Cap child tax credit after four children, says MP

also, by responsibility away from the parents by having a vasectomy, I mean the parents won't have to worry about remembering to use condoms/ take the pill etc, so it should be more effective.

so where shall we set the cap for taking children away from their families? £20,000 and under and you're off?

middle class - do have big families and unplanned children, but i wouldnt say they rely on tax credits, because most of their income comes from their high paid jobs.

How many working (the key i in the word working here) class people do you actually know who solely rely on tax credits? Or are you making assumptions based on what you read in the daily mail - because I for one can say that I only know the full financial details of my own family.

motherpanda- it is not about being rich- it is about living in poverty. If you are that broke, it isn't fair to keep having children, and it isn't fair to bring a child up like that.

I accept that saying that the middle classes don't repeatedly have contraceptive failures is a generalisation, but come on, in reality how many boden clad mothers, or even just full time working mothers, do you know that have five or more children and are relying on tax credits to support them all???

lets get real.

look at a permanent form of contraception. While a vasectomy may not be 100% effective at least it takes the responsibility away from the parents, and there is also sterilisation.

• you are not listening. Nothing you do can guarantee you won't get pregnant, other than to abstain. and how does the responsibility fall away from the parents? Will the doctor offer to raise the child?

I also think its very mean to think that children would be better off without their parents if they aren't rich.

This thread is RIDICULOUS! I honestly can't believe that people can think like this.

as far as I am aware, anyone with more than four children automatically gets free school meals, certainly the case in the school I went to, and also, if both parents are in such dire straights as discussed above, they will be getting free school meals.

Interesting lockets, I wonder why that's the case in your health board?. Vasectomies are free in most parts of the UK under the NHS - you can read more about it here

I know they are not 100%, which is why we also use an additional form of contraception.

I wonder how much is paid in tax credits for fifth children in workless households. Presumably you would have to be the 5th child of both adults in the house.

I've long argued that child benefit should be capped after a certain number. Personally I think it should be 2 but i know others will differ.

It's everyone's right to have as many kids as they like. But nowhere does it say that the government should pay for every extra child.

I'd also like to see benefits frozen for the number of kids you have when you enter the system. So if I have three kids and start claiming income support/JSA then I get whatever the going rate is for 3 kids. If I then decide to have another child, that's my choice. But the government will continue to pay the same amount of benefits (ie. a family with 3 kids).

Given that we don't have endless pots of money, i can't see how anyone would find the above unfair.

lockets- i was being sarcastic. i have to say, i don't have any middle class friends with more children than they can afford and certainly not five!!!! how can it be that they are all able to manage not to get repeatedly pregnant??

When the family allowance was first introduced, you got nothing for the first child. It began with the second and carried on for as many as you had.

As i said, if the children are living in such levels of poverty that their parents are reliant on a fifth lot of tax credit, the child should not be there. Perhaps if parents realised that there was not an infinite amount of money they would be a bit more careful and perhaps like morningside said, look at a permanent form of contraception. While a vasectomy may not be 100% effective at least it takes the responsibility away from the parents, and there is also sterilisation.

Also, they will still be entitled to child benefit/ free school meals etc.

It's a total waste of time because there are so few families 5 and over that it'll save bugger all.

Also, Vasectomys are still not 100% effective.

The mothers faults are not the sons - why should the children not be supported?

I know it happens to the middle classes - we had have a 4 year old contraception failure running about, which was swiftly followed by a vasectomy (which is free in this country). There is no way that we could have financially supported 5 children or more, so unless you are in a job which guarantees permanent employment or you have inherited a huge pot of money, then you should stick to your means - not expect the Govt to pay for your lifestyle choices.

I understand that the middle classes have contraceptive failures, they just don't seem to have them repeatedly!!!

My foster son is one of five. His mother repeatedly having children which she isn't allowed to keep is costing tax payers at least £250000 a year, and that is just to pay for them all to be in foster care, never mind the added costs of the fact that she has NEVER worked so is therefore living off benefits, and the cost of all the social workers time and energy attempting to sort out her dysfunction. And she is just one of many. Is it any wonder, when the country is virtually bankrupt, and most are struggling, that people are saying enough is enough??

Middle classes DO have contraceptive failures, upper classes do too. How awful of you to say otherwise. The only way you can 100% guarantee not to get pregnant is to abstain, and that is a scientific fact that is not dependant on class.

Perhaps it's just that the Daily Mail doesn't make a big song and dance about it unless you are on benefits.

I can see why the idea has been proposed but I can't see it being carried through for benefits in their current £/child format precisely because the accusations that it would increase child poverty. However, I can see that when the Universal Benefit is brought in in 2013 or whenever, there will be caps on the maximum benefit income available to a family, whatever the size.