.
The argument is about spending public money.

But then Tory voters would prefer money going to buy IBS his Y fronts than fund ANOTHER child on benefits.

custardo Sun 15-Dec-13 18:17:06

38 billion in taxes which remain uncollected could sort schools and hospitals happymummyofone

it is not an either / or situation where we have to squeeze the welfare state

to pay for schools and hospitals

actually we could do both

fancyanotherfez Sun 15-Dec-13 18:17:23

There have been articles in our local paper, campaigning for people to give to food banks etc. They sometimes have case studies on families. They often have families with 5 or 6 children who are surviving on £60 a week. If you are living on £60 a week with 3 or 4 children, you should not be adding another child to your brood. Also, regarding bullying partners, surely taking away a financial incentive (10% increase in income for those on £60 a week) may take away some of the incentive for these partners to keep forcing women to have babies.

custardo Sun 15-Dec-13 18:17:47

do both in terms of paying for both - not squeezing both btw!

TheBigJessie Sun 15-Dec-13 18:19:19

hmm having been studying since my children turned one, with an actual supportive husband who I can 100% rely on to parent while I'm out, and to look after them while I do my homework, I can entirely see why a single parent would start when her children turned five and were full-time at school.

Nothing amazing about it...

JakeBullet Sun 15-Dec-13 18:19:58

You know what HappyMummy I agree with you. Lets scrap all child related benefits and force employers to pay a wage which allows people on low wages to live without claiming. .....but I guess that bit ISN'T on your agenda.

I have relatives in Europe who get nothing ...bit nor do they need it as Employers pay enough that basic living costs can be covered.

I suspect then we might see more family planning.

LyingWitchInTheWardrobe Sun 15-Dec-13 18:20:03

Things... I'll concede that you have a point. I've had a long and involved local authority career and I'll tell you something that when I heard it made me very angry. It was my first week in the job and we were having complaints over some service we should have provided - and hadn't - for no legitimate reason. We didn't provide it again the following week and had a barrage of complaints. My boss said... "It's not like the private sector, Lying, what are the public going to do? Move?" That was the attitude and it was widespread across the council. They are all actually pretty much the same in my opinion.

So it is with Government; you can get them out and there's a new one waiting in the wings ready to lie/go back on their word and generally muck things up just like the previous one.

So, how do you propose, in the absence of Guy Fawkes and his crew, that we depose/dispose of (delete as appropriate) the current Government? And, having done that - what do we have it its place?

custardo Sun 15-Dec-13 18:20:56

To quote the Economist: "Though most of them seem to end up in newspapers... there were just 130 families in the country with 10 children claiming at least one out-of-work benefit.

Only 8% of benefit claimants have three or more children. What evidence there is suggests that, on average, unemployed people have similar numbers of children to employed people"

stgeorgiaandthedragon Sun 15-Dec-13 18:22:53

custardo - then this proposal will affect very few people, so where's the problem?

TheBigJessie Sun 15-Dec-13 18:23:19

Also, regarding bullying partners, surely taking away a financial incentive (10% increase in income for those on £60 a week) may take away some of the incentive for these partners to keep forcing women to have babies.

Bullying partners, by definition, don't share household stresses with their victim. They pile a load of crap on her (on occasionally him) and make them deal with it. The bullying partner will carry on buying PS3 or PS4 games, but their victim will simply have to make do with less.

dreamingofsun Sun 15-Dec-13 18:25:14

but this isn't just about unemployed people, its about others who work who can't support more than 2 children - who should stop reproducing, in much the same way that others do once they know they can't support their family

custardo Sun 15-Dec-13 18:25:54

why focus on that at all? It is becuase it adds to the spin of despicable claimants on welfare ddraining the country

focus on uncollected taxes and tory links with private corporations

focus on shoddy representatives that have to go on 'honesty training' ( todays papers)

it is such a small number of people - why bother with it at all - it is becuase it adds to the squeeze on the poor and the disgusting rhetoric that follows whilst the rich get away with me and you payin for their fucking skiddy undies

stgeorgiaandthedragon Sun 15-Dec-13 18:27:51

Are there actually any arguments as to why we should provide money for people to have larger than average families that don't involve MPs?

As as far as I can see, that isn't an argument - it's a "tit for tat" situation. But I'd rather people didn't play tit for tat with the money people pay in taxes.

farrowandbawlbauls Sun 15-Dec-13 18:28:01

Stgeorgia - I think you've gone off track a little.

Child benefit and child tax credits you get if claiming benefits or not. So it will affect a hell of a lot more people than just the 8% who are claiming benefits - this will affect everyone who has 3 or more children.

cantheyseeme Sun 15-Dec-13 18:28:39

I think its a great idea, i think people will think about having kids much more before just doing it.

dreamingofsun Sun 15-Dec-13 18:31:07

custardo - i don't think you pay for anything for our family - or if you do please explain. we have always paid more in tax than we get back. we stopped at 3 kids because we didn't have the time to look after more properly - due to both us of working FT.

Please can you explain why I should pay more tax so low earners can have as many kids as they like; and I still don't understand what relevance you arguments have about honesty training

merrymouse Sun 15-Dec-13 18:31:31

I don't know whether this will discourage people from having children, but society always pays the cost of child poverty one way or the other.

stgeorgiaandthedragon Sun 15-Dec-13 18:35:25

I was answering a point made by custardo, farrow smile

Will any of the 'hard working taxpayers' on here with 3 or more children tell me what they plan to do if they suddenly find themselves without a job?

It could happen almost overnight the way things are and you can't put the third child back.

stgeorgiaandthedragon Sun 15-Dec-13 18:36:22

Back - that is why it is being proposed for future births.

annieorangutan Sun 15-Dec-13 18:36:44

Cause there is stgeorge. The main one being that people will continue to have children and the cycle of disdvantage will be perpetuated even more so than now.

TheBigJessie Sun 15-Dec-13 18:36:48

StGeorgia because we see child poverty as undesirable? Because the future economy will require a population of healthy workers? Because I wouldn't be surprised if some of the non-MNers who support such a policy are also terrified of white Britons being bred out, and would whinge their tiny heads off if such a policy had an impact on Britons' reproductive decisions, and I really can't put up with any more racist threads on the internet

DoYouLikeMyBaubles Sun 15-Dec-13 18:37:34

The thing is not many people can truly afford to have children these days, but we make cutbacks and plan our finances accordingly.

BUT the problem is people thinking about having extra children, factoring what extra benefits they'd get into it.

Someone on full benefits, two children, wants a third but would only afford it by getting more benefits. On what planet does this seem right to anyone?

ThingsThatGoBumpInTheNight Sun 15-Dec-13 18:37:46

I think we should get rid of parties.
One person best qualified for each position available - meaning they could be sacked if doing a crap job, we wouldn't be stuck with them for five long years, and no one would be put into a position handling the economy of a country when previous experience was shelf stacking and a failed maths exam wink

I complain bitterly about paddockgate and betsygate but then again I despise the Tories full stop

farrowandbawlbauls Sun 15-Dec-13 18:38:00

and I was answering your question to Custardo.

When you said :"custardo - then this proposal will affect very few people, so where's the problem?"

<We need a quote button. >

stgeorgiaandthedragon Sun 15-Dec-13 18:39:38

Child poverty is undesirable, yes.

So is the fact the NHS is on its knees, the fact that people are starving in the third world, I could go on.

I don't think the future economy will collapse if people limit their family sizes to two rather than three.

As for that bit crossed out - what is a "non-MNer", and why on earth am I being accused for being racist? confused

stgeorgiaandthedragon Sun 15-Dec-13 18:40:07

I'm too muddled myself now farrow so I'll take your word for it! fgrin

DoYouLikeMyBaubles Sun 15-Dec-13 18:40:10

And of course if this came into law there'd have to be safe guards.

People made redundant for example, all their children should factor into their benefits BUT if they decided to have another whilst not working then that would be ineligible.

annieorangutan Sun 15-Dec-13 18:40:28

Do you honestly think people will limit their family size I 1000% dont think they will.

dreamingofsun Sun 15-Dec-13 18:40:42

backon - we would use some of the money we have saved in case of a rainy day/uneployment. This is also a main reason why i have always worked depsite really wanting to be a SAHP. ie we have planned.

tgeorgiaandthedragon you said Back - that is why it is being proposed for future births.

But that doesn't help unless you are informed now if you will one day be poor. People have argued that it's fine for people earning enough to have as many kids as they like. So what happens to those kids if their parents are suddenly not well off?

ThingsThatGoBumpInTheNight Sun 15-Dec-13 18:41:56

'You can't put the third child back'

grin

Seriously though, what would happen? If these children weren't being adequately provided for I assume they could be removed from their families ect ect ..

Is it totalitarian this word that's buzzing round in my head...

People made redundant for example, all their children should factor into their benefits BUT if they decided to have another whilst not working then that would be ineligible.

This is what I'm getting at. Do we really think that is ok? So those people will now be on benefits and claiming for all their kids. We can afford that can we?

Bear in mind that the 2 child plan is to apply to working people not just unemployed anyway.

TheBigJessie Sun 15-Dec-13 18:45:12

A non-MNer is someone who is not a mumsnetter. Due to the presence of the "non-MNer" which you clocked, you are not being accused of being racist.

Although I don't know why I said "suspect". I know damn well that I've seen particular usernames on t'interwebs posting threads about both 2 child limits and claiming that there aren't enough white children.

DoYouLikeMyBaubles Sun 15-Dec-13 18:45:33

Do you honestly think people will limit their family size I 1000% dont think they will

But people who work and don't rely on the extra benefits have to limit their family, so why can't people who do?

It's an issue of people taking responsibility for themselves and their children.

TheBigJessie Sun 15-Dec-13 18:46:00

* why I said I wouldn't be surprised. Not "suspect"

Well I've posted somewhere suggesting clinics to take the excess kids too like they have for dogs. because taking them into care would mean that the "hard working taxpayers" would still be supporting them.

annieorangutan Sun 15-Dec-13 18:46:50

Some people wont stop regardless of any cuts.

TwinklesTheXmasFairy Sun 15-Dec-13 18:49:32

I think a cap is reasonable in some cases. I have not read the whole thread, cos meant to be tidying lol, so not sure how/ what others have said as of yet.

I have a OH but we don't live together and as such, although we do contribute to paying rent/ct as well as the other bills, I do also have help by way of top ups from HB/CTS and at the moment Income support. I am looking for work as at my last Work Focussed Interview me and my Support Officer sat down and worked out that with just 16 hours paid work I would be roughly better off by £76 a week than if I stayed on benefits. Full time they said I would still be £70-£80 better off every week.

I went to an interview the other day for a paid role, as am currently volunteering full time at a nursery and there were 25 people in the waiting room where they were interviewing, so not holding out much hope, but you never know!

I know a of couple of people who have had children for the wrong reasons (more money ect), but there are also a lot of people who are caught in the trap of being made redundant, ending up on benefits, finding it difficult to get a job, and realizing you are getting more benefit money than you would be otherwise, and that is a flaw that needs to be fixed. I also think people are having more babies than they can afford because the benefit system allows that, and that also needs to be fixed.

But if a person or couple wants to have more babies, then that is up to them and they should make sure that they can afford that strain on their income- because it is a lot of money to have a baby.

Case in point- I want to have #3 but its not the right time for us financially, being as only one job supports us, the house I am living in is perfect for me and the two girls, but if OH moved in it would be too small and there is no room for another baby, and I want to be in a secure- well as secure as you can get- job before I even consider talking to OH about thinking about trying... Here I am making a smart choice (which I didn't do with my other two, as they weren't planned).

Did any of that make sense?

Sorry for being rambly, I just wanted to share my 10 cents worth now to finish tidy up and then brew and biscuit

then this proposal will affect very few people, so where's the problem?

You are missing the point spectacularly!

This proposal is being suggested because of very few, but will affect millions.

That's worrying. We cannot start a precedent of passing policies that are only justified by the actions of a tiny minority, because they fit in with one partys ideals.

perplexedpirate Sun 15-Dec-13 18:49:56

There is nothing I would rather have my taxes spent on than ensuring the nation's children are fed, clothed and housed.
Nothing.

DoYouLikeMyBaubles Sun 15-Dec-13 18:50:22

Some people wont stop regardless of any cuts

I'm sure you're right, but it doesn't mean the country should be responsible for their mistakes.

I know this creates a whole new problem, protecting children, but at what point is the line drawn on who is responsible?

TheBigJessie Sun 15-Dec-13 18:51:31

A system that calculates whether people can claim for a third child on such minutiae as conception dates is going to be a very expensive bureaucracy.

Iain Duncan Smith is among us, and lobbying for his next opportunity to fuck up!

Here I am making a smart choice

Err, no. There you are claiming benefits fraudulently as a single parent when infact you have a partner who you would like more kids with. hmm

annieorangutan Sun 15-Dec-13 18:54:02

So what do you suggest for the children baubles?

TwinklesTheXmasFairy Sun 15-Dec-13 18:56:11

My partner is down on all the forms in the partners sections, he has signed every one of them and all parties are aware I am in a relationship.

and I said I would like more children In the future when I am better off financially

cantheyseeme Sun 15-Dec-13 18:58:00

If people have more children than they can afford and carry on knowing full well about the cuts and they cant afford it, then that is horrific! THEY will be the ones putting their families not the gvmt and tax payers!

TwinklesTheXmasFairy Sun 15-Dec-13 18:58:01

How is it fraudulent if both the DWP, HM Revenue and Customs and all other parties know about it?

I have never said I am a Lone parent, we just live separately and he works pt.

SoonToBeSix Sun 15-Dec-13 18:58:34

Twinkles you said your dp contributes financially though which is fraud.

TwinklesTheXmasFairy Imagine if you get to the point where you can afford to have another child and you do so and THEN disaster strikes. Suddenly you are too poor to feed them. Will you be ok with not getting any help for the extra one?

Sadoldbag Sun 15-Dec-13 19:00:44

Custardo
Sorry but you are wrong I would say that 100% of people who have two or more children claim child benefits which is what we're talking about here

I think child benefit is like a 97% take up rate which is very wrong
I get child benefit don't get anything else only have two children

However when we sat down to have children what we didn't do is calculate CB we figured out how many children we could afford on the lowest wage which is mine we can afford two children on my wage so if anything happened to oh he left or got sacked that's it so we have also took steps to ensure we don't have any more children

If I had a accident we would have to ask for a hand out from the tax payer and we would completely understand and expect the tax payer to be furious and not want to fund us.

farrowandbawlbauls Sun 15-Dec-13 19:01:20

"I have never said I am a Lone parent, we just live separately"

Which makes you a Lone Parent.

DoYouLikeMyBaubles Sun 15-Dec-13 19:02:13

annie

I don't pretend to know all the answers, but what we need is for parents to take back responsibility of their own bodies, their children and their finances.

It has gone on far too long that some people can keep having children, knowing they will get an increased income to facilitate this.

It is all about attitudes. People on here have said they can't afford to have another child, so haven't. This is the attitude that needs to be widespread. It is never going to happen if we continue the way we are going.

It is absolutely impossible to create a system that will work, because the innocent parties (in this case the children) are the ones that will suffer. I have absolutely no qualms at all with taxes going to families who are struggling; but what do we do as a country when it's been royally taken advantage of?

My problem is that people are continually taking responsibility away from the parents, including saying things like 'well they wont stop'. It's this that is protecting them, that is facilitating the abuse of the system.

My apologies of you are claiming Income Support due to a disability.

Your post doesn't read that way though, and you would only qualify for IS as a lone parent otherwise.

annieorangutan Sun 15-Dec-13 19:03:16

Baubles - Since the beginning of time people having been having children they cant afford except in this day and age society cares for the children.

MoreThanChristmasCrackers Sun 15-Dec-13 19:06:31

I suppose the main question in all this is who can actually afford to have children then?
There are 2 parent families working, sp working, one parent working and a sahp all working families receiving benefit.
There are both parents working and receiving subsidised childcare.
Nobody can afford to have children because there are people from all walks of life not fully supporting their dc.

Sadoldbag Sun 15-Dec-13 19:06:39

I also have to say I am pretty much immune now to being emotionally black mailed people being inflammatory

Oh if we don't give over the benefits children will starve

Is that not for the parents to think of before the event also I say again

if you need the government to give you £17 a week so your children don't starve to death you can't afford children

CB comes in hand however if it were removed from us tomorrow our children would not be dressed in sacks and begging on the street like Oliver.

Because we calculated the amount of children we can afford with out the government/taxpayer funding us

cantheyseeme Sun 15-Dec-13 19:07:02

Baubles Spot on!!! We cant afford more children so we dont, its not difficult grin

DoYouLikeMyBaubles Sun 15-Dec-13 19:07:28

Since the beginning of time people having been having children they cant afford except in this day and age society cares for the children

Well perhaps it's time it stopped hmm Just because it's happened since 'the beginning of time' doesn't mean it is correct.

At the 'beginning of time' contraceptive methods weren't as good as they are now, people weren't educated and finding work was even harder. Forced sex was even more prevalent and children often died young.

In a lot of cases women were distraught to find they were pregnant. There were mercy killings FGS. Here we are talking about being planning their families on the basis of their benefits

Comparing now to then is a moot point.

annieorangutan Sun 15-Dec-13 19:09:34

It wont stop unless there is forced abortions or sterilisations it will never stop.

Sadoldbag Sun 15-Dec-13 19:09:49

More than Christmas

We can we don't get anything apart from CB
But if it were removed form us we could still feed our children

We have no child are as I am a stay at home mum we are not rich just cut our cloth accordingly my oh works for the NHS

The children don't always have what they want but always have what they need

And before any one says I have a teen and a baby

Sadoldbag Sun 15-Dec-13 19:11:04

Add message | Report | Message poster annieorangutan Sun 15-Dec-13 19:09:34
It wont stop unless there is forced abortions or sterilisations it will never stop.

Another emotive response designed to stop discussions

annieorangutan Sun 15-Dec-13 19:12:25

There are 1000s of poorly educated people qho have babies for all sorts of reasons it is impossible to stop. If it wasnt the 1000s of social workers etc wouldnt be so busy and there wouldnt be 1000s of families who arent quite struggling enough but still carry on with having children. I see it every day and it is impossible to stop even if you cut benefits to very meagre amounts.

annieorangutan Sun 15-Dec-13 19:12:52

I could discuss this all night sadoldbag wink

annieorangutan Sun 15-Dec-13 19:15:09

I dont begrudge children help no matter what the circumstance and there arent many couples that work as hard as dh and I, but I still wouldnt begrudge children money.

Is that not for the parents to think of before the event

You appear to have missed the point that if you have kids while you have a good income and lose it then you are still not going to get money to support the 3rd/4th child.

What would you say to well off people who have 3 children? Are they being irresponsible?

stgeorgiaandthedragon Sun 15-Dec-13 19:17:34

But you are begrudging children money Annie as when it is spent in one place, there is less to spend elsewhere.

You are begrudging them a decent education - less money for schools - healthcare, services in the council, the chance to go to university without huge debts.

Children grow!

Sadoldbag Sun 15-Dec-13 19:17:39

Annie I have worked worked with sw and I can tell you the mothers you are talking of would have many children if CB were 1p and ultimately there children are usually in care so it dose not effect them

Also these "poorly educated people " you talk of that have ss involvement the money seldom gets spent on the children so taking the CB away has no effect of the children

I

merrymouse Sun 15-Dec-13 19:19:19

If you have this policy you also have to have a policy for what actually happens to the third child. "We will no longer pay benefits for more than 3 children isn't enough.

Also, what is the policy if somebody has 2 children and then has a 3rd child with somebody who has no children? Do you each get to claim for 2 children each?

annieorangutan Sun 15-Dec-13 19:20:12

I work with plenty of children who are on low incomes and most would continue to have children even if cb is 1p as I said this wont make a blind bit of difference they can cut it as much as they want but will end up paying for it financially in other ways.

DoYouLikeMyBaubles Sun 15-Dec-13 19:21:08

There are 1000s of poorly educated people qho have babies for all sorts of reasons it is impossible to stop. If it wasnt the 1000s of social workers etc wouldnt be so busy and there wouldnt be 1000s of families who arent quite struggling enough but still carry on with having children. I see it every day and it is impossible to stop even if you cut benefits to very meagre amounts

You're constantly acting as though these people have no control over themselves, I think that's a bit patronising to be honest.

I see it everyday too. I go into people's houses who need me to visit. I see the children running round with dirty worn clothes, asking their mums for a slice of bread to eat, and then it completely blows my mind to see their mum pregnant again.

Because in the cases I'm talking about (no working parent, completely reliant on benefits) even though they have benefits they still cannot afford the child they are doing to have, despite the extra money they'll get post birth. It just about gets them by. But still people don't take the bloody responsibility they need to. I understand that accidents do happen, but in an awful lot of cases they don't. I get all sorts like 'oh we wanted a christmas baby' 'i was pissed' 'i didnt get me pill prescription up it was raining'. It is the blaze attitude that allows it to happen.

It just gets me quite upset when people.
1. bring children into the world they cannot afford by relying on other people's money to do so
2. allow their existing children to suffer because they chose to stretch the resources further

TheBigJessie Sun 15-Dec-13 19:21:12

Take back responsibility for their bodies? Perhaps we should be thinking about telling all women they're entitled to say no.

It doesn't matter how clear-cut it is, but if a woman makes a thread on Mumsnet about not wanting any more children and being unwilling to have PIV sex without sufficient contraceptive measures, (hormonal contraceptives being ineffective or actually dangerous to her health, and condoms not being safe enough, and her consultant told her another baby would risk her life), a small but significant number of posters will tell her she is not entitled to place conditions before she consents to PIV sex. And Mumsnet is pretty feminist and the userbase isn't fully representative of wider society.

soverylucky Sun 15-Dec-13 19:21:35

As it is being introduced in the future and won't affect families with more than two dc now I think it is actually a good idea.

DoYouLikeMyBaubles Sun 15-Dec-13 19:22:14

merry mouse you've posed a good point, like I said before it would be hard if not impossible to implement. Especially for men

MoreThanChristmasCrackers Sun 15-Dec-13 19:22:58

Sadoldbag.

That's my point though, not everybody is in your position, maybe they are a sahp and their oh works, or they are a sp who works, or both parents working with a low income.
The only have em if you can afford them applies to a very small minority of people. Most people can't support their dc without some financial help from the state.

Sadoldbag Sun 15-Dec-13 19:23:00

BackOnlyBriefly like I said In my above posts if me an oh both lost our jobs and there were no care work which there always is no farms to pick fruit from which there always is hence immigration issues we have (off topic)

We couldn't get any job at all I guess we would have to claim

however I would expect the tax payer to be furious and would understand people anger
I would also expect that it would be time limited and that the taxpayer would not allow me to get back to work when I am good and ready and yo take work when it's avavible

DoYouLikeMyBaubles Sun 15-Dec-13 19:23:44

a small but significant number of posters will tell her she is not entitled to place conditions before she consents to PIV sex

Really?!!! That's ridiculous.

ihategeorgeosborne Sun 15-Dec-13 19:24:38

Once they removed CB from families with one higher rate tax payer, this was always going to happen. I have spent many times on here on threads about the removal of CB from higher rate tax payers, having lost mine for 3 dc. Being just over the threshold we have felt the loss of £200 a month. The government knew that if they took it from that group, it would not elicit much sympathy from everyone else. I knew that it was just the start and they would go much further. The solidarity reduces for universality once benefits are removed from certain groups.

Also someone said earlier on that there would have to be an exemption for multiple births, but I seriously doubt that would happen. Why would it?

Sadoldbag Sun 15-Dec-13 19:27:21

poster MoreThanChristmasCrackers don't agree I think most people find 1 or 2 children manageable however it's those who have more than 2 and still expect money once your getting on with 3,4or give children even on a good income you will need help and that's not on.

annieorangutan Sun 15-Dec-13 19:27:50

Baubles - If you work with it then you will know that stopping it is impossible. I would be pretty impressed if a politician stopped it juat by taking a little bit of money away. Since the cuts where I am many more people are having babies

Sadoldbag not sure what you are saying there about "have to claim" and "time limited". Maybe you mean all benefits generally?

Because I was trying to make the point that if you carefully considered your options and decided to have 6 kids because you could afford it and then fell out of work this scheme would refuse benefit for 4 of your children.

Even though you had been sensible and not had kids until you could afford it suddenly you would be penalised for having too many.

Sadoldbag Sun 15-Dec-13 19:30:58

Backonly

I wouldn't be happy if people who had adopted sibling groups of multiple borths we're not expect and they should unless you had some sort of ivf then a naturally conceived set of twins is out if your control.

Also again if you have adopted a sibling group in my view not only should you have the money the treasury should send you a thank you not for the money you are saving them keeping the children in care which is estimated to cost more than sending a child to eaton

merrymouse Sun 15-Dec-13 19:32:45

The thing is, I think cb is cheaper than children's homes, hospitalisation/incarceration of adults who have not been able to access education or work because of poverty, and more pleasant than child labour/child begging. You pays your money and you takes your choice. However, be very clear about what you are buying when you decide to punish children for existing.

TheBigJessie Sun 15-Dec-13 19:33:35

Yes, it is ridiculous baubles. The first thread I saw, I couldn't believe it. I'd entitled the "men have needs" attitude among friends and flatmates in my teens/early twenties, but I didn't expect to see it on Mumsnet, as it's predominated by responsible parents who understand the gravity of having a baby you don't want because your bloke can't stand condoms/et cetera. But it extends even here, and it's not been just one thread.

DoYouLikeMyBaubles Sun 15-Dec-13 19:34:49

Multiple births shouldn't be affected

People who are forced out of work via redundancy, illness ect should get a different sort of benefit entirely to suit their circumstance.

In the perfect world...

DoYouLikeMyBaubles Sun 15-Dec-13 19:35:12

thebigjessie I'm gobsmacked, I really am.

FortyDoorsToNowhere Sun 15-Dec-13 19:37:23

I think it would be a very sexist policy.

When a relationship fails, it's often the mother who cares for the child as she is the RP. It will mean she will OT have 2 children yet the father could start a new realtionship and have more and more children.

TheBigJessie Sun 15-Dec-13 19:47:53

Given that foster carers don't get a bedroom tax exemption between placements, and that TAMBA (twins and multiple births association) was never successful in its campaign for first-born twins to both get first-child rate (as you can't exactly use twin 1's clothes as hand-downs for twin 2! fgrin), I don't see any future government policies having the adoption, fostering, or multiple birth exemptions that we all agree on.

'Cos that would be sensible.

Sadoldbag Sun 15-Dec-13 20:03:12

Merry mouse

2 quick points"children's homes" are hardly about these days majority of children are in foster carer

My seconded point is if people are so hard up that you would call ss to put your children in care over £17 a week than you Cannot afford to have a child

farrowandbawlbauls Sun 15-Dec-13 20:05:09

It's not just £17 a week, that's just the child benefit. Add in the child tax credits and it's a sum that can be painful to loose in low income households.

Sadoldbag Sun 15-Dec-13 20:06:20

Also merrymosue can I say the majority of children who are in care are not there because of poverty

Mental health
Neglect
Sexual abuse
Physical abuse
Drug addiction
Drink
Forced marriage issues
YES

But I never met a child who is in care simply because there parent is poor NEVER in my 8 years of working with children in care

Sadoldbag Sun 15-Dec-13 20:09:44

Farrow

We'll of people choose to have more than two it can't be that painful

Personally if something hurts my family I don't do it If I do it means I can bare the pain we don't live in primrose hill because we can afford it of I told you I am taking out a mortgage regardless knowing that I would be in debut before London and that my children will be homeless I would be mad to do it wouldn't I and I would expect people to tell me so

annieorangutan Sun 15-Dec-13 20:14:39

Its not 17 pounds a week sadoldbag as it also includes tax credits.

Sadoldbag Sun 15-Dec-13 20:17:57

Well than Annie people should defiantly think on then

annieorangutan Sun 15-Dec-13 20:19:33

They wont though a because this wont happen and b because it will cause more expenditure than it saves. This gets brought up from time to time but again its only a proposal.

IneedAsockamnesty Sun 15-Dec-13 20:27:42

I just had to check the date on this thread to see if you had all gone quite strange and hoping you hadn't, but nope to my alarm you have.

Have you all failed to notice that we already have a benefit cap its just done on £ rather than amount of children.

So all those of you yelling about the next door neighbour with 100 children who not only has never worked but neither did any ancestor nor there dog. They are already capped to £500 a week.

So this issue has already been dealt with.

But feel free to continue ignoring actual facts and making up a load of bollocks about people you know

merrymouse Sun 15-Dec-13 20:27:48

Children in care cost the state money whether in a children's home or a foster home.

Mental health is impacted by poverty.

most importantly, for most of the past 8 years there hasn't been a benefits cap.

What do you expect additional children to do - disappear?

Sadoldbag Sun 15-Dec-13 20:34:20

Yes is impacted but not the sole cause

Like I said I never meet a child who was removed from a parents because there parent was poor as the sole reason usually

There parents are poor and neglectful or poor and abusive

You can be poor and a good parent

But the answer to help someone out of poverty is not to encourage them to have more children or to give more benefits

1sassylassy Sun 15-Dec-13 20:39:03
merrymouse Sun 15-Dec-13 20:39:40

you can be poor and a good parent

And how poor is poor? Not having enough money to feed, clothe and house your children does tend to impact on your parenting.

Again, the benefit cap and benefit caps are quite recent. 8 years ago we had a different government.

merrymouse Sun 15-Dec-13 20:40:14

Benefit cap and benefit cuts

Trigglesx Sun 15-Dec-13 21:18:37

This policy will unfairly penalise women - mainly single mothers. And it's not like they'll have easy access to child support enforcement as it's now going to cost them to try and go after it when it's not paid.

It will also make it more difficult for women in abusive situations as they will feel even more financially reliant on the male partner. And kindly don't say "well that's incentive for them to leave then" as it's just not that simple.

mumandboys123 Sun 15-Dec-13 21:41:42

Sigh. It is so disturbing how many people just don't get that sometimes, with the best will in the world, life falls apart in a spectacular way and that as a society, we benefit from having a welfare state in terms of lower crime rates and a society where our children's lives aren't shortened 'cos of dirty water or for the lack of immunisation or even basic nutrition.

I have three children. I didn't plan it that way. I have no idea where the third one came from but there you go, he's here and I do my best by him. My children's father walked out on us and 5 years later, the CSA and the court system haven't been able to get him to pay any maintenance. I work full time - as a teacher - and I am in receipt of tax credits which help pay childcare. I have played about with the figures a bit this afternoon and I am pretty sure that I would struggle to continue working if I received no financial support from the state for the third child. I simply couldn't afford him. I have no time to take on a second job, I work about 60 hours a week as it is. I could afford my children, absolutely, when they were conceived. My ex and I ran a successful business and our eldest child was in private school with the other two set to follow. So a full-time single mum (not by choice) in a professional position under this new proposal would mean that I would be forced to consider what happens to my children....the youngest to go into care? all three children to be cared for by their father full-time because he earns more than me (and that would mean they would never see me again because their father sees me as unnecessary in their lives, as it stands he simply 'allows' me to look after them but he genuinely believes he could take them from me if he wanted to) despite the fact that I was a stay at home mum for many years (because we could afford it) and the children had been brought up by me? the children to be split between parents and brought up apart, rather than as a family unit?

The Government has legislation aimed at making NRPs support their children. Unfortunately, when an NRP is self-employed, there are many legal loop holes that can be jumped through which reduce maintenance payments to nothing or very little. I have bombarded my MP with details of my situation - and would suggest any other PWC in my situation do the same - but the fact of the matter is, there will be no change because the self employed need some kind of incentive to try and build business, create jobs, pay taxes....and this is inconsistent with their need to pay for their children.

So for me, it would be very much a tax on me, as a working mother who after marrying someone she had lived with, after travelling and getting a good education, after developing a career and having a secure home to bring babies home to, was left to clear up the mess my ex left me with. I did nothing 'wrong' and all my ducks were very securely lined up in a row. But I still ended up reliant on state handouts. It would also be a tax on my elderly mother who, rather than spend her hard earned money in old age, has done everything she can to make sure her grandchildren don't go without and have a secure roof over their heads. My ex, of course, free to have additional children and support his (various) partner's children.

You can't get insurance against a spouse deciding they want out and becomming a total twat in the process. Savings would only have helped if they were in my name only, not in a joint bank account my ex cleared out. The house would have still been repossessed because it was in joint names on a joint mortgage that I wasn't in a position to be able to pay myself. The court system could, perhaps, have helped avoid this had it worked a little more quickly. But I only got into court 'cos my mum paid for it as I didn't qualify for legal aid (and the rules on that have changed so much now that very, very few people will qualify for it).

When you are shouting 'stop being irresponsible by having children you can't afford', I hope you remember that not everyone who is struggling today was always in that situation. And that people who are struggling are usually doing as much, if not more, than can be reasonably expected of them to improve their lot. And those of you who think that 'parents' should be responsible for their children, some of us are only one person who have to do the job of two...and the Government is very, very much happy to leave that as it is.

For the benefit of the few who hadn't noticed.

This plan was intended to take money from working people not just the unemployed.

And from sensible people who planned ahead and then lost their jobs or moved down to less well paid jobs

And from people whose 2nd child turned out to be twins

And from people with adopted children

The bit about not counting children already born was a one off. It didn't say that if you were rolling in money and had 5 kids that you would be immune if you lost your job.

It would even apply if you voted Tory.

Hope that helps.

SoonToBeSix Sun 15-Dec-13 22:19:42

Excellent post mumsndboys

ShylaMcClaus Mon 16-Dec-13 00:03:56

Fantastic posts, BackonlyBriefly and mumandboys.

mummymeister Mon 16-Dec-13 00:20:00

so mumandboys the problem here is your ex P who after 5 years has paid you and your children absolutely nothing. the issue for me after reading your post is I still fall on the side of capping benefits but really think it cannot be beyond the agencies to find this man and make him pay. it is him we are subsidising and paying the benefit to in effect and not you (if that makes sense!) a lot of posters seem to be in this position. single parent with 3+ kids and an ex P who contributes either nothing or just a fraction of what they should. capping benefits would be effective if all other things were equal. if your ex P paid up then you wouldn't be so dependent on the third child benefit. so I guess this is the heart of the problem. great in theory if everything works elsewhere as it is supposed to but a crap idea in practice.

WooWooOwl Mon 16-Dec-13 08:31:04

I agree mummymeister. The problem wouldn't be a benefit cap for first two children only, it would be the parent that thinks he doesn't have to pay.

I think the system we have only encourages that attitude in NRPs that don't want to pay up. They know they don't have to pay because other taxpayers will.

Putting a cap on benefits to two children does not mean that we have to leave children to starve. They can be provided for by their resident parent, through JSA, through the CSA, which needs to be given more power. I think parents that don't pay for their children should become in debt to the state until they do pay, and until they pay they should be credit blacklisted. So no driving licence, no finance, no credit cards, no mortgage, until they support their children and pay back the money that the state has paid until then.

BobCrotchstitch Mon 16-Dec-13 09:03:50

In all these situations there should be a cut off point eg. From January 2015 anyone who gives birth to a third child will not receive XYZ for that child.
That way nobody is suddenly without money that is necessary to their household budget, however much you may disagree with the benefits system it will be the children who suffer if money is withdrawn with little notice. A cut off period allows people to make responsible decisions WRT having a third child or not, though admittedly will take much longer for any financial benefit to be seen.
Sadly DH and I were unable to have a second DC but I know categorically that a third would never have been on the cards for us as financially we just couldn't afford it. There are painfully few circumstances where a third child is totally unavoidable and the majority of people could and should make decisions based on their own means rather than expect the state to pay for them.

lottieandmia Mon 16-Dec-13 09:11:52

Yanbu - I don't think the cap will stop people having lots of children if they want to tbh.

lottieandmia Mon 16-Dec-13 09:17:48

There is some truth in what woohoo owl says about NRPs thinking they don't have to pay because people can claim universal things like child benefit (although that isn't universal any more) . However, the problem extends to employers as well, IMO some of whom have reduced what they pay staff to minimum wage because they assume the person can claim top ups in tax credits.

angelos02 Mon 16-Dec-13 09:33:05

Its only about £30 a week isn't it for 2 kids. Hardly a huge amount. Would it really make that much difference if they scrapped it altogether?

merrymouse Mon 16-Dec-13 09:41:35

£30 a week hardly a huge amount? I'd say it's quite a significant amount to loose out of your weekly budget if you have very little. Certainly difference between missing a meal (although probably this would be the mother, not the children) and being able to afford to pay a fuel bill.

merrymouse Mon 16-Dec-13 09:41:54

Sorry, missing a few meals.

alemci Mon 16-Dec-13 09:44:06

I have 3 dc and I did use the CB and needed it when they were younger. I still get it for my ds and again it is utilised.

Maybe 2 is a bit harsh, why not 3 or 4.

i don't agree with people who keep on having babies on low incomes or who are unemployed long term. I understand if people lose jobs, it happens all the time.

I also think it would be good to look at CB going abroad and checking how many dcs really exist etc.

34DD Mon 16-Dec-13 09:57:05

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

anotherchristmasnamechange Mon 16-Dec-13 09:59:38

YANBU, but sometimes when people talk about benefits on here, I think I've accidentally opened the daily mail website.

the problem extends to employers as well, IMO some of whom have reduced what they pay staff to minimum wage because they assume the person can claim top ups in tax credits.

Yes! Let's look instead at why you can both work hard and still be poor.

34DD good point about the room tax. It should not have applied to people already in that position. However about people you know of who take advantage of benefits that is a reason to chase after them not everyone who is poor even if working. The majority of people this applies to are in fact working.

Putting a cap on benefits to two children does not mean that we have to leave children to starve.. IF it applied only to single parents where the NRP wasn't paying and IF there were a plan to make them pay then that might be right, but that's not what they said they planned to do at all.

angelos02 I can hardly believe you said that. I bet you wish you hadn't now.

WooWooOwl Mon 16-Dec-13 11:32:41

Employers aren't the ones in this situation that plan the children, so it's not their fault if employees choose to create children they can't afford.

I agree that they should pay more fairly in some cases, but when they don't, adults have to do what they can with the situation they have.

People who create children should be responsible for paying for them. It's that simple. And if they can't, that's why we have a safety net that should never be used as anything other than a temporary measure except in cases of severe illness or disability.

angelos02 Mon 16-Dec-13 11:56:35

Exactly WooWoo

State handouts should be for people that have fallen on bad times. To have a child knowing that you can't afford to support it yourself is disgusting.

If you carefully considered your options and decided to have 6 kids because you could afford it and then fell out of work this scheme would refuse benefit for 4 of your children.

Even though you had been sensible and not had kids until you could afford it suddenly you would be penalised for having too many.

angelos02 you're the one who is so well off that £30 is trivial so you would have trouble understanding how the real world works.

Trigglesx Mon 16-Dec-13 12:08:44

People who create children should be responsible for paying for them.

PEOPLE who create children. As opposed to WOMEN who create children. See this is where it falls down. A majority of the time, it's the woman that will be penalised in all this.

When they get a system that single (as in single, separated, divorced) mothers can access freely (as in without cost to themselves) to force the father to pay what he is supposed to be paying regularly, then perhaps it may be time to look at things differently. But until that time, this is a bad idea. As it stands right now, the single mother has the odds stacked against her and it seems the government wants to keep adding to the stack. hmm

JakeBullet Mon 16-Dec-13 12:22:02

Agree with you Triggles, it WILL be women who lose out sadly.....women amd children.

octopusinasantasack Mon 16-Dec-13 12:25:52

Maybe 3 children because you might plan two and have 1 plus twins or whatever, unless they do an exception families who have 1 child and then a multiple birth

bemusedisnottheword Mon 16-Dec-13 12:27:59

perhaps I should have aborted autistic ds.

as he is one of the reasons I and his 3 sisters are living off benefits. oh and not to mention having to leave my job to care for him and his sisters because id also suffered domestic abuse and was made homeless.

but yeah thats right im a feckless scrounger with too many offspring that lives the highlife. yeah I missed meals last week so they could eat.

Yeah we are scroungers alright me and my free school meal kids who are top set and doing really well.

This thread makes me Sicksad .

And has upset me no end

JakeBullet Mon 16-Dec-13 12:29:23

£30 a week....£120 a month would be a significant loss for me. I only have ONE child so this proposal wont affect me but life is expensive now. I dread to think how families with more children will cope.

A better idea would be to scrap Tax Credits and force employers to pay a wage that allows families to feed, clothe and house themselves without needing top ups just to exist. I don't think any other civilized country works in tbis way with the Govt allowing employers to pay such low wages that workers HAVE to claim benefits in order to live.

Or is the notion of paying people fairly for their work all wrong?

soverylucky Mon 16-Dec-13 12:32:13

I actually don't think that cutting the cb will stop people from extending their family. If people are guaranteed a minimum amount to live off then there is nothing wrong with saying in the future this benefit will go after a certain number of children. I do think though that lots of people have one and then twins so perhaps it needs to be 4 or 5 children before the cap comes in.

JakeBullet Mon 16-Dec-13 12:33:00

Its why I am now claiming benefits too * bemused*.

I had to leave a very well paid job to care for my son. I am fortunate enough to have found part time work .....and have good reason for only working part time at the moment. I am not a "scrounger" any more than you are.

Trigglesx Mon 16-Dec-13 12:58:17

bemused and JakeBullet same here. And £30 a week would pay for electricity and heating for me - or most of my groceries for the week. So frustrating to see people say £30 is negligible. It's a HUGE amount for some. How insensitive.

cantheyseeme Mon 16-Dec-13 14:13:20

Bemused, why can you not afford to eat?

farrowandbawlbauls Mon 16-Dec-13 14:15:32

OMG, what business is it of yours as to why she can not afford to eat?

There may be a million valid reasons but her posts pretty much states what the issue more likely to be.

cantheyseeme Mon 16-Dec-13 14:28:14

Wow, rude. Its a fair question i think, why is it anyones business that she has 4 children, or she suffered dv?

farrowandbawlbauls Mon 16-Dec-13 14:30:25

Fuck off it was rude.

YOU were rude asking her why she couldn't afford to eat when she had already stated the main reason. You were basically asking her to justify her spending - THAT is rude.

cantheyseeme Mon 16-Dec-13 14:40:06

That has to be the fastest angry response ever! I find it really hard to believe with the income of 4dc's that people are that poor. I might be really naive but a hell of a lot of people manage with much less :/

cantheyseeme why do you think there are food banks right now in the UK in the 21st century. It's almost understandable to feel bewildered by that because it ought not to be possible.

And while the 2 child policy is only an idea at this point - it's possible this was put forward to gauge reaction - the government are saying they will need to cut welfare by billions more soon.

yesmatron Mon 16-Dec-13 15:04:09

If they are talking about scrapping child tax credits as well as CB then it would be much more than £30. I get child tax credits with a disabled premium for my DS who is autistic and that is £143pw in tax credits just for him, plus £20 child benefit. He is an only child so in fact this policy wouldn't affect us, but if you had a third child who was disabled (and there is no mention of making disabled children exempt) then it could be a loss of thousands per year (would be over £8k for us).

The income of 4 DCs has expenditure of 4 DCs.

I find myself skipping meals, and as I have already said on this thread, we have all the money we receive to live on with no debts. Fact is, it doesn't go that far and some weeks DP and I have to live on tea, toast and cereal while the DCs eat proper meals.

Its not only rude to ask a poster why they can't afford to eat, its also extremely naïve to think that benefits for 4 DCs lifts anyone out of poverty.

cantheyseeme Mon 16-Dec-13 15:16:38

Its not there to lift people out of poverty, its a resort to see people through bad times so i understand its not pleasurable, ive claimed benefits before and although its not much i do think its enough to live on. I feel REALLY stupid for asking this but what is the difference between today and 5 years ago that food banks are now so prominent?

34DD Mon 16-Dec-13 15:20:04

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

JakeBullet Mon 16-Dec-13 15:20:48

Bedroom "tax" or wahtever you want to call it.
Fuel pricew have risen
Food prices have risen..

thats just for starters and part od the reason we have increasing use of food banks.

In the case where a person is disabled, or is the carer of a disabled child, is it right that they should live in poverty?

Its a short term safety net for people who can get a job, but for people who can't work, they are being left in poverty.

As for food banks, benefit rates haven't risen as fast as the cost of heat and electric, fuel, clothes, even rents in private houses are higher and people are having to top their rent up. Sanctions are also leaving people high and dry, for weeks, with no money for very minor infractions. And then there are those who are being told they are fit to work when their own GP is saying otherwise.

There aren't enough jobs to go round either, so "get a job" is not the answer, some people won't get a job because there is a huge difference between the number of vacancies and the number of people looking.

farrowandbawlbauls Mon 16-Dec-13 15:45:13

Just to remind everyone who thinks this is a benefit bashing thread - this policy will affect EVERYONE with 3 or more children wether you are working or not. However, as posted by a previous poster - the idea has been rejected by the PM for now but please don't think we've heard the last of this idea. This idea will come about again and again, just before they announce more cuts.

There are sickness/disability benefits that are meant for however long it takes you to get better. Which can be never.

There are tax credits which are to lift you out of poverty since we're created an economic system where employers don't pay enough for people to live on.

There are unemployment benefits intended as short term cover, but that only worked back in the days when if you really wanted a job you went and got one. When I started out there was always work if you were willing, but that's no longer true.

Most of the welfare budget isn't for unemployed people anyway.

There's a graph here which shows what goes where.

Most apparently is spent on pensions

bemusedisnottheword Mon 16-Dec-13 15:56:34

cantheyseeme, I'll tell you why I can't afford to eat it shall I, not that I should have to justify my spending to you or anyone else for that matter.

It's freezing in my house, I live in a council house (yeah go on bash me for that as well) I live in a steel house which does not hold its heat, ds who is AUTISTIC feels the cold so heating is on a bit more in winter. I am on prepayment meters which any person should know is a lot more expensive in the winter. The extra 30 pounds or so a week that I would have put on the food shop is now going on gas and electric, yeah? So I go hungry. I put petrol in the car, ds cannot cope on public transport so I have to have a car which gets funded out of his DLA. Ds has violent meltdown and physically attack me and his sisters and numerous doors and walls, again I have to repair these out of my own pocket. And then theres christmas, none of the four have had much this year, then Ive had school concert tickets for the two little ones and I'm sure you are not suggesting I miss those are you?

I'd rather have your life thank you,are you jealous of me being stuck on benefits looking after my DISABLED child. You know what I had my own house once, good job, partners wage coming and I stood where you are right now looking down from a great height moaning about people on benefits, yadda yadda, now I am here and believe me it aint all rosy.

How dare you is all I can say

Ladyglamalot Mon 16-Dec-13 16:06:42

Yanbu. The cb is the only money I have. Dh and mil were sitting yesterday and bitching about this and saying what a good idea it was and would put an end to all the "scroungers"hmm

I so wish I had the balls to tell them to fuck off and to point out to mil that her precious son gives me no money so without cb I would be fucked!!

meboo Mon 16-Dec-13 16:08:41

I just have to vent cos I am getting crosser and crosser by this.

Life is a series of choices, some good some bad and some choices we don't really want to make. We also can't have everything we want.

I am very fortunate to be able to stay at home (work from home too) and look after my child.

We do not get child benefit

I believe that you should only get child benefit for your 1st child. This is because, even though you know it will cost, you don't understand the cost until you have had a child. So help at this point would be good.

Any further children that you choose to have or accidentally have should be your responsibility. You have the choice to use contraception, you have the choice to terminate and you have the choice to keep your legs shut.

You are entitled to have as many children as you want but you are responsible to take care for them, no one else.

I haven't thought through the multiple birth scenarios.

Subsequently we cannot afford to have another child and we haven't had one. That is our choice, we could of course move house to a cheaper/smaller one and various other options and IF we had fallen PG by accident we would have to have changed our circumstances to accommodate, if that was our choice to do so.

People need to take responsibility for their own lives.

Bowlersarm Mon 16-Dec-13 16:14:19

I agree that it should be capped at two. There are some areas that need ironing out I.e. I wouldn't like it to be retrospective, and multiple births might require some leeway. But generally, I don't think people should be paid to have in excess of two children.

I wouldn't cap it at one, as meboo would like, but there is definitely an argument for capping at two.

WooWooOwl Mon 16-Dec-13 16:16:07

The thing about disabled children is a valid point, but disability payments should be completely separate, and more in proportion to what the real costs of a persons disability are.

This is where the labour government went wrong. Or right, seeing as they knew what they were doing and git the result they wanted. They created all these extra benefits and called them all tax credits, but there should be a distinction between all the different types of tax credit. There is a big difference between someone claiming tax credits to pay for 70% of their first child's childcare costs so that they can work! and someone else claiming tax credits when they have never worked but then put in an extra claim for the fourth child they just had. There is also a difference between someone who doesn't work claiming tax credits to feed the child they conceived while they were on JSA, and claiming tax credits to top up their full time minimum wage job, or to pay for the costs associated with their child's disability.

And why the fuck did they call them tax credits when they can be awarded to people that have never paid tax?

We need to separate and differentiate payments made because of disability, childcare, and because someone has had children they can't provide for.

By lumping all these things in together, the labour government confused people and made people who have good reasons for claiming the same as people who are irresponsible.

meboo on the principle you are describing I think we should not have any benefits at all.

So tell me if we closed down the welfare system entirely and then through redundancy or accident you found yourself without food for your child what would you do?

merrymouse Mon 16-Dec-13 16:17:10

Yes people need to take responsibility for their own lives, but when they don't the consequences of threat choices don't just miraculously vanish. They affect us all. Also, as any grown up should know, sometimes life can be unpredictable. We don't provide a safety net for 'them', we provide it for us.

Darkesteyes Mon 16-Dec-13 16:19:55

Ladyglam i WOULD have said something. Your DH is a financially abusive scrounger.

Unless a parent has savings that will pay for them and their child until they are at least 18 then they have had children they may not be able to provide for.

WooWooOwl Mon 16-Dec-13 16:22:38

PEOPLE who create children. As opposed to WOMEN who create children. See this is where it falls down. A majority of the time, it's the woman that will be penalised in all this.

I see this point, but then it's also the woman that gets to decide whether a baby is born or not. Men and women can make exactly the same mistake, but only one has the opportunity to deal with it in the way they choose. Which is great if you're a woman, not so great if you are a man who is forced into having a child you don't want and can't afford to pay for.

I agree that there should be much tougher measures in place to ensure that both men and women have to take financial responsibility, and that if they don't then they become in debt to the state so that at some point in their lives they are forced to pay, but I also think that men should be afforded the same rights as women when it comes to their finances. There should be some kind of system whereby fathers of unborn babies can legally relinquish their financial responsibility in the same way women can if they choose termination.

merrymouse Mon 16-Dec-13 16:34:09

Of course men can choose not to have children - they can keep their pecker to themselves.

WooWooOwl Mon 16-Dec-13 16:36:44

And women can keep their legs closed, so if it's that simple, then there's really no need for all the worry over whether women will disproportionately suffer if child related benefits are capped to two children.

Problem solved!

cantheyseeme Mon 16-Dec-13 16:42:15

Please don't assume our lives are all that different....that is all i am going to say.

I am a bit thick, so will ask outright what this will mean.
Does this apply to children that have already been born? Or children born after said cap?

Thing is although it sounds good in theory, in reality this will only make the children suffer.
Circumstantial change and moralistic implications of abortion will not bode well under these new plans.

I'm sure no-one in this land purposely has children for the sake of £48 a week ? Why would they £48 is not enough alone to buy what a child needs, let alone make profit for these apparent scroungers.

Confused as to what they expect to achieve by this, apart from push children further down into poverty as their parents won't be able to afford the bare minimum to keep their children in food & clothes.

bochead Mon 16-Dec-13 16:56:35

I've never understood tax credits as a form of sensible fiscal management.

You pays your tax out of your wages, THEN the government decides in it's own nanny state egocentric way, how deserving you are to in order to give you back some of your OWN MONEY according to a set formula.

How much does it cost to administer the tax credits? How many people are employed in this obvious "non job" by the tax payer?

Would it be cheaper for the country to simply raise the lowest tax band so that people didn't NEED to beg for their OWN MONEY to be returned to them in order to feed their kids? Who the hell am I to point my finger at the family who has suffered sickness, redundancy or an abusive situation and found themselves having to claim a bit of help?

What impact would it have on British business if the minimum wage could be raised to a living one? (the small business sector that traditionally RAISES a nation out of recession, rather than the multi-national tax avoidant Starbucks, amazons, banks etc who simply socialise loss and privatise profit)> We've heard from the big business lobbyists who think that shacking shelves on workfare is a great deal for them, when are we going to hear from the smaller, more genuinely productive sections of the economy? Those parts that are too busy building up genuine products and opportunities to have the time to get a tame MP or two in their pocket?

How on earth is it more fiscally responsible for the tax payer to be out sheer fortunes in housing benefits to the private sector, as opposed to building new council homes? A council could own a mortgage on a property for £25 years, but once that is paid rents need only cover repairs - surely that is cheaper for us as a nation then the current system if we want to consider the security of future generations? Housing costs are pushing many into poverty.

When are we going to stop the mass importation of foreign skilled workers, due to the failure of our own education system to train sufficient youngsters in the skills needed by a modern global economy? When are the banks actually going to repay to the tax payer all that bailout money? Why can we not replicate what Iceland has done?

I don't feel it's the governments place to interfere in the private sphere as much as it currently does, and I'll not be joining the clamour to denigrate the mother of four who through no fault of her own is traded in by her husband for a younger model, or the family where the breadwinner suffers an industrial accident etc, etc.

The sign of a truly civilised society to me has always been best demonstrated by it's ability to care and provide for its most vulnerable. In the UK today we are devolving so far away from that ideal, it's just not funny anymore.

bemusedisnottheword Mon 16-Dec-13 16:56:45

'disability payments should be completely separate, and more in proportion to what the real costs of a persons disability'

Are they not already? DLA is paid depending on how severe your childs disability is and the level of care they need.

DLA is paid separately to Tax credits and child benefit.

'Please don't assume our lives are all that different....that is all i am going to say.'

If our lives were not all that different, canyouseemenow, then you would have a great deal more empathy than you have.

Live my life for one day thats all I can say. I totally sit on my arse chain smoking and watching jeremy kyle. My ds put my 4 year old dd in hospital with one of his violent outbursts. Thats the reality of MY life.

merrymouse Mon 16-Dec-13 16:57:07

there's really no need for all the worry over whether women will disproportionately suffer if child related benefits are capped to two children.

The point is they are both equally able to desist from procreating, but women suffer disproportionately because they are left with the baby, not because they trap men into having babies.

This always comes back to the fact that

1) As a society if we have children who are unhoused, unfed and inadequately clothed we are all affected whether we like it or not.
2) As BackonlyBriefly says, we all potentially need the safety net unless we stash away enough money to support a child for 18 years before having them. You are effectively saying that nobody should have more than 2 children.

bemusedisnottheword Mon 16-Dec-13 17:00:18

I totally sit on my arse chain smoking and watching jeremy kyle

That was sarcasm btw, in case you lot start getting your knickers in a twist

WooWooOwl Mon 16-Dec-13 17:01:23

Are they not already? DLA is paid depending on how severe your childs disability is and the level of care they need.

DLA is separate to the element of child tax credits that can be paid of a child has a disability, so no, they are not currently completely separate.

I think it's unfair because the state safety net should pay according to disability, not income. Those of us that pay tax do not deserve less than those who don't, or who pay very little, if we both have a child with the same levels of disability.

WooWooOwl Mon 16-Dec-13 17:05:08

The point is they are both equally able to desist from procreating, but women suffer disproportionately because they are left with the baby

Only if they choose to have a baby when they know the man they created it with doesn't want it and they go ahead and have it anyway.

If men had the same opportunity to opt out of parenting at the same stage of pregnancy as women do, then any who don't could reasonably be held financially responsible by the government. The CSA needs to be completely overhauled and laws need to change to make fathers as well as mothers take financial responsibility.

cantheyseeme Mon 16-Dec-13 17:09:56

Its not that i dont have empathy i just hate the oh woe is me my life used to be good now its shit bollocks. Be grateful for what you have, in a lot of places in the world, you would get no help. I have 2 beautiful children, one having SEN and i look at them both every day and realise how fortunate i am.

bemusedisnottheword Mon 16-Dec-13 17:12:34

DLA is not means tested though, or am I being thick.

or are you referring to disabled element of child tax credits?

If you are I think its very mean of you to begrudge the parent of a disabled child a little bit extra if their income is under the threshold.

And why the fuck did they call them tax credits when they can be awarded to people that have never paid tax?

Apart from the obvious, being cases of teen mums claiming tax credits, do you realise the number of people who have never paid tax? Its basically zero.

The name is probably misleading, but let's not start acting like there are vast numbers of people claiming tax credits who have never worked because its simply not true.

Earlier on this thread I illustrated through my own situation. I worked full time paying tax from 17-21 and I will work again from age 31-71 if not sooner. That's 10 years of help against 45 years of contributing. Add to that my DPs 50 odd years of conntributions and that's nearly 100 years of tax being paid and only 10 years of full benefits being claimed. When I return to work I hope to have a degree so chances are our household income will be above the tax credits threshold so we won't even be claiming them.

I would say that the vast majority of claimants have a similar story.

Cantheyseeme

Its ridiculous to tell a poster who has a cold house, no food and all the difficulties her sons disabilities bring, that she should be grateful she doesn't live in a third world country.

The fact is, she lives in the UK in 2013 and her life should not be like this.

cantheyseeme Mon 16-Dec-13 17:22:53

I didnt mean just 3rd world countries! I get called ridiculous a lot on here, i think i must live on a totally alien planet grin

Darkesteyes Mon 16-Dec-13 17:27:15

Errr.....Woo Woo DLA IS paid according to disability not income Thats howcome the Camerons got it for their late son.

Darkesteyes Mon 16-Dec-13 17:28:52

cantheyseeme And in a lot of places you would get MORE help. Why are you looking down instead of up. Whats with the race to the bottom.

cantheyseeme Mon 16-Dec-13 17:31:52

Im trying to make the point that people need to be fortunate that we do have a system that helps those in need, it might be a bit shit or whatever but it keeps hundreds of thousands of people housed and fed!

cantheyseeme Mon 16-Dec-13 17:32:20

Millions even, not got my brain on today.

Not a different planet, just lacking in empathy, and a desire to look after our vulnerable. Sadly you are not alone.

cantheyseeme Mon 16-Dec-13 17:35:32

I do not lack empathy, i really dont!

JakeBullet Mon 16-Dec-13 17:39:49

I only have ine child and he has autism.....I am still fortunate.

Financially though it WAS easier when I was able to work full time. As DS has got older this has become impossible....thats not a "woe is me", just a statement of fact,

I am fortunate but still reliant on benefits to a large degree.

My reading around DS's autism makes me understand that he will always struggle so that when other parents are waving their children off to university and independence I (and others in a similar position) will still be trying to cope with the challenges autism or any other disability brings on a daily basis and still fighting the battles they might not be able to fight themselves.

What was there before Tax Credits anyhow? I seem to remember something called Supplementary Benefit.....or did that become Income Support?

cantheyseeme Mon 16-Dec-13 17:42:54

Was it family allowance, im way too young to remember but i know my mum claimed some support.

cantheyseeme Mon 16-Dec-13 17:43:41

JakeBullet, the woe is me was by no means aimed at you.

littlemisssarcastic Mon 16-Dec-13 17:46:06

There will be more cuts wrt disabled children receiving middle rate care DLA when the universal credit is implemented.
Atm, disabled children who are receiving middle rate care DLA are also eligible for extra child tax credit. This is not the case under universal credit rules.

There's going to be a huge number of disabled children who will be plunged into poverty at the point of change over from tax credits to universal credit.

Still, It should save tax payers a few pounds. hmm

FWIW, I don't understand the contempt for providing for children, yet pensioners are the largest recipients of welfare, and no one dares to question this? Are children just an easy target? Is it somehow more acceptable for children to live in poverty then?

If benefits were capped at 2 children, the amount of money that would be saved is a piss in the sea compared to other expenditure, simply because there are less families than you think who a) have 3 or more children, and b) would have 3 or more children if this was ever implemented, and since it wont affect families who already have 3 or more children when it would be introduced, that will be very few families.

JakeBullet Mon 16-Dec-13 17:47:24

I think Family Allowance became Child Benefit.

I seem to recall some family thing which tax credits replaced. Might have been Family Credit or something. Need to google....

cantheyseeme Mon 16-Dec-13 17:50:12

People dont make informed decisions about having pensioners grin

Housed yes, sometimes. Don't get me started on homelessness.

Fed? Not so much.

The system is lining the pockets of big business while it forces people, who a lot of the time are ill or disabled or caring for someone who is, to jump through hoops just to get a few pounds. Then they get told (if they are lucky) that the money is stopping and while they appeal they are living on fresh air. They people in the jobcentres don't care and are actively being told to sanction anyone for any reason at all. They are also being told to not help or advise people and to not inform them of their right of appeal.

alemci Mon 16-Dec-13 17:52:20

Yes my dm used to collect family allowance.

I do think our welfare system is generous and the state has taken away the responsibility of the fathers to pay for their dc.

also lack of prospects doesn't help. traditional workplaces etc. everything is a lot more difficult. in the 80s you didn't need the qualifications you need now.

Owllady Mon 16-Dec-13 17:54:15

I am still annoyed about the child benefit cuts to those on HRT. My husband earns just slightly over and I mean just slightly, and I cannot work because I have had to give up work and become a full time carer for our severely disabled teenager and a lack of extended family support and support off the LA means that is going to be a long term thing. I feel it has put me in a more vulnerable position than i was in already.

It';s okay for me though as my husband is a nice, normal human being. I am sure there are loads of people who will not have that though and will feel alot more trapped with no income at all

The thing is though, if I had received more support off the LA I would most probably have carried on working long term and my dd would have gone to day care and I would still have been a working carer when she was/is an adult. Asit is we will look at full tiem residential because we are absolutely knackered and broke, something which will cost the taxpayer more, because I save the taxpayer money. I know people don't get that, but carers save the economy and the taxpayer millions and they should get adequate help to help them carry on functioning

Sorry this post is a bit muddled, I just think we have become an oversight because we are ina minority group, when actually we are a section of society that struggles the most through no fault of their own

cantheyseeme Mon 16-Dec-13 17:58:02

So, if there was no welfare at all what people do then.... probably die. Its not great but millions of people manage on it.

yesmatron Mon 16-Dec-13 18:04:11

littlemisssarcastic I was told by Contact a Family that the disabled child tax credits wouldn't be affected for us. We get £400 a month DLA for DS, I think that might be higher rate care though. We'd really struggle without the additional tax credits - the costs of raising a disabled child are far higher than for other children.

Like OwlLady I have no hope of finding work because of caring for DS so it's not just the extra costs of his disability but also the fact that I can't earn.

ihategeorgeosborne Mon 16-Dec-13 18:04:20

I sympathize with you Owllady. I am still annoyed about the cuts to CB for higher rate tax payers too, particularly the unfairness with regards to families earning up to 100k still receiving it. It was the only money I had too and I feel more vulnerable and trapped. I don't have a disabled dc though, so I appreciate I am not in your situation and I really feel for you. That was a nasty, underhand thing for them to do and I'll never forget it.

The tories don't want there to be welfare.

They are dismantling it, bit by bit, under the guise of austerity measures. But MPs aren't facing austerity measures, neither are the bankers, CEOs of large corps, or all the individuals who are dodging their tax bill.

farrowandbawlbauls Mon 16-Dec-13 18:06:27

Now carers have been mentioned, yes there is a little help but it's £55 a week (taken out of income support if you are unlucky enough to claim that pittance as well).

Now, if you taxpayers want to moan about that, before you do, just have a quick google at what residential care would cost a week. £55 a week it aint.

The carers allowance is a fucking insult and anyone with an ounce of sense can see that. Not only do we need support physically, mentally and financially, we need a break and some help to get back into the world of working from which we've had to give up, if the carers are ever in a position to be doing so.

By not working and claiming that piddly amount we are saving the very people who would like to see us crawl over broken glass begging for every penny a fortune going into millions of pounds. Easily tens of thousands per child each and every year.

littlemisssarcastic Mon 16-Dec-13 18:10:58

yesmatron Children who receive higher rate care wont be affected. They will continue to receive the equivalent to what they are getting now.

Children who receive middle rate care are currently, under tax credit rules, also receiving extra tax credits, but under universal credit, this will change, and they will no longer be eligible for the extra tax credits.

That is going to be a large drop in income for many many families of disabled DC. sad

So, if there was no welfare at all what people do then

They'd come and take your food.

Which if you think about it is another less obvious reason for a welfare state. Once every part of a country is owned by someone, people can't just go hunt, fish and pick fruit in the wild. We gave up that right when we formed civilisations.

Owllady Mon 16-Dec-13 18:16:01

there are lots of children at sld/pmld special schools who only get middle rate care too because of how complicated the stupid system is

I just want to add those that fall into the hrt single earner income wont qualify for tac credits either, in case anyone was wondering

I do get carers allowance, I do wonder how long for under this government tbh

and yes as someone as mentioned above, for full time care and schooling for my daughter it would cost upwards of 600k pa

DorothyParker1 Mon 16-Dec-13 18:17:46

Utterly unbelievable how many threads there are moaning about those struggling to get by and how few on those who make vast profits at the expense of others. Talk about misplaced priorities.

Owllady Mon 16-Dec-13 18:18:14

it's quite obvious what people would do without welfare. Did anyone ever watch that Neil Morrisey documentary about the Staffordshire childrens homes? His father was financially abusive to the mother so she had to work too and leave the boys alone, all (or most?) ended up in care
hardly a cheaper option and not a very functional opne either if you want to live in a progressive society where people are valued human beings

WooWooOwl Mon 16-Dec-13 18:19:40

Errr.....Woo Woo DLA IS paid according to disability not income Thats howcome the Camerons got it for their late son.

I wasn't talking about DLA, I was talking about the part of child tax credits that is paid if you have a disabled child. DLA is not paid according to disability. If it was then no one would be out of pocket because of a disability, and I'm sure you will agree that there are people who are significantly financially disadvantaged because of the costs of their disability, whether or not they are able to work. Being disabled is an expensive business most of the time, and DLA does not cover that.

If you are I think its very mean of you to begrudge the parent of a disabled child a little bit extra if their income is under the threshold.

I don't begrudge them it. I think they, and every other parent of a disabled child should get more money to pay for the costs of that disability. I just disagree with that money being included in tax credits, I think it should be separated and called something different so that it isn't confused with childcare money, a full time wage top up, or money that is paid to anyone that has children they can't pay for themselves.

SoonToBeSix Mon 16-Dec-13 18:22:51

Little miss under universal credit parents will receive extra for their dc who receive middle rate care dla it will be protected at the same amount. However a change of circumstances or new claimants would receive half of what they get under tax credits .

Darkesteyes Mon 16-Dec-13 18:24:19

Being disabled is an expensive business most of the time, and DLA does not cover that.

Agreed

zebrafinch Mon 16-Dec-13 18:28:58

Owllady another Carer of a severely disabled child who is looking at full time residential for my son. The policy makers in Local and National Government need to be aware that Carers cannot be shat on indefinetly.

WooWooOwl Mon 16-Dec-13 18:30:14

Apart from the obvious, being cases of teen mums claiming tax credits, do you realise the number of people who have never paid tax? Its basically zero.

That is simply not true, and VAT paid out of benefits doesn't count for anything.

There are loads of people that don't earn enough to pay income tax, (which is a good thing for low earners) and plenty that have up until very recently been given council tax benefit so have never paid that either. Plenty of the people that don't earn enough to pay income tax also don't own homes or vehicles, or get an inheritance, so have no need to pay tax on those.

Until this government put the personal allowance up to £9440 anyone who earned more than something like £80 per week paid tax.

Plenty of the people that don't earn enough to pay income tax also don't own homes or vehicles, or get an inheritance, so have no need to pay tax on those.

Maybe they donpay tax directly on those things, but tax is a percentage of their bus fare, their rent goes to private landlords, who pay tax. And as for the comment on inheritance...

Do you see other people as humans, or just as a little figure of how much tax they pay?

And I would rather pay tax that gave the few thousand feckless in this country money to live, than leave them to starve and suffer the consquences of higher crime rates and higher house/car insurance.

WooWooOwl Mon 16-Dec-13 19:44:33

Until this government put the personal allowance up to £9440 anyone who earned more than something like £80 per week paid tax.

They aren't all bad then! grin

cantheyseeme Mon 16-Dec-13 19:48:25

There really are some sanctimonious nobbers on this thread.... because some people dont agree on things they get made out to be uncaring etc or seeing people as not humans.... ffs!

VAT paid out of benefits doesn't count for anything

I don't want to get lost in the arithmetic so let's pretend that claimants get £100 and 20% of that goes back to the government in VAT.

So if you're not going to count the VAT as paying tax then you have to stop saying "£100! that's a lot of money, I only get £85" because according to your way of working it out the other £20 was never theirs. They were only really getting £80.

mumandboys123 Mon 16-Dec-13 20:01:19

mummymeister you said 'so mumandboys the problem here is your ex P who after 5 years has paid you and your children absolutely nothing. the issue for me after reading your post is I still fall on the side of capping benefits but really think it cannot be beyond the agencies to find this man and make him pay. it is him we are subsidising and paying the benefit to in effect and not you (if that makes sense!) a lot of posters seem to be in this position. single parent with 3+ kids and an ex P who contributes either nothing or just a fraction of what they should. capping benefits would be effective if all other things were equal. if your ex P paid up then you wouldn't be so dependent on the third child benefit. so I guess this is the heart of the problem. great in theory if everything works elsewhere as it is supposed to but a crap idea in practice'

The CSA knows where my ex is. I know where my ex is. We've always known where he is. We never lost him!

My ex owes me nothing. I am an able-bodied adult of working age and can support myself. He does, however, owe our children some kind of financial support but the Law won't make him do that because he's self employed. And no, you don't subsidise him. I do. I don't get any more money because he refuses to help out. I pay as much tax as anyone else earning what I earn. I do a decent job full time and I am bringing up my children as well as I can. You cannot ask any more of me yet somehow, I am forced to explain myself because I'm single and I have more than 1 child.

What so many people miss is the fact that the legislation, as it stands, is more than happy to allow self employed people to legitimately reduce their child maintenance liability, often to zero. You don't need to find my ex at all. Rather, the Law needs to change to enforce his responsibility towards his children. It is, frankly, state sponsored child neglect but they'll (the Government) never do anything about it because it won't do anything to encourage business growth.

It is unlikely my ex will ever be made to pay what he would if he were employed. I am not convinced our children will ever get anything. It is far, far better for all of us - me, my children, and society as a whole, that I am enabled to work full-time and use the skills I trained hard to achieve. Sadly, I suspect you would feel less threatened if every single parent fulfilled the stereotype of thousands of kids born of benefits so we can be bashed and put down and told we don't contribute anything. I contribute a great deal to society, most of it you could never put a monetary value on, and I save YOU a fortune by doing my best by my children. Yet you begrudge me that....because my marriage failed? because I have more than 2 children?

WooWooOwl Mon 16-Dec-13 20:02:24

That's some crazy logic you have going on there! That's the sort of thing my ds would come out with when he's trying to get more pocket money!

It's still £20 that can be spent on anything the claimant chooses to spend it on, and they get the benefit of whatever they spent that £20 on as well.

And if benefit claimants as badly off as some people say they are, then they will be spending that £20 on things that are considered essential and aren't eligible for vat anyway. If it comes out of child tax credits, then it's should be being spent on food and clothes for the child which are vat exempt. (as an adult would need to pay their own bills regardless of whether they had a child or not)

bemusedisnottheword Mon 16-Dec-13 20:02:24

I've just seen the woe is me comment by canyouseeme.

I reiterate what I've said..again. You have no empathy. Lucky you, looking at your wonderful children albeit one with SEN. How sanctimonious.

My children are all wonderful too, but when you've seen your dd's fingers nearly severed by her violent brother and the difficulties our family have had then yeah feel free to patronise me again.

But yeah, shit man, woe is me.

bemusedisnottheword Mon 16-Dec-13 20:04:35

There really are some sanctimonious nobbers on this thread.... because some people dont agree on things they get made out to be uncaring etc or seeing people as not humans.... ffs

pot calling kettle....

WooWooOwl maybe you should read it again then since you seem to have it backwards.

In my example they really do get £100 which they can spend as they choose. The £20 is tax which they pay and that's just the same as you spending £100 and paying £20 is tax. You are both taxpayers.

cantheyseeme Mon 16-Dec-13 20:09:17

zzzzzz. Again, i do have empathy. Not that it reaalllly matters in an online forum!

WooWooOwl Mon 16-Dec-13 20:12:22

You have completely lost me then BackOnly.

The way I see it is that if I spend £100, then that is £100 that I have earned, paid tax on already, and then some of that is going to go to the government if I spend it on things that aren't vat exempt.

If someone on full benefits spends £100, then they are being given a free £100 that they haven't had to work for, it hasn't been taxed before they got it, and whether goes on VAT will just be the state getting back the money it gave so that it can give it to that person again a week later.

Not the same thing at all.

It is just plain odd to consider yourself a taxpayer if all you pay is VAT on things you choose to own or get the benefit from.

Owllady Mon 16-Dec-13 20:21:20

The point is some people on benefits save the taxpayer money anyway, carers are a prime example
A lot of carers save the economy more as an individual than some of you will ever pay in tax...I know that is a difficult pill for some people to swallow though

littlemisssarcastic Mon 16-Dec-13 20:23:54

But that doesn't just apply to people on full benefits. The same could be said for anyone in receipt of working tax credit or child tax credit.

There is much money exchanging hands in this country that has neither been earnt or taxed, yet it still stimulates the economy, resulting in extra revenue for the govt somewhere along the lines.

I don't know a simpler way to put it unless you have one of those sticky felt board things.

You may wish to see VAT as only the state getting back its own money, but in that case all those going on about "but I know someone who gets £xx benefits" should be discounting the amount that actually goes back to the government.

You can't count it at both ends and since the government doesn't make items VAT free for claimants we'll have to go with 'claimants pay tax'. After all if they put it under the mattress that's money the government won't have.

How about money spent on rent for council houses. Does that not count either for the same reason?

The real point I know is that I am raining on your parade. the whole "I'm a hard working taxpayer" thing. How do you feel about people who are so badly paid they don't pay income tax?

Reducing a person to how much inheritance they may get, how many cars they own and whether they have a mortgage is a bit callous, no?

If you looked at my life without knowing me, you would think, by those measures, that I am a drain on the state.

I won't be over the course of my life.

HappyMummyOfOne Mon 16-Dec-13 20:28:46

I disagree owllady. Looking after your own child or family is what people do, caring for an unrelated person may save on care fees but as a parent its just what you do.

As a parent you choose to have a child, caring and financially providing for that child is what parents are expected to do and not because it saves the tax payer money hmm

VAT paid out of benefits doesnt make a person a tax payer, its just giving the state some of their money back ready to be given back again on the next benefit payment.

Worried3 Mon 16-Dec-13 20:34:05

I think those saying it wouldn't be fair to parents who gave up work to care for disabled children are perhaps getting the wrong end of the stick. I don't think many people begrudge supporting disabled children, or those parents who cannot work as they are carers or due to their own illness/disability. I don't think that was what this proposal was suggesting.

I don't think many people would suggest that those who cannot work due to disability/illness or because they are carers for a disabled child are scroungers. I haven't seen a post on this thread suggesting otherwise.

I wouldn't support a cut in benefits to disabled children- whether their parents had 3 or more children or not. Surely their benefit relating to disability would be separate from CB/CTC (although I know there is a disability element) and thus not affected by caps to CB/CTC? I would support a cap on the number of children the state will support, as long as it was not applied retrospectively.

Benefits should be a safety net- for those who find themselves out of work or for those who cannot work due to illness or disability (or who are carers for an ill or disabled child/relative).

I don't doubt that living on benefits is not all a bed of roses and I doubt many people have children because they think they'll get rich on benefits. I do think the system allows people to have children they cannot afford to support, in the knowledge that the state will put a roof over their heads, and money in their pockets.

If you can't afford to house, clothe and feed the children you already have, then you shouldn't be having any more. If you can only afford to have more children if the state increases your benefits, you can't afford to have more children. I accept that those who lose their jobs after having children will be affected too (but perhaps that could be built into the system).

To be clear, I don't care how many children people have- as long as they can support them at the time they are conceived. Many people who are working and not receiving any benefits have to limit the number of children they have due to finances. My wages wouldn't go up if I had another child- I would be expected to fund that child on my current income. Why should it be different for those whose income comes solely or partially from the state- i.e. the tax-payer.

mummymeister Mon 16-Dec-13 20:37:35

"Sadly, I suspect you would feel less threatened if every single parent fulfilled the stereotype of thousands of kids born of benefits so we can be bashed and put down and told we don't contribute anything..." blimey mumandboys did you actually read my post? I don't feel in the least bit threatened by you. I applaud you for bringing up your kids in the way that you are. what I said was that your ex P ought to be made, compelled, to pay towards his children. they are his after all. the govt is considering bringing the law in because it says the benefits bill is too high. if your ex P paid towards the children you would need less from the state to maintain your standard of living. he is the one who should be made to pay not the state and certainly not you. how do I know why your marriage failed? you didn't say and its none of my business. what is my concern is a man who fathers children and buggers off leaving the woman behind to do everything, pay for everything and be everything.

utreas Mon 16-Dec-13 20:39:50

YABVU its time people took responsibility for themselves and their decisions. The Government will provide some level of support for your first two children but if you want more than that, then its up to you to ensure they are provided for.

lottieandmia Mon 16-Dec-13 20:42:00

'I disagree owllady. Looking after your own child or family is what people do, caring for an unrelated person may save on care fees but as a parent its just what you do.'

That is nonsense. Most parents who have NT children can expect those children to grow up and care for themselves one day. If you have a disabled child that needs 24 hour care that is never going to happen. Are you saying that disabled people have no right to expect state support? Can I also remind you that it costs the state thousands more a year to pay for an in-care disabled person than it costs the state to pay carer's allowance?? If you are a carer you are never going to be able to work. What money should you live on?

Owllady Mon 16-Dec-13 20:44:41

I can choose to not look after my own child though, the taxpayer would foot the bill
So you can be obtuse all you like mummy of one

WooWooOwl Mon 16-Dec-13 20:45:43

Rent is not tax. It's rent. Regardless of whether it is being paid to a private landlord or a housing association or council, it is still rent, not tax.

I can assure you I don't have a parade here for you to rain on. I just see it very differently to how you see it.

You can't claim to be a taxpayer when the only tax you pay is on buying stuff for yourself out of free money you have been handed for doing nothing.

You can disagree, but you won't change my opinion on that one.

lottieandmia Mon 16-Dec-13 20:46:37

Quite, Owllady.

littlemisssarcastic Mon 16-Dec-13 20:47:26

Wasn't Happymummyofone referring to the comments made by owllady about carers saving the govt money by looking after their disabled DC rather than the govt looking after them.

Owllady Mon 16-Dec-13 20:48:23

Btw I want to add I do all I can for my daughter and I believe care for her extremely well and I will be a powerful advocate for her for the time I have on this earth. As time goes on though it does get extremely hard. A teenager with severe and complex learning, physical and medical needs is somewhat out of the majorities understanding and that is being reflected on this thread. Good luck to you who think I chose this!

Owllady Mon 16-Dec-13 20:50:23

I don't think ignorance can be called sarcasm either

lottieandmia Mon 16-Dec-13 20:52:16

I would be amazed if some of the people on this thread had a tiny clue what it's like looking after a severely disabled person tbh. Why don't some of you try to grow some empathy?

Owllady is right - there are a lot of parents who decide they cannot cope with caring for a disabled child (who is an adult). Those adult children go into care homes that cost upwards of £100k a year. Carer's allowance is a tiny amount compared.

WooWooOwl Mon 16-Dec-13 20:57:50

Owllady, no one is saying you chose to have your child suffer a disability. That would be unreasonable.

People who are carers for severely disabled family members are a very good reason why certain benefits should not be given exactly the same name as the benefits someone gets if they decide to be a SAHP to a child they chose to conceive while they were out of work.

littlemisssarcastic Mon 16-Dec-13 20:58:59

Owllady No one is suggesting you chose to have a disabled child.
The argument that carers are saving the govt huge amounts of money by caring for their disabled children may be true, but in that case, any parent is saving the govt huge amounts of money by looking after their children, more money than any benefits pay.
If any parent suddenly decided to relinquish their responsibility to their child, the govt, as a last resort would have to step in. This would cost the govt a massive amount of money and I'm not even sure it is doable en masse.

I agree that carers should receive financial support from the govt, because in the majority of cases, carers either have to give up work completely or are forced by circumstance to reduce their working hours to adequately care for their disabled children.

OTOH, how many carers would honestly give their disabled children to the govt to look after if their carers allowance was reduced or stopped?
How many parents of NT children would give their children to the govt to look after if their child tax credit or child benefit was reduced or stopped?
Not many I would imagine.

I assume the govt relies on parents to continue parenting despite any struggles they may have, because that is what parents tend to do.
Giving up a child is usually a last resort after every other avenue has been exhausted, and the govt are only too aware of this imo.

lottieandmia Mon 16-Dec-13 21:01:46

'OTOH, how many carers would honestly give their disabled children to the govt to look after if their carers allowance was reduced or stopped?'

Probably quite a few, because it's kind of impossible to live on nothing at all. The question of tax credits and NT children is entirely different because those NT children will one day be able to work.

littlemisssarcastic Mon 16-Dec-13 21:08:07

That would probably be true if carers allowance was the only income for a family with a disabled child.

If there are families with disabled children, whose total income is £59.75 a week, to pay for everything they and their DC needs, then I apologise for my posts.
I was under the impression that CA was a part of their family income, not the entire income of the family.

If this is true, then I can totally see why carers would have to relinquish responsibility for their disabled children if their CA was reduced or stopped.
In fact, I don't know how they cope now!!

Owllady Mon 16-Dec-13 21:09:10

I am not talking about normal nt, healthy children, I am talking about those with significant disability and illness. If you don't think people would put their children with complex disabilities into local authority care if their related benefits were withdrawn, you have little real understanding of the financial pressure as well as emotional.. a day at a hospital appointment can cost about £50 if not more, just on fuel and parking and after care for other children, that's with one person as a stay at home carer
My electric bill is 280 pm. I have a rated white goods. Two baths a day for one person with immersion on and off. 5 lots of washing a day 3 dryer cycles on average. Normal illness not taken into account

Owllady Mon 16-Dec-13 21:11:58

Dla is for the person who has a disability
Carers allowance is a payment paid to the main carer of that child if they earn under £100 pw in paid employment

littlemisssarcastic Mon 16-Dec-13 21:14:40

I didn't say 'related benefits', I said CA. It would be foolish to suggest anyone could care for anyone else on absolutely no money at all.

Anyway, how you manage all of that on £59.75 a week is beyond me.

I wonder what would make the govt sit up and listen?
Maybe once carers have worked out the answer to that question, they could implement it and get the govt to listen, as they appear to do with pensioners.

Happymummyofone No-one chooses to have a disabled or ill child, and looking after them themselves saves the government £thousands-Fact!

Empathy is very much needed here!

littlemisssarcastic Mon 16-Dec-13 21:21:31

Unfortunately, healthy babies aren't guaranteed. sad

LadyRabbit Mon 16-Dec-13 21:22:12

Have not read entire thread. But when oh when will everyone wake up and remember that by far the largest welfare spend is on PENSIONS. Not feckless single mothers with 8 children by 9 fathers etc., etc. so who the fuck is going to pay for all those people who are depending on state pensions and nothing else to see them through old age? That's right. All these kids nobody can afford (apparently) and that cost the tax payer much less than their Daily Fail reading brains tell them they do.

The larger issue is our older population. And successive governments utterly atrocious management of pensions funds etc.

My child benefit was taken away but I don't begrudge those who are still getting it. Why penalise the children who have no say in their being born? Especially when they will have to work til they drop dead because there will be no such thing as pensions even though they will probably pay way more NI than my generation will.

littlemisssarcastic Mon 16-Dec-13 21:24:18

Well said LadyRabbit.

LadyRabbit Mon 16-Dec-13 21:24:42

It's like a massive state sanctioned Ponzi scheme where the newest entrants (in this case UK children) get shafted.

Hear Hear LadyRabbit, i don't begrudge the elderly but the fact remains no cut backs have yet been made in regards to state pensions. Although there is a high population of them that have never even worked their entire lifes, yet the government is quite happy to keep paying out for their share and chooses to penalise children instead, when the money that will be saved will be a tiny drop in the ocean!

ThingsThatGoBumpInTheNight Mon 16-Dec-13 21:28:03

Nicely put ladyrabbit

littlemisssarcastic Mon 16-Dec-13 21:30:42

Agree with pumpkin too.

Rufustherednosedreindeer Mon 16-Dec-13 21:35:04

Out of curiosity how high is the proportion of pensioners that have never worked pumpkin

Does anyone know? Because I'm not sure it's that high, but I've never seen any figures

Rufustherednosedreindeer Mon 16-Dec-13 21:36:42

And I know pensions make up the vast majority of the welfare budget

It's just I'm looking forward to getting mine, even though it will be means tested and probably only get me a cup of coffee in 25 years time grin

WooWooOwl Mon 16-Dec-13 22:04:48

I don't think the point about pensioners is at all relevant.

There are major differences between pensioners and people of working age that don't work despite there being no one with a long term illness or disability in their household.

We all hope to be pensioners one day. We don't all hope to be in a position where we don't work.

That's why the pension bill is so much higher.

The vast majority of us pay income tax and national insurance, and the vast majority of us will be pensioners some day. It is an entirely fair state benefit.

Rufustherednosedreindeer Mon 16-Dec-13 22:08:56

I don't think its relevant either

Which is why I was curious as to the amount of all the non working pensioners and why exactly we should be cutting back on pensions

LadyRabbit Mon 16-Dec-13 22:26:18

It is relevant in so far as pensions are in reality funded by a combination of a pension claimant's NI / tax contributions AND current NI / tax contributions from the working population. Because governments have basically been doing a Robert Maxwell over the years so in most cases there is no way one person's entire lifetime NI contributions and tax could cover everything they have taken out of the system. (If we are working on the assumption that the individual has been an average wage earner for their working life, used the state school system and the NHS. ) Therefore that money has to come from the following generations. Crudely put, the old are eating the young. It is also one of the reasons why the government doesn't want to admit it needs immigration (albeit of the working non claiming kind) in order to sustain this folly before it all collapses. Nobody is suggesting cutting pensions - dear God, how could they be any lower? And means testing them stinks because that is basically saying to current generations that they are giving their NI away with no hope of ever getting anything back.

What is utterly utterly pointless is penalising children who don't ask to be born. People had children when they couldn't afford them well before the welfare state existed (remember workhouses anybody?) and they will continue to do so, child benefit or no child benefit. What are we supposed to do? Let them all starve? Moreover, it is important that we do all we can to stop with this distorted view that the child benefit bill is so enormous that cutting it will make a massive difference to welfare costs. It won't. It will be a drop in the ocean.

I don't know what the answer is. None of us here do, otherwise I sincerely hope if you did you'd be doing something to fix the mess we're in. What we can do, however, is stop getting a stick out to beat people with over their life choices. That really doesn't help either.

ShylaMcClaus Tue 17-Dec-13 00:28:00

I had a parent who was in hospital for a year with occasional days off. No cognitive function at all - zero. No mobility either, just lying there having meds for various minor conditions and being hydrated and fed until it was damaging and they were withdrawn.

It must have cost an absolute fortune! Far more than they had ever paid in just for that year, let alone the benefits of the NHS they had reaped during the seventy years preceding.

ShylaMcClaus Tue 17-Dec-13 01:11:42

Oh, and the other parent was furious when the DLA stopped despite it being awarded for the extra costs of having someone with a severe impairment in the home. Not hospital.

And even after death that their state pension was stopped. Had been used to saving it up.

If you want to discuss spoiled, ignorant, selfish and entitled people, look up a generation.

merrymouse Tue 17-Dec-13 07:20:55

Don't think of child benefit so much as supporting feckless parents as supporting future tax payers.

Child benefit lasts for 16 years. Hopefully if you invest a bit of money during that time things balance out over the following 7 decades. What next - no school or medical treatment for 3rd children?

merrymouse Tue 17-Dec-13 07:28:20

Also, the fact that somebody might think that they will be quids in if they have another baby because of all the benefits doesn't actually mean that they have made an educated judgement and have done the maths and they will be better off.

On the other hand some people have children knowing that they will struggle hoping that somehow things will get better, but that would suggest that they would have more children with or without benefits.

dreamingofsun Tue 17-Dec-13 08:44:45

ladyrabbit - within the bounds of legality i have no problem with people making their own lifestyle choices - obviously. what some people are objecting to on here though is that they have to cover the cost of someoone else's choice. And is you are already struggling a bit, this must be especially galling

merrymouse Tue 17-Dec-13 09:19:36

You have to cover the cost eventually in the long term whether you pay child benefit or not. You don't have to like or approve of somebody to see that their lack of access to food, housing and other basics affects all of us.

merrymouse Tue 17-Dec-13 09:23:08

David Cameron doesn't seem to have much if he found himself unexpectedly unemployed and his wife couldnt work what would he do? Is it only the presence of the family fortune that makes his life style choice of 3 children OK?

(To be fair he hasn't openly supported this idea).

merrymouse Tue 17-Dec-13 09:24:18

Aaagh stupid phone!

"David Cameron doesn't seem to have much job security".

CustardoPaidforIDSsYFronts Tue 17-Dec-13 09:24:47

well said ladyrabbit

merrymouse Tue 17-Dec-13 09:31:30

Also stupidly forgot - most people in receipt of child benefit do work.

Just to reimagine that. DC loses job, Bottom falls out of luxury goods market and SC gets some hours working at tesco's (on tills, not shelf stacking as prior retail experience in mum's shop). Family fortune has mysteriously vanished. Takes a while for DC to find new job.

Why wouldn't you take into account their third child when calculating the benefits they need?

fluffyraggies Tue 17-Dec-13 10:17:01

Not inclined to political argument, just reading the thread and feel very sad to see children described as peoples 'mistakes', and a child's existence being referred to in terms of being someone's 'fault'.

Benefits for families were introduced to improve/sustain the quality of life of the children born into those families that qualified.

Surely the basic principal that drove the enlightened introduction of these benefits so long ago (mainly against the will of the wealthy) will never change - and that is:

children are not at fault for being born. They should not suffer a lack of basics as a consequence of their parents circumstances. And that poverty breeds poverty.

I feel as a society we are stepping backwards sad

cantheyseeme Tue 17-Dec-13 10:34:46

Even worse when people bitch about their OWN children in such a way! Children are a blessing and should be cherished, my overall feeling is that this policy may make people think twice about having more children, but even if it doesnt we will still be paying tax and it is a little comforting that should my own family need a little more support we would get it because that safety net IS there.

ophelia275 Tue 17-Dec-13 10:55:51

Some MP's fiddle their expenses ergo we should give endless amounts of money to people who choose to have more children than they can afford. Great logic. Does all this free cash come from the magic money tree in the sky or will it come out of the pockets of those in work who have chosen to have the number of kids they can afford from their taxed salary and already pay enough tax and NI?

cory Tue 17-Dec-13 11:02:17

ophelia275 Tue 17-Dec-13 10:55:51
"Does all this free cash come from the magic money tree in the sky or will it come out of the pockets of those in work who have chosen to have the number of kids they can afford from their taxed salary and already pay enough tax and NI?"

Speaking as one of the tax payers who have chosen to limit my family, I am happy for it to come out of my pocket as long as it means my children do not have to grow up in a society where some of their peers go without the basics.

A society where everybody selfishly looks to their own interest alone is imho a less happy society. I don't see why my children should have to put up with that.

ophelia275 Tue 17-Dec-13 11:07:28

Cory - I am happy to be "selfish" and limit my family to the size we can afford from our household after tax income. You are welcome to pay more though if you think it makes you a better person.

Ghostsdonttalk Tue 17-Dec-13 11:13:18

I think it's a real sad reflection of modern life that children are seen as commodities and described as mistakes and contraceptive failures.

Your children should not be on a list of commodities between Sky TV and a new car. My Dad was the youngest of 12 born in 1931 ( the hungry thirties) his parents managed to feed and clothe them all.

In reality all children are a gift and should be seen as such.

dreamingofsun Tue 17-Dec-13 11:15:41

ghost - what are you suggesting then? that we have as many children as we fancy and let someone else cover the cost of supporting them?

surely children are a gift, but should also be seen as a responsibility?

merrymouse Tue 17-Dec-13 11:26:32

You are welcome to pay more though if you think it makes you a better person.

I think paying child benefit now makes me a more pragmatic person, not a nicer person. Have you been to countries where children go without the basics?

I think there seems to be an expectation that if you don't pay child benefit children will either

a) disappear in a puff of smoke.
b) Become extras in a period drama like Larkrise or Downton and be poor but rosy cheeked.

You have to get beyond 'it's not fair' and 'I don't approve'. It is likely that a child in receipt of child benefit today will pay far more in tax as an adult than they received in benefits as a child. Whether the bill balances will depend on how much they earn and how much they need, but that is true of all of us.

BarbarianMum Tue 17-Dec-13 11:27:20

<<What is utterly utterly pointless is penalising children who don't ask to be born. >>

Well they wouldn't be very penalised, would they? They'd still be entitled to free education, free healthcare, housing etc (as they should be).

If the difference b/w being able to afford or not afford a third/fourth child is the small amount you receive in child benefit then, you know what, you can't afford more. And yes, you are supposed to take a possible change of circumstances into account when you plan the size of your family.

LadyRabbit Tue 17-Dec-13 11:27:52

Here's what I find extraordinarily hypocritical from some posters. Unless you are in a higher tax bracket, and possibly privately educate your children and use private healthcare then you are almost certainly going to take out more than you put in over your lifetime. What makes your 'benefiting' from the system more moral somehow? Because you're not queueing up for your handout? Because you have someone to look down on? So you can say, 'ooh that's not fair! Look at me! Look how hard I'm working. They're not working as hard as me, I'm more deserving!'

As a higher rate tax payer who privately educates her kid and uses private health (not a stealth boast, I am trying to make a point) I could moan about putting in way more than most people. But I am happy to pay tax. I am happy to fund other people's kids. It's called being in it together, humanity style, not David Cameron style.

I fear people are slow to self examine their own use of the state but quick to judge what they perceive as vast amounts of people killing a system when in fact it is a tiny minority.

LadyRabbit Tue 17-Dec-13 11:28:42

I meant milking a system, not killing it, but perhaps that was a subconsciously apt typo!

OTheHugeManatee Tue 17-Dec-13 11:35:22

"Unless you are in a higher tax bracket, and possibly privately educate your children and use private healthcare then you are almost certainly going to take out more than you put in over your lifetime."

Hang on. How does that work? If almost everyone is taking out more than they're putting in, then the result is bound to be a huge hole in the public finances, right? How is that sustainable?

merrymouse Tue 17-Dec-13 11:35:27

It's called being in it together, humanity style, not David Cameron style. And also recognising that we all benefit in a completely selfish way from having a society where the only way you can feed your children is through crime, and that some of those children might grow up to look after us in our old age.

merrymouse Tue 17-Dec-13 11:40:08

Looking at average wages, most people, in the years that they have children are certainly receiving more than they get from the state.

As LadyRabbit says, the only way this wouldn't be the case would be if you were paying very high taxes, and not using state education or the health service. (Although even then you benefit from the fire service, the police service, the legal system, arts and sports funding, the BBC etc. etc. etc. so for most people it's impossible to know.)

LadyRabbit Tue 17-Dec-13 11:51:21

OTheHugeManatee that's precisely the problem. There is a huge hole in public finances. Remember the sign off from the last Labour chancellor to Osborne "There's nothing left"? So we are on a horrible treadmill where we started a welfare state in the 1940s with a considerably smaller population that had a much lower life expectancy to now, with a much much larger population that has to keep increasing so that there are enough taxpayers to fund a population that will live much longer and use an NHS that is already on its knees. An NHS that now costs more partly because the government has farmed out so much of it to private agencies who run it for profit and thus make it cost more than it should. While demoralising front line workers with rubbish pay and conditions.

The problems with the welfare state and its sustainability are myriad. But child benefit costs are tiny in comparison to the waste of tax monies on things like foreign aid, not implementing corporation tax because we want to incentivise big business in order to drive employment and this keep the tax/welfare treadmill running and so on. MPs' fiddling their expenses is more a symptom than the actual cause.

The fact remains, unless you earn over the average wage you will in your lifetime most likely cost more in what you use than you have paid for. There are much bigger welfare fish to fry than slashing child benefits IMO. But I understand why it's emotive. I would quite like another child, but I am waiting so that I can stagger school fees and such. But that's my choice, and while I think it's the sensible option I simply don't have it in me to get my knickers in a twist about people who do otherwise because there are far bigger things to get cross about.

OTheHugeManatee Tue 17-Dec-13 12:05:44

To put it another way. If five people turn up and each brings 2 cupcakes, but everyone eats 3 cupcakes, that's 5 extra cupcakes that have to come from somewhere.

If, as ladyrabbit says, nearly everyone is taking out more than they're putting in, that's the equivalent of nearly everyone bringing 2 cupcakes but eating 3. If that's the case then there must either be a very few people putting in a hell of a lot of extra cupcakes or else there is a cupcake deficit (I'm not sure what -5 cupcakes looks like, but bear with me).

As far as I can make out, it's the latter; and I just don't understand how people are so blase about this when European nations with unsustainably generous welfare states relative to tax take (eg Greece and, increasingly, France) are in serious trouble.

This is not the same as saying screw the poor, or take everyone's cupcakes away, or cupcakes only for the rich, or whatever. It's saying that if practically everyone takes out more than they put in, then collectively we need to be agreeing to take less out. So there is enough left for those that really need it.

Otherwise it becomes a race to the bottom, with everyone competing for a shrinking pot of handouts and everyone resenting everyone else. Which is, effectively, what's happening. IMO a great deal of the 'benefit bashing', for example between working people on TC and those on IS, is not some evil Tory conspiracy but simply a consequence of a system that's promised more than it finds it can now deliver.

dreamingofsun Tue 17-Dec-13 12:09:31

don't worry othehuge i will bring 10 cupcakes and once they are gone i will bring another 10 untill all my cupcakes have been eaten. we don't eat that many anyway as we only have 2 children.

OTheHugeManatee Tue 17-Dec-13 12:15:29

Ah - x posted.

YouAreMyFavouriteWasteOfTime Tue 17-Dec-13 12:16:30

as we all know the main cost is pensions so we all need to be as self supporting in old age as possible. which means reducing costs when younger (whether paid for by the household or the taxpayer). which means smaller families.

LadyRabbit Tue 17-Dec-13 12:19:49

OTheHugeManatee your cupcake analogy sums it up perfectly! Yup. The extra cupcakes tend to come from the top 5% higher rate tax payers (I read a break down not that long ago that made my head spin, I wish I could remember where then I would link to it) but the more governments allow tax avoidance the fewer cupcakes there are for the party. Nobody likes to admit it. It's easier to bash the rich, but without their tax the system would collapse. The UK is looking to France right now and seeing what happens when you introduce punitive higher taxation in order to fund a very generous welfare system. They pick up and leave, and a lot are coming to London. Great for the city, but not so great if the government doesn't start making bigger demands of corporations in terms of tax.

Who knows what will happen. There will undoubtedly be a time of reckoning where future generations have to lower their expectations of what the state will provide. Unless the government actually does have the balls to go after the super rich and make them pay tax in this country. But then it makes this country less attractive for business and therein lies the rub.

Aargh. It's such a blooming mess. I need a cup of tea and a cupcake now. grin

YouAreMyFavouriteWasteOfTime Tue 17-Dec-13 13:37:09

many of the super rich are not British - so tax them and they will just go somewhere else. taking their spending money with them.

international corporations ditto. how can any govt force them to tax here? they have no rights to see the accounts of a company registered overseas.

so the solution does not involve the superrich or large increases in corporation tax.

WooWooOwl Tue 17-Dec-13 17:16:51

Here's what I find extraordinarily hypocritical from some posters. Unless you are in a higher tax bracket, and possibly privately educate your children and use private healthcare then you are almost certainly going to take out more than you put in over your lifetime. What makes your 'benefiting' from the system more moral somehow? Because you're not queueing up for your handout?

It is nit hypocritical to want all citizens who are able to to both pay in, and be able to take out from the system.

State provided services are something that everyone should have access to, benefiting from services you contribute to paying for is not 'more moral'.

But taking services you don't contribute to when you are physically able to is immoral IMO.

Yes, many people will take out more than they pay in, but as long as they are paying in what they can, and not taking out an unreasonable amount for selfish reasons, it's not a problem. Having children when you and your partner are unemployed or earn so little that you massively rely on other people to pay for them is unreasonable and selfish. Having children and needing a little help just to get through the most expensive years while still contributing at the same time is not.

farrowandbawlbauls Tue 17-Dec-13 17:25:23

Let this thread die already!

merrymouse Tue 17-Dec-13 17:55:38

Child related benefits are for children, not their parents. As I said before, children have many years ahead of them to pay taxes, however many siblings they have.

What they don't do is vanish from the face of the earth because their parents were either feckless or had bad luck, just because they have 2 siblings.

YouAreMyFavouriteWasteOfTime Tue 17-Dec-13 18:07:22

i think just as everyone on a high income should pay all their taxes and not seek to minimise their obligations via legal tax schemes, people on low incomes have an equal obligation to rely on the state as little as is possible for them as individuals.

the govt systems needs to be designed to encourage this behaviour by all.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now