Cap child tax credit after four children, says MP

Oh - I forgot. I'm on benefits, so I must be spending the money on drugs, alcohol or fags. Not on the ingredients for a home-cooked, filling dinner for my dc. .

While, yes, it IS unusual for someone to be in my position, where most contraception doesn't work due to the interactions with my other medication, I can reassure all of you that my dc were ALL conceived while either me, my ex-P, or my ex-H were working FT (sometimes both of us in that relationship were working FT at the same time), we just have had a lot of problems with keeping employment - Ex-H because he was too busy shagging his bit on the side instead of going to work, while I was at College and running the house with a 4yo with asd and a 4mo baby, Ex-P because he was made redundant 3 times in as many years - once both Ex-P AND I were made redundant within a week of each other, and we got no redundancy pay because we hadn't been in the jobs for long enough - I was 1 week short.

Yeah, I picked crappy men - I'm working on that, and now I am much more well versed in how to spot the warning signs of an abusive man. But it has been a long hard slog, with the help of WA. And is another part of the reason I am remaining single.

While, in principle, I agree with this rule, if it is applied from X date 2012, I still am very concerned about the fact that there WILL be dc who will suffer because this rule will NOT be enough to stop people from having more than 4 dc. And that ISN'T the dc's fault, and they shouldn't be left below the poverty line just because their parents are irresponsible. Even if, instead of money, you gave vouchers, I would rather that than leaving a whole family to be below the poverty line. Right now, I get £6.20 in Healthy start vouchers. I ENJOY spending them - it enables me to give my dc a wider variety of fruit and veg than I could afford without them, and I don't need them for formula milk as I am BF'ing 9mo DS3.

And as for the posters saying that long-term contraceptive implants should be fitted to any WOMAN on benefits that has 4 dc at the point she goes onto benefits - That way Eugenics lies.

I know no-one on benefits that wouldn't give their dc breakfast before school - our breakfast club at our school is for wrap-around care for those parents that work. I should know - my DC were attending it. And the breakfast there was NOT as filling or balanced as the breakfast I serve at home. Coco pops? My DC are used to either porridge, or muesli with pouring yoghurt, along with toast, a piece of fruit and fresh orange juice.

But, I forgot - I have 4 dc and I'm on benefits, so I couldn't possibly be trying to feed my dc a healthy diet, worrying about their education, or making sure that they have ambitions. Surely I let my dc roam feral? Erm, no. In fact, it is the dc of WORKING parents that I see roaming feral, not the dc with a SAHP, funnily enough.

Now, I didn't think we were talking about what actually is happening, HarryHillatemygoldfish. I thought we were talking in hypotheticals...

I left the thread to help my DD with her homework and cook my dc's dinner. Sorry about that. .

Good job The Evil Tories are taking it from The Evil Rich, then isn't it rabbit?

I know - child benefit should go to people the State wants to encourage to have children, not to people who need the money.

I wouldn't be adverse to that idea, twinkly. Providing the money was used to provide free school lunches to all children and free hot breakfasts to those on benefits. That way every child has one good, hot meal every day and the very poorest get two.

So if we are against the state paying people to have children are we saying that child benefit should go for everyone ?

Well Lockets in the same post she acknoweldged the difficulties of that.
However it is truew that many many children are at the mercy of their biological parents who shouldn't be trusted with a hamster, yet alone a child and the powers that be stand back and allow it to happen and actually aid and abett.

Alouiise-brilliantly and succinctly put.
'an employer doesn't just pay you more because you have another child. Why should the state?'

She said if a parent could not support their child then they would be better off elsewhere.
What part of that are you not processing?

Look at it this way; an employer doesn't just pay you more because you have another child. Why should the state?

No she hasn't Lockets and you know it.

lockets - its you assuming they are 'filth' children not me. the club was aimed at children living in poverty, and i think having parents on benefits was part of requirement. i think all children start the same, its their upbringing that changes them. And before you start bleeting on, i don't think all parents on benefits are bad. But I do think having loads of extra children when you can't support them is wrong, in much the same way that I didn't have loads as i work and couldn't give any more enough attention.

It's clearly Nuts McNuts to talk about removing children!

But, if you know from the off that more than four then no more benefits, not cuts, not forced abortions or child removals but no extra cash ( yunno, a bit like it is for those who work ) then everyone knows where they are and can make choices accordingly.

lockets - think you need to think of the children and not the parents. people in a pre/post school club on tele last week said one of the reasons they did it was because a load of the children didn't get supplied breakfast at home before school. I cannot even begin to comprehend how someone could be such a bad parent as to not be able to afford a cheap loaf of bread to feed their children.

assuming you are on benefits, couldn't support them and had them since you were on benefits then i would remove the youngest as it would have most chance of settling into a new life. obviously in our society this wouldn't be allowed, but would in reality probably produce a much better outcome for the child

rabbit - sounds an excellent idea to me, although from a practical view it would never get approved. children being brought up by people who could support them both materially and mentally...who could argue with that?

There was a scheme in Canada where young girls were given a certain amount of social welfare if they remained childless and they lost it if they became pregnant. (I think it was Canada) Teenage unplanned pregnancies miraculously dropped.

This was copied and pasted from a thread the other day, the original poster was MollyDoggerson.