Cap child tax credit after four children, says MP

hunty- surely you get a school uniform grant??? in the county I live in those on low incomes certainly do???

and fanny- I think if you read my post I make it clear that i fully understand that people from every background can abuse or neglect their children?? i think you are misunderstanding the legal definition of neglect vs abuse?? neglect is when a childs physical needs are not being met, mostly due to poverty? Abuse is where the child is being physically or psychologically harmed?? Go and read up on it, before YOU make sweeping generalisations and deliberately misinterpret what I have actually written

Actually I will edit that post re being no divide. Of course there is, there is more neglect in poor areas. It comes down to a lack of education, money, alcoholism, drugs. Benefits don't come into it.

I may not have ever had to live on benefits and i hope to never have to, however I have been broke, with less than £90 a week to live on after paying childcare and the mortgage, to pay for food and petrol and for a baby and any unexpected bills and I admit it was very hard, but at the end of the day, I did it. And this was when I was working full time.

so therefore it should be feasible for someone who isn't working and has no petrol costs to be able to live on a similar amount of jsa/ child benefit. No??

i think thats two children too many

That post wasn't to you hunty

Because by coming on MN and spouting sheer venom at anyone daring to claim tac credits/benefits and have more than 4 kids - you are making a sweeping generalisation that includes some good, upstanding, hard working people. My motto is to never judge. It makes you look a twat.

Yes, but why do people want to penalise those who aren't like that? Are they 'acceptable collateral damage'? Are their CHILDREN 'acceptable collateral damage'?

Scarlettsmummy - I have added up how much it costs for a full set of clothes and shoes and trainers and school uniform and coats and underwear and socks and school bags for each dc. It comes to more in the year than I get in Child benefit. If it wasn't for Ex-P stepping up financially with DS2 and DS3, and paying for half of the cost of their school uniform, coats and school shoes, I would have the choice, after paying my utility bills, of either buying school shoes for my dc or feeding them.

Add up how much it costs YOU for a full set of children's clothes. Say, for a 13yo who needs adult sizes due to being 5ft3. Or a 9yo who is in teenagers clothes due to being 4ft9 tall, and a size 4.5 shoe. And then tell me you could pay that out of, well, for 4 dc I get £242 Child benefit every 4 weeks - but that is split 4 ways - £60.50 each per month. Include EVERYTHING. Plimsolls for PE, trainers for outdoor PE, trainers for home as PE trainers have to stay at school. Coat. Pants. Socks. Vests. Pyjamas. Dressing gown. School uniform - no grants here. School shoes. PE kit. Clothes for at home.

Even shopping in Tescos and Asda - it DOESN'T GO VERY FAR.

The only things I prioritise are my utility bills, their clothing and my dc's travel to school.

Hahahahahahahahaha at ringing SS to see how many poor v rich neglect or abuse their children. I don't need to, I have two SW in my family and they'd tell YOU that there's no divide. In fact, my Uncle was called to a well known footballer on a case of DV (again, affects the children). Of course the "poor" neglect their children but it's NOT because they are on benefits it's because they are shit parents. Benefits don't make a bad parent, people are or they aren't. Likewise if they are rich. Not all wealthy people are good parents. EVERY street in every City, rich or poor, a child will be treated poorly. I'll say it again... Put down the Daily Mail.

hunty- please tell me where I have said ALL poor people???

If what I am saying wasn't the case, and the opinion of many, why does the term 'dependancy culture' even exist??? the reality is, there will always be some people who choose government hand outs as a lifestyle choice, hence why these cuts to tax credits are being proposed.

So, based on the experiences of your foster son, you are extrapolating out that all poor people spend their benefits on stuff for themselves and leave their dc to starve.

Words ACTUALLY fail me.

I give up. I actually do. MN is TOO depressing right now. If you are poor, you are the scum of the earth, you should not breed, and when you do, we fully expect you to neglect your children, so we ought to take them all away and forcibly sterilise the whole lot of you proles.

hunty- I have never once said all poor people neglect their children. i am saying that they should be able to feed and clothe their children on the benefits they are given, and if they can't, it isn't they aren't getting enough benefits, they just are not putting their children first for whatever reason, in deciding how they should spend those benefits.

lets face it- rent paid, council tax paid, and then however much you get in cash benefits, if this isn't enough what should be done??

fannybanjo- I suggest you phone social services and ask them how many cases of well off parents not feeding their children they are currently dealing with.

Of course, people from all backgrounds can neglect or physically or sexually abuse their children, and of course they should also be removed, but generally speaking it it the poor and uneducated who tend to neglect their children (and most of the time it is unintentional) by not meeting their basic needs of food and clothing. The well off tend to abuse in other, more intentional and deliberate ways. I know my foster sons family did not think they were neglecting him- but they were by choosing to spend the money they were given on their own needs- not his. They weren't physically or mentally abusing him.

Threefeethighandrising - I spend half my time on MN composing sweary, ranty posts then translating them into a more readable, less Anglo-Saxon form of English...

And also, scarlettsmummy - Do you think that ALL poor people neglect their DC? Because that is an enormous sweeping generalisation. Just like me saying that anyone who earns £40K pa is very rich, and should not moan about losing their child benefit, because how can they possibly need child benefit...THAT would ALSO be a sweeping generalisation. Someone living in Central London, trying to rent a family house, with a SAHP and one earner on £40K, might find it VERY tight without their Child benefit. Does that mean they are spending all THEIR money on fags drink and drugs?

Assume makes an ass out of u and me...

Interesting approach fannybanjo!

Perhaps you're right, I should try to laugh at the kind of tripe that right wing idiots come out with here rather than embarking on the thankless task of trying to explain to them quite how naive, ill informed and heartless they are.

Can't help it though, they make me mad! I keep writing sweary rants then deleting before posting them!

scarlettsmummy what makes you think only the poor neglect their children or spend their money on fags and booze? Is there a Mumsnet Book on that I'm unaware of or did you read it in The Mail?

Yes I think I was being kind threefeet. I actually would call it being blinkered by their own self importance. Kind of Hyacinth Bucket pretending to be Margaret Thatcher. But hey, this thread given me and DH the best laughs in a longgg time. Nowt better than armchair politicians on MN. It's like the Daily Mail but without a like button.

no- i am not saying that, I am saying that if parents are unable to support themselves or cope on the benefits that they are currently being given, they certainly should not be having more children. (i am not talking about people who fall on hard times and need a bit of help to get back on their feet)

With regards to removing children- I think any child who is living in EXTREME poverty because their parents are unable to manage financially despite having their rent paid/ council tax paid/ tax credits/ income support/ child benefit and whatever else they get, and the child is still going hungry and they are not sufficiently clothed- THEN the child should be removed. The benefits system in the UK is notoriously generous, and parents just need to put strategies in place to manage what they are given- the whole point of benefits is to help people until they can support themselves and is not there to provide for the same level of lifestyle as those who work full time. My foster sons family always seem to find money for drink/ fags/ and fancy mobile phones, so they should be able to find money for food if they really want to- but the drink and fags always come first. That is the reality. If parents don't use their benefit hand out to support their children, they are neglecting them and the child should be taken into foster care. END OF. The childs needs must come first, but the solution is not to just fling more and more money at parents who will always put something else first regardless of how much you give them.

I work for a housing association and the housing team are absolutely dreading the new direct payment system to tenants coming in to place, as they know many tenants who are quite happy to never work and are completely dependant on the state to support them will most likely not pay their rent as they won't see it as a priority and they know the council will just have to re house them if evicted.

borderline, fannybanjo?

scarlettsmummy2. Right, so you're saying let's invent a system which condemns certain children to poverty, and then forcibly take them away from their parents because of the poverty.

And that helps society how exactly?

And where in the O'Wise Mumsnetter Book of Benefits has anyone actually given a valid answer to the "benefit problem"?

Well done hunty

This thread is un-fucking-believable. Some posters on here are borderline fascists.

Good post Huntycat.