Active discussions

Help protect children from gaming harms.

Take our survey

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Politics
Original poster

Cap child tax credit after four children, says MP

638 replies

SardineQueen · 18/11/2011 15:39

here

One of nadine's friends!

I'm not surprised to see this from a conservative MP, as ever I think this sort of thing is a terrible idea - children don't choose to be born and by restricting benefits in this way you are punishing the children for something you disapprove of the parents doing. And as I understand it the number of people with no work ever and loads of children is actually very low? So this sort of policy doesn't actually save much money at all. Can't remember where I saw that though.

I am sure there will be some who disagree. I thought that people who post here might be interested anyway.

OP posts:
Iggly · 18/11/2011 21:26

I think plenty can be done to reduce the admin costs of the welfare state- universality is the main thing really, which is why CB is so cheap to administer compared the tax credit madness.
But some people cannot bear the idea of underserving sorts getting their taxes. Yet don't bat an eyelid at pensioners getting winter fuel payments - when some of those would have been undeserving before they hit retirement age.

BobblyGussets · 18/11/2011 21:19

I agree with what iggly said.

It is a sad fact of life that some adults don't/won't/can't take responsibility for their children. I have contact with some of those parents and I would hate to be one of their children. Let us not reduce their circumstances any further.
There are plenty who should be made to stop their tax dodging and plug this gap in society ten times over.

Fluffycloudland77 · 18/11/2011 21:19

DH used to work with a man who used to say "when this ones born I can retire" he was early twenties. It was number 4.

And he did give up work, his dp never worked outside the home.

cazboldy · 18/11/2011 21:18

well maybe the minimum wage should rise significantly.......

after all for some people (usually portrayed by the media as those with lots of children) are better off not working.

that can't be right surely?

Iggly · 18/11/2011 21:18

Why should we pay taxes at all?

The welfare state is there as a safety net. Should we only provide a safety net to those that deserve it? Who decides that?

moondog · 18/11/2011 21:14

Child benefit.
Why should we all pay to support other people's kids?
Sure Start. Hugely ineffective and used largely by people who don't need those resources.
Maternity grants. Complete joke

Tax credit
What sort of insanity is it where tax payers have to prop people up even if they do work?

eminencegrise · 18/11/2011 21:10

We're talking about no additional benefits after having four children, not cutting them altogether.

I agree with colditz, moondog and niceguy.

Iggly · 18/11/2011 21:08

Cuts to child benefit, tax credits, sure start centres, maternity grants... Children will be directly and indirectly affected and they can't do anything about it. And let's not get into unemployment figures.

Not all children - it will be poorer children.

moondog · 18/11/2011 21:05

'When the level of cuts will impact on children more than anyone?'

How exactly?

colditz · 18/11/2011 21:04

The figure £300 is a rough estimate based on what benefit rates are weekly

So - Child tax = £50 per kid = £200
Income support = £67
Child benefit for 4 kids = roughly £55

So 200 + 67 + 55 = £322

Rent and council tax is paid via housing benefit and council tax benefit. So that £322 has to cover food, clothing, utilities. It's easily done.

The thing is, if you are a lone parent on benefits, the government gives you another £63 per week every time you add another dependant onto what you already have. The current system does incentivise a large family.

Original poster
SardineQueen · 18/11/2011 21:03

I don't think children can be expected to take charge of their lives, can they.

And on that note, I'm getting an early night. Have fun all Smile

OP posts:
Iggly · 18/11/2011 21:01

If that's the case why aren't MPs calling for such things to change?

And why not pull the poor little kiddies card? When the level of cuts will impact on children more than anyone?

moondog · 18/11/2011 20:57

Yes we do Iggly.
Peopel think that is equally repellant, if not more so.
SAnd please stop playing the poor little kiddies card.
Pathetic and merely reinforces patronising assumption that peopel can't possibly be expected to take charge of theri lives.

lockets · 18/11/2011 20:55

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Iggly · 18/11/2011 20:55

So what is the point of stopping anything after 4 children? I'm guessing it's not about saving a material amount of money?

Why 4 children? Why not 3?

Why not only single parent families? I mean they're the really feckless ones Hmm

Yet we don't bat an eyelid at the government selling the best boys of northern rock and keeping the toxic debt. Or the proposals to cut the taxes for the super rich, as if they need more handouts. Or the fact that rich pensioners get a winter fuel allowance - no means testing there.

However our children, the future, they can suffer. Because they come from "poor" families, as depicted by the DM, they're useless anyway.

Disgusting.

teenswhodhavethem · 18/11/2011 20:52

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

Original poster
SardineQueen · 18/11/2011 20:52

My figures for hardly anyone having hundreds of children?

Really?

OP posts:
MindtheGappp · 18/11/2011 20:52

Sardine has figures???!!!???. /perks up in anticipation

moondog · 18/11/2011 20:50

Where did you get your figures from Sardine?
Can we have sources cited?

colditz · 18/11/2011 20:50

As for all five children being hungry if the parent doesn't get another £50 a week - nonsense.

A single parent of 4 children (with one under 7) receives roughly £300 per week after rent and council tax is paid for them, and not taking into consideration any maintenance paid. All that NEEDS buying is food, water bill, gas/electric, and clothing. Trust me when I say it is easily doable.

Original poster
SardineQueen · 18/11/2011 20:50

balls my stars didn't work

anyway

The amount of tax evaded and left unpaid and not pursued is enormous
The number of families who are feckless immoral drunk and have hundreds of children is very low

Yet people seem to get so excited about the second bunch and how they must be punished for their sins.

OP posts:
Original poster
SardineQueen · 18/11/2011 20:48

Incidentally this part in the article tickled me:

"And she says that while she has never met "an out-of-work teenager who chooses pregnancy", the availability of benefits linked to the number of children "could be seen as an attractive incentive to a 16-year-old" with low earning potential."

Grin

They must exist because she's read about them in certain sections of the press.

OP posts:
teenswhodhavethem · 18/11/2011 20:48

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

moondog · 18/11/2011 20:47

Yes, because I spend most of my working life surveying the results of our present system.

Original poster
SardineQueen · 18/11/2011 20:46

moondog you have a very jaundiced view of our society.

OP posts: