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 19:49

I have five children
I certainly don't have a years salary saved up (well of my dh's as I am a sahm)

we must only be talking about a very few families here

doesn't ctc stop after you earn £40 000 ?

My husband earns considerably less than this amount, almost half, but although I receive ctc if I were to lose the amount paid for my fifth child it wouldn't bother me hugely.

It would however be punishing the poor far more than the rich, and are we only saying that the rich can have a large family?

I do kind of agree with an earlier poster who said that benefit should be capped to the number of children you have when you first claim it, but then you could extend that to saying that you shouldn't have a child if you don't have room, or a big enough car......

Original poster
SardineQueen · 18/11/2011 19:46

I would imagine that the benefits people have worked out the minimum cost and this is what is provided at the moment. As the benefits are set at the minimum level for a reasonable standard of living (roof, clothing etc)

OP posts:
Original poster
SardineQueen · 18/11/2011 19:46

I have no idea mindthegapp. Why do you ask?

It probably depends on a lot of different factors. eg if they have allergies or a disability, it will be more expensive than if they don't. If you have to buy a bed and pushchair as the old one has conked out, that's going to be more expensive than if you have spares.

etc etc

OP posts:
MindtheGappp · 18/11/2011 19:38

Sardine, how much does it cost to bring up a fifth child?

lockets · 18/11/2011 19:38

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

MotherPanda · 18/11/2011 19:38

God - its going to take us 5-10 years to save up a years salary.

I should just give up a DD now, or maybe i should raise her and breed
me/her to bring in some cash?

Original poster
SardineQueen · 18/11/2011 19:37

But you support the proposal, mumblechum?

Which would put children into real, actual poverty.

Incidentally - do people want all benefits for children after the 4th stopped? Or just the child tax / working tax / child benefit?

OP posts:
lockets · 18/11/2011 19:36

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

mumblechum1 · 18/11/2011 19:36

Lockets, yes, tbh I think before you have any children you should make sure that you're financially stable. Not necessarily with a year's expenses in the bank, but some degree of a cushion.

I'm not suggesting, btw, that anyone should have their children taken away, of course not. Just that before taking the decision to bring a child or children into the world, that you are sure that they're not going to suffer real poverty. Not talking about hand me downs or not going to every after school activity under the sun, but real, crippling poverty.

Original poster
SardineQueen · 18/11/2011 19:36

We haven't really moved much past the victorian POV, it would seem.

OP posts:
Original poster
SardineQueen · 18/11/2011 19:35

Many on this thread think so, lockets.

I am always amazed at the amount of people who would cheerfully punish children because they think their parents are immoral.

OP posts:
Original poster
SardineQueen · 18/11/2011 19:34

And in all honesty, how many people in the UK with a mortgage etc have a years salary saved up?

Many people (and a number growing all the time) are living hand to mouth at the moment as it is.

Also top marks for whoever used the word "breeding" upthread. Always a highpoint when that one comes out Grin

OP posts:
lockets · 18/11/2011 19:34

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Original poster
SardineQueen · 18/11/2011 19:32

So you keep afloat for a year, there is a recession and you can't get another job, and so someone comes and takes some of your children. That seems fair enough, yes.

OP posts:
lockets · 18/11/2011 19:26

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

lockets · 18/11/2011 19:25

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

mumblechum1 · 18/11/2011 19:22

I agree with Niceguy as well.

As for losing your job after you've had kids, surely anyone with half a brain makes sure they have enough savings to keep them afloat for a year or so before they go over, say two children?

RandomMess · 18/11/2011 19:19

Young children are cheap (with the exception of childcare) they were hand me downs, washable nappies, don't eat much, you have the equipment it's as they are later primary areas it gets tougher.

If I had still had 4 children needing childcare I think I worked out that a nanny was suddenly a viable option as being the cheapest!

MotherPanda · 18/11/2011 19:18

But nobodies sole income is made up of tax credits, is it? So i woudn't mind having vouchers sent to me, as long as I also had some cash income.

woollyideas · 18/11/2011 19:15

Would you like your salary paid in vouchers, scarlett, because some wage earners spend their money on alcohol and consumer goods while their kids go without? Sorry, but the vouchers suggestion has seriously pissed me off, as you can see!
:)

MindtheGappp · 18/11/2011 19:15

What is the marginal cost of a fifth child?

Original poster
SardineQueen · 18/11/2011 19:14

I know loads of people with more than 4 children and none of them are on benefits Hmm

They are all very religious.

But I guess if any of them lost their jobs then somehow they would immediately change from being a devout and upstanding member of the community, to someone who shouldn't have had that many children, prioritises alcohol and drugs over their children and is probably a teenager. Riiiight.

OP posts:
woollyideas · 18/11/2011 19:13

The 'reality' is that the majority of claimants are NOT addicts. Most are perfectly normal people who can manage their own lives and money. Why do you assume 'many' cannot manage their money? What evidence do you have for this?

Original poster
SardineQueen · 18/11/2011 19:12

Been out all afternoon.

I see that the proposal according to MN is somewhat more severe than the MP has proposed.

So you have 5 kids, you lose your job. The state says sorry you shouldn't have had 5 kids we will only pay you enough to feed/support 4. Then the state says - look your children are living in poverty we will take some away. And that is the right answer even though taking them away is a. 10x more expensive and b. tends to produce people with very poor life outcomes.

Do any of you need a job? I think Dave would appreciate some of your talent on his policy team.

Smile
OP posts:
RandomMess · 18/11/2011 19:10

I have 4 children and I really do think that there should be a decreasing amount for additional children from 3/4 onwards for tax credits and income support. There are economies of savings such as heating and lighting, you don't need more bedrooms they just share.

I think the level of income support for a single parent with one child is just too little whereas if you have 3 or 4 or more children it's really possible to have an okay standard of living.

Doesn't matter what you do there will be parents who do not prioritise their children over alcohol/drugs/themselves Sad

Swipe left for the next trending thread