Cap child tax credit after four children, says MP

I agree mumble , tax credits were IMO a costly bribe for votes. The labour government made huge swathes of the country feel dependent on the state and then at election time warned us the nasty Tories would remove it all.

Other countries like, USA, India, China, Brazil, Russia, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, all the European countries, Argentina, etc etc etc.

I agree that the banks messed up big time and that the govt should try everything possible to recoup all of the taxpayers bailout money. I don't make any apologies for banks.

But there are many, many huge international companies which make a massive contribution to the UK economy which are not banks!

And the other big reason we got in this mess is because labour effectively bought votes by giving every Tom Dick and Harry (tho' not my family unfortunately), Tax Credits, Child Trust Funds, Maternity lump sums, free food vouchers in pregnancy etc, absolutely shedloads of money, not all of which was actually needed by the recipients. It was just like Thatcher buying votes with the council house sell off imo.

And I'm a lifelong labour voter by the way.

Why do people bring up evil bankers and corporations on these threads. It's bewildering,

These are two separate issues and not either/or.

Oh, and BB - spiritual poverty is much more of an issue than financial poverty. If we crack the former, the latter ceases to exist.

Wot mumblechum said. With bells on.

Corporation tax, I think. Surely it can't be all of it, can it? Hope not. And these 'other countries'. Jersey? Cayman Islands? Speaking of being bailed out, let's have a quick look at Northern Rock shall we? How much did they get from the govt? And how much did we get back from Richard Branson? And what's the shortfall? Slightly more than all the CTC and benefits paid to all families with 4+ kids I think. Not comparable really.

1% what, Julia? Corporation tax? VAT? Income Tax? Capital Gains Tax? Stamp Duty? NI Employers contributions?

As well as employing thousands of people who also contribute to the economy.

I don't like successful businesses being painted as some sort of pantomime baddy. My dh is a VP of one of the most profitable companies in the world and as well as paying billions in tax every year (not all in the UK), they pay the salaries of over 100,000 people in over 100 countries. If companies like that ceased to exist we'd all be in a far bigger mess.

Oh, and they donate millions of pounds worth of HIV and anti malarial drugs all over the world with no fanfare.

I have much more sympathy with people who make that sort of contribution to the economy than for those who carry on having children after it is clear that they are going to struggle to keep those children without either putting the whole family into poverty or, as is the case in the UK, being baled out by the government.

so do people who bring up children & have NMW jobs, so do thekids when they grow up

They paid 1% in 2010. Is this reasonable? Really?

Barclays Bank et al pay all the tax payable in the UK. They also pay a lot of tax in other countries. There seems to be some misconception that if a company earns say £5bn per year, that x% tax must be paid to the UK, but that isn't right, some of it's paid to the UK, the rest is paid to the other countries in the world in which they operate.

I suppose it's out of the question to think you could aim your fire at Vodafone, Philip Green, Barclays Bank to get them to pay some tax? Or get NRP's to cooperate with the CSA? No? Thought not. Easier to pick on CTC.

In the US there was a policy of no more state help after, I think, two children and, guess what? Birth rate plummeted. It does work.

Someone I know teaches in a school in a neighbouring town. In her class this year ONLY ONE child has two parents living together. She said the trend is for mothers not to name a father on the birth certificate. The state is the provider. They are making a perfectly rational economic decision.

True, eminencegrise but where would be the fun in getting all Evil Tory hysterical about that perfectly reasonable stance?

You'd think they were saying, 'Well, no more safety net, if anything happens, you'll be left to fend for yourselves.'

They're saying no more money after 4 children. So cut your cloth!

Wind yer neck in breadandbutterfly

There is poverty but it is so much less than even when I was a child. Much poverty is poverty of education, aspiration. People often make inappropriate choices and prioritise the wrong things. They don't know how to budget well .

The CIN thread is worth a read and you'll see that I'm a sympathiser but also a realist.

feel FOR

moondog - sincerely hope your dh is one hell of a lot more compassionate than you are, or I feel those poor 100,000 people you claim he lords over.

Or is this as fictional as your high salary and the child benefit you could so easily live without?

@ HarryHillatemygoldfish - your "poverty isn't financial, it's moral and aspirational" would almost make me laugh if I didn't have this horrible feeling you're deadly serious.

Of course poverty is fucking financial. That's the definition of poverty. That's not to say that lack of 'aspiration' might not help (I admit to not having the faintest idea what you mean by 'moral' poverty, unless you mean yourself, in terms of your lack of compassion?). But true poverty is - by definition - not having enough cash. And is the problem under discussion. You try living on 'aspration' and high 'morals' alone - don't think you'll last long.

Patronising guff.

Well said, colditz!

fanny, tbh, anyone who chooses to have five children without putting adequate life insurance in place is irresponsible.

But we only have one child and he's 17 now.

I think every one of us has to take responsibility for our own lives. Even after our deaths.
That is much easier for some than others, however.

Moondog your DH working with poverty doesn't give you an idea how it is to have to deal with it personally.

It doesn't have to because I'm not arguing my case.
When onee is married to someone has the future of nearly 100 000 people in dire poverty in his hands, funnily enough some basic issues of economics and wealth distribution filter through.

If you choose to have 5 kids yet have made no provision for looking after them should you die, you are extremely foolish.

Oh and I bore three children when we were wealthy. Shit, what on earth should I do with them now I can't afford them anymore...? Hmm imagine if you had 5 kids and your DH had a massive heart attack age 42 and died and he had no pension and you couldn't work because the high cost of childcare meant it wasn't feasible. What would you do? All situations that have happened in my family.