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:
OriginalPoster · 18/11/2011 20:22

In our house it's four for the price of three. Have trained them all to despise consumerism, they are advert proof, love lentil soup, home made bread, and other cheap but healthy food. We don't do expensive holidays but live in a lovely area where they can explore the countryside and swim in lakes for the price of 15 mins petrol. We don't get any tax credits etc.

We are losing all CB anyway in April.

Original poster
SardineQueen · 18/11/2011 20:21

I'll try another question to try and understand.

Why do people want to live in a society where some of the most vulnerable people are allowed to suffer?

Why is it OK when the people suffering are children, and yet if anyone suggests cutting benefits for other vulnerable groups there is not such a response? I never see people saying "yes good idea - halve the state pension". Why is it OK to hurt children but not others? This ties back into the disability point - why is a disabled child deemed worthy of feeding & clothing but not one without disabilities?

And finally - the people who believe that "excess" children should be removed from their families as it was by definition neglectful to have them in the first place. This will cost much more money than them staying with their families and results in much poorer outcomes for the children. Why is this a good thing in your view?

OP posts:
pooka · 18/11/2011 20:21

Benefits were always intended as a safety net and nothing more.

Is really complex subject, but I can see why people are hacked off by people who are already reliant on safety net benefits and who continue to have children because they feel they are entitled to a large family.

The problem with introducing sanctions and policies to stop this happening is that you stray dangerously near to enforced sterilisation/termination and fundamentally to punishing the children rather than the parents.

And yet - why on earth do people keep having children that they cannot afford to raise without relying on benefits? I do think this is basically unfair and goes against the founding principles of the 'welfare state'.

I can see why this idea of using the number of children at the time of first claiming as the benchmark may be tempting. Logically it would enable people whose circumstances have changed through redundancy and economic decline to raise their existing children. However there will always be parents who continue to have children regardless of the financial circumstances, and stopping benefits would not punish the parents, but the children and that would not sit well with me.

Is a conundrum.

cazboldy · 18/11/2011 20:19

right sorry sardine - got completely wrong end of the stick!
I happen to agree with you......depriving these dc is not the answer.....

but then what is?

or do you think benefits are fine the way they are?

Original poster
SardineQueen · 18/11/2011 20:17

Oooh good post pinky

My blood pressure is starting to hamper my ability to be coherent Grin

OP posts:
fannybanjo · 18/11/2011 20:16

Even better idea, put the kids of parents on low income who have more than 5 into
a workhouse. That'd teach 'em. Bloody one thing I despise about MN is people who oppose to what "their" tax pays for. Become an MP is you feel so strongly about it.

Original poster
SardineQueen · 18/11/2011 20:16

And if you can't pay for them teens? What then?

OP posts:
pinkytheshrunkenhead · 18/11/2011 20:16

I am expecting number 5 and am a little bit 'religious' - we had lots of children because we like them and they make us happy and we make them happy.

I think the actual number of people having many many children to bleed the benefits system is actually very small and negligable in financial terms.

My feeling about these sort of proposals is that they are good old-fashioned 'unworthy poor' Tory rhetoric. It just serves to turn us against perceived scroungers/underclass so when they make terrible cuts (which will be much more profound than this) we are already softened up to the idea. It is a drip drip subtle approach to remarketing something unacceptable to us. This will no doubt really affect a few families and have na impact on children living on the breadline but I am sure by the time the spin doctors have done their job you will probably believe it is for the best.

[married to a spin doctor]

Cynical? moi?

lockets · 18/11/2011 20:15

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

teenswhodhavethem · 18/11/2011 20:14

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

MindtheGappp · 18/11/2011 20:14

Nope, Sardine. That is nothing but a smokescreen. Not worthy of repeating my point when you couldn't be bothered to acknowledge it first time round.

MindtheGappp · 18/11/2011 20:12

They can shag but they can't work? Maybe they could find a horizontal job, such as mattress tester or ceiling artist?

Original poster
SardineQueen · 18/11/2011 20:12

mindthegapp that is not an answer

Why are you happy to see a non-disabled child go hungry, but not a disabled one?

It is a pretty fundamental question I think, and goes to the heart of some of the abhorrant attitudes on this thread.

OP posts:
fannybanjo · 18/11/2011 20:11

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by Mumsnet.

VivaLeBeaver · 18/11/2011 20:11

I think it's a great idea.

Original poster
SardineQueen · 18/11/2011 20:10

If someone has 8 children and for whatever reason can't support them (disability, redundancy, whatever) I think the government should provide enough money to the family to feed and clothe those children, have a roof over their head and be able to take part in mainstream british society.

I do not think that all 8 should have to survive on enough money to provide a basic standard of living for 4.

OP posts:
MindtheGappp · 18/11/2011 20:10

I did answer about disability. I think it irrelevant to this thread. End of.

teenswhodhavethem · 18/11/2011 20:09

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

cazboldy · 18/11/2011 20:09

sorry sardine......not sure, off to read whole thread better Blush

MindtheGappp · 18/11/2011 20:09

Their parents should provide for them.

lockets · 18/11/2011 20:09

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Original poster
SardineQueen · 18/11/2011 20:09

And you still never answered my questions about disability.

caz I don't care how many children people have, I just don't believe that the government should draw a line after which they will not support those children if the parents for whatever reason are out of work.

The proposals linked in the OP have a tory MP saying that there should be no benefits for any children after the 4th.

OP posts:
lockets · 18/11/2011 20:09

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Original poster
SardineQueen · 18/11/2011 20:07

mindthegapp you think children should work in order to have the money for an occasional treat?

OP posts:
MindtheGappp · 18/11/2011 20:07

But she has no idea how much.

Swipe left for the next trending thread