Cap child tax credit after four children, says MP

I can't believe that people are calling this eugenics.

One of the nice principles of government coercion in this country is through the tax (and by extension, the benefits) system. Taxes are set to encourage us to do what the governments (vicariously, the electorate) want us to do. This is far more humane than just slapping a law on us.

I believe that a responsible and moral government should be discouraging large families from dependent families (especially 5x5 families). This is a far cry from China's one-child policy because it is proposed to be via the tax/benefit system rather than the direct rule of law.

Nicely put NiceGuy.

Well done niceguy what a nice guy haha.

And that, niceguy is it in a very neat nutshell.

Threefeet, there of course has to be a balancing act between supporting those who need it and what the taxpayer can afford.

And right now the balance is all fucked up. Why? Because quite simply we are still borrowing way more money than we raise in taxes. So as a nation we have a choice to make. More taxes or less expenditure.

More taxes seems out of the question. We have already one of the highest tax burden's in Europe. Increasing taxes will also mean less cash for people to spend and hit their confidence, thus choking the economy exactly when we need growth to help us out. So that leaves the government being forced to spend less.

And that means we must place some limits on what we spend. So to me, capping the amount of benefits we give out is an obvious one. So capping benefits at 4 children (which is what's being discussed) might not be ideal....in an ideal world where money is no object. But in the real crappy world which we all currently live in, it sounds like a sensible balance to me.

I am not going to fully argue against these measures - I can see a need for something to be done, in certain circumstances, BUT if they put this into place, how long will it be before they drop the amount of children that low paid workers are 'allowed' to have? And where will they stop? Three? Two? One? None?

This is dangerously close to the start of an insidious process to limit the amount of children the poor can have - which, to my mind, is eugenicism.

I can see the logic of paying SOME of the income for people on benefits (Which I don't class Tax Credits as, BTW, after all it is a BUSINESS SUBSIDY to let employers pay less than a living wage to their employees) in vouchers, to ensure that the money gets spent on what it should be spent on. But the main problem with that is that a system like that will not allow for any flexibility - for example, say, the DWP may give out shoe vouchers for a cheap shoe shop like Shoe Zone - where ALL their children's shoes are an 'E' fitting. I have dc that have 'H' fitting feet - and would be unable to get an 'E' fitting shoe ON THEIR FOOT. So I either have to buy their shoes from Clarks or independent shoe shops. And for one of my DC's - his feet are so wide he has to have his boots specially made, as the NHS should be providing them, but don't now - yet the orthotist tells me he still needs them. If I was to get shoe vouchers for a £15 pair of shoes - it wouldn't go very far towards buying a £120 pair of extra-wide Piedro's.

And there is no affordable system that would allow for that amount of variation between dc. What about DC who need to be on a Gluten-free diet? You CAN get some foods on prescription - but home-made GF bread is much nicer than shop-bought. And it is MUCH more expensive to feed a dc on a GF diet than it is most dc.

It would be the lack of flexibility in a system like that that would push SOME dc into poverty. Not all, and not all families who have 5+ dc, but surely in this day and age, even pushing ONE child into poverty is unacceptable - even if their parents ARE irresponsible?

There will always be 'scroungers' in ANY country with a Welfare state. The big question is, is whether it is OK to adversely affect the genuine claimants in order to stop the 'scroungers'?

There are some people in a similar situation to me that I look at and just go WHY? People who have 4 dc like me, but have never worked, have no intention of ever working, and laugh at people like me who TRY to go out to work.

I HAVE worked in the past, and I WILL work again - I fully intend to be back at work PT when my 9mo DS3 is 3yo and gets his vouchers to make the cost of nursery less. I may not be able MEDICALLY to work FT, but that doesn't mean I can never work again. I may have a 13yo DD who still needs supervision at all times, but I am hoping that is not forever, and in 3 years time, hopefully she will be at the stage of an NT 12yo who can be left at home for a few hours after work. Right now, finding SN childcare is not happening, but that doesn't mean I will never work or pay tax again.

I don't really have the full solution to this, maybe paying TC's to the employers and making them pay a LIVING wage would help, but that in itself would cause more problems as has been mentioned upthread. However, I am of the opinion that no dc should be left below the poverty line simply because of the actions of their PARENTS. It is not their fault, they did not ASK to be born, they had no choice in the matter, so why should they suffer? And why SHOULD those who have fallen on hard times be made to stand out and be stigmatised by only having vouchers to spend rather than money like everyone else? It's a very complex issue, and I can't see ANY solution that will work for every person affected.

threefeet Going from 2 to one wage is often worse than being on benefits.

If one is forced to take unpaid leave from a job then they will not recieve any extra money and still pay for prescriptions,Dental treatment etc.

Most people on maternity leave take an immediate cut in wages which gets worse as time goes by.

Currently if i claimed tax credits on my husbands income we would recieve a reasonable amount but as i have a job we cannot. Despite not being paid from it for around 5 months.

ll the above examples are of my family having an extra child with a reduced income and managing.

The proposed changes to tax credits are talking about income staying the same after the birth of a 5th child,not reducing.

Your assumption that anyone who agrees with this is ignorant,or not ever experiencing hardship,is insulting and ignorant. Most people who hsve strong opinions on the benefits system being exploited do so not through ignorance but wth first hand knowledge of hardship.

It is you in this case who appears to know very little about real hardship,with your assumptions and full scale defence of anyone who claims any benefits.

This is going well, then...
This idea is eugenicism, whether or not it's dressed up in a common sense frock. Most reactionary ideas are portrayed as 'common sense'. This time it's done by income but it could be race, culture whatever. There's usually someone available to be the target of pious disaproval. Single mothers are passe, go for claimants. Preferably 'fraudulent' disability claimants. Or foreign factory workers. Anything but the shower actually running the economy. They're too tough.

This has got to be a quick one as I'm about to go into a meeting.

Firstly, hands up, I hadn't read the thread properly. I'm relieved to hear we haven't got to that point (yet).

ledkr you likened going from 2 wages to 1 wage to people losing benefits at the breadline. What I found offensive was the idea that people already struggling to just get food on the table should change their "lifestyles" when they are already in extreme povety. I will reply to your PM later.

larrygrylls "I don't think anyone has suggested penalising the children" pushing families further into poverty will penalise children, how could it do anything else?

niceguy2 "We all have to live within our means and not expect the state to continually pay for something we decided to do. Yes accidents can happen but that's not the state/taxpayers fault is it? Why should they foot the bill?" because, for a startm, if we live in a society with more people living in poverty it will affect us all. And will likely cost us allo more in the long term, with all the problems which come with poverty (e.g. NHS bill due to bad health)

Alouise I can assure you I'm not trying to attack you!

Must go, I'm annoyed I've got drawn into this, I have too much to do!

ThreeFeet - your arguments are beyond tedious, beyond ignorant and beyond the pale. I'm fairly certain that the bullshit you came out with last night is a personal attack. I'm also certain that you're being deliberately obtuse about the whole discussion.

In fact im so pissed off with your accusations i am going to report your post.
You are on here banging on about peoples rights etc whilst making huge assumptions and sweeping statements about strangers.
HOW DARE YOU.

Three feet. Allow me to enlighten you.
I dont need to use my imagination my friend.
In my 44 years on the planet i have found myself in more than the average amounts of situation wjhen i required support.
A few examples which match the ones you have given are.
I escaped from dv with 2 ds's-had to be housed by the la and claim benefits.
I had breast cancer when i was 27 and had 3 dc's-was remarried by then-and lost my income cos couldnt work due to chemo and was only casually employed.
Most recently my baby was born with severe health needs and i have had to take extended UNPAID LEAVE to care for her.
Oh yes and not forgetting the fact that ds2 is currently needing dyalisis and the family members including myself are being tested to be live donors. I will be taking unpaid leave to care for him and possibly ds1 if he is a match.

I still think it is reasonable not to continue to have childen if you cannot support them yourself!!

Be very careful who you call ignorant in future.

Threefeet,

I don't think anyone has suggested penalising the children. The question is how to penalise the parents whilst still making sure the children are OK. I feel that losing control over the money for all the children would be at least something of a deterrent. Maybe give the total subsidy in food, children's clothing allowance etc tokens.

The problem is that there is no good solution. The reality of all welfare/relative tax rate debates is that it is a tradeoff between how much one supports the less fortunate versus how much those who work hard and do well get taxed. In addition, it is how one targets that support. The reality is that you have to preserve enough of an incentive for those who work and make good personal decisions versus those who get the support.

New Labour very successsfully perpetrated a myth that the Tories were the "nasty" party, based on the fact that they believed in smaller government and lower taxes. So we swung from a total tax take of the mid to low 30s to the low to mid 40s. At that point, those who do pay tax tend to revolt and say "enough". That is now happening. The debate gets tiresome when it is simplistically polarised as the right thinking all welfare recipients are scroungers versus the left feeling that everyone should be entitled to "state" support without any testing and regardless of the poor decisions that they make. The reality has to lie somewhere in between.

Threefeet, I don't see what is so offensive about Ledkr's statement.

In this country benefits are believe it or not incredibly generous. Try living in other countries where there are no child tax credits, no housing benefits and jobseekers is only paid for a defined period of time.

We all have to live within our means and not expect the state to continually pay for something we decided to do. Yes accidents can happen but that's not the state/taxpayers fault is it? Why should they foot the bill?

Back when I had my first child, my OH & I were so poor we had to live with my parents, we couldn't afford to run a car let alone our own place and we could barely afford to shop at Aldi (before it was trendy). Everything and I mean EVERYTHING was 2nd hand for my daughter. Cot, mattress, pram, car seat, clothes. So do I count as someone with no clue as to how to tighten my belt if I also think people need to live within their means?

threefeet

Read. The. Thread.

I'll repeat ( again).

Those with four or five children who lose jobs will be okay. Because those children are already in existance.

Those with four or five children who lose a partner will be okay. Because those children are already in existance.

Are you being deliberately obtuse talking of forced abortions?

I actually think that you can't possibly have read any posts at all because you arguing things that will never happen.
What part of all children already here are protected, there will simply not be extra money for children as yet unconceived are you not understanding?

ledkr, that's not quite the point.

"What i wouldn't do during this period of hardship is have another baby"

I agree. Deciding to have a baby after loosing your job and in a position of serious hardship is not the best idea.

But come on, use your imagination a little! Can't you think of ways that people end up on benefits with 4 kids, other than having more kids while already on benefits.

Off the top of my head, what about:

people who had 4 kids while in well paid, apparently secure jobs and then:

 - lost the jobs through redundancy
 - lost an income because one of the couple dies, forcing the other to quit their job as can no longer afford childcare
 - had to quit their job because of becoming a carer for elderly and unwell family members. or disabled children, for example.

How can you justify adding further hardships to people in these positions?

Or how about those on benefits who got pregnant by accident. No form of contraception is 100% effective after all. Or how about my friend who got pregnant 5 years after being told she was 100% definitely, sterile (after cancer treatment)? Surely you are not so inhumane to suggest that they should be forced to have abortions? (Or sterilisation even?!) Why should they and their suffer in this position?

And what if the parents have created children while living in poverty? Who does it help exactly to push those children further into poverty? As it's the children who will suffer most here. And society as a whole if we push more people onto poverty, can't you see that?!

hunty Thanks for the hypothesis.
If my dh and i both were made redundant or lost our incomes in any other way i would use any benefits we were entitled to as wisely as possible.
If we only had entitlement to 4 allowances for the dc then i actually would have to manage in the same way as we have now gone from 2 full time wages to only one.By tightening our belts and downsizing our life styles.

What i wouldnt do during this period of hardship is have another baby

I believe that is the point.

I'm not trying to score English lit points though, I was trying to make a serious point.

For some reason I feel compelled to try to make tories think about what they're saying! But I'm not sure it ever gets us anywhere.

Alouise

HarryHill I did it for English lit too.

I have - it says so at the bottom of the paper.

I have, I did my diss on 18th C Lit.

It's satire. Surely someone's heard of Jonathan Swift?!

I was being genuine though when I said I thought it was relevant to today.
I keep being reminded of it when I come across people like fanny.

Seconded.