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:
cazboldy · 18/11/2011 20:07

as do the 1st, 2nd,3rd, 4th and 5th.......

why draw the line at 5?

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

caz where did you get that from? Confused

OP posts:
lockets · 18/11/2011 20:06

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Original poster
SardineQueen · 18/11/2011 20:06

Is it because disabled children are somehow rendered "worthy" by dint of having a disability, while non-disabled children deserve to go hungry as they are immoral/unworthy in some way?

You understand that benefit levels are currently set at the minimum level required for a basic standard of living? And thus cutting them will obviously take people below a basic standard of living?

OP posts:
MindtheGappp · 18/11/2011 20:05

The taxpayer shouldn't be funding hobbies. A safety net means basic food, clothing and shelter. If they want hobbies, they can get a job.

And shoes can actually be handed down. My second son and third girl have always had hand-me-down shoes. I am not fooled by the Clarks propaganda.

cazboldy · 18/11/2011 20:05

yes lockets, but we are talking small amounts..... a couple of extra potatoes, another handful of pasta, 2 more rounds of bread.....

lockets · 18/11/2011 20:05

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

cazboldy · 18/11/2011 20:04

so what you are actually saying sardine is that no one should have 5 dc?

Original poster
SardineQueen · 18/11/2011 20:04

Mindthegapp you are asking strange questions that obviously I won't know the answers to. Meanwhile not answering mine

Like

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

OP posts:
lockets · 18/11/2011 20:03

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

MindtheGappp · 18/11/2011 20:02

Tell us how much that adds up to, Sardine and how much you think the government hand out should be.

Original poster
SardineQueen · 18/11/2011 20:01

FOOD mindthegapp you have to feed them.

OP posts:
Original poster
SardineQueen · 18/11/2011 20:00

You know children don't stay babies their whole lives, yes?

That they consume a fair bit of food? That they need to if they are going to grow properly?

Or do you think that people on benefits should be subsisting on thin gruel for breakfast, lunch and tea?

OP posts:
MindtheGappp · 18/11/2011 20:00

Seriously, Lockets?

Unless you have four girls followed by one son, then surely you will be using hand-me-down clothes and toys? If you do, the your fourth girl will benefit from all the hand-me-downs.

My fifth child is nine, and she has probably had a sum total of £200 spent on new clothes for her - everything she has is used. At some point she will get new things but she will not be the fifth dependent child - the elder three will be off my hands.

lockets · 18/11/2011 19:59

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Original poster
SardineQueen · 18/11/2011 19:59

Bread, milk, cheese, eggs.

More. Needed.

Obviously. Otherwise why do 3, 4 or 5 people get more than one person? Surely all any family needs, whatever the size, is the amount of money for one person.

OP posts:
Original poster
SardineQueen · 18/11/2011 19:58

So you think that when people are already living on the breadline, if you add another person in, they will all still get the same amount to eat?

Riiight.

OP posts:
MindtheGappp · 18/11/2011 19:55

You have no clue about the finances of a large family, obviously, sardine.

Really, a fifth child costs almost nothing. If the fourth child has a full belly then so will the fifth.

There's always the option of getting a job. If someone is really struggling to put food on the table, I will happily offer them a cleaning job.

Original poster
SardineQueen · 18/11/2011 19:53

Or do you mean you think the taxpayer should pay for eg special shoes, glasses, wheelchair, but you would not want to see the taxpayer paying for food or standard clothing?

That doesn't make sense to me.

OP posts:
lockets · 18/11/2011 19:53

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

MindtheGappp · 18/11/2011 19:52

Caz, it doesn't affect higher rate tax payers at all. There is no need to bring them into the picture and make poorer families seem even worse off.

Original poster
SardineQueen · 18/11/2011 19:52

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

OP posts:
Original poster
SardineQueen · 18/11/2011 19:52

It's a trivial expense for the taxpayer.

It's not trivial for individual families.

Surely that is not hard to understand?

OP posts:
Original poster
SardineQueen · 18/11/2011 19:50

I also wonder, given that very few families are in this situation, and the saving to the benefits bill is very small, why do people want to see this?

Is it simply to make people (children) struggle to punish them for leading a lifestyle some view as immoral?

What of the fact that many of these families are not immoral at all, and are simply unfortunate?

OP posts:
MindtheGappp · 18/11/2011 19:50

Why do I ask? Because you are asking the taxpayer to pay over the odds for what is actually a trivial expense.

If there are disabilities to deal with, this should come out of a disability fund rather than a social fund.

Swipe left for the next trending thread