To think if most people waited until they were earning enough to not be entitled for any government benefits before they had children there'd be hardly any kids in the UK?

[LaWeaselMys]

MIL had an argument with DP last night as she does not want us to have any more children until we are not eligible for any government help and are 'paying for them ourselves' To not AIBU by stealth - After a choppy period we are earning and from next tax year will be entitled to very little bar CB and a small amount of TC.

Tax credits is a bit more complicated to work out, but to not be eligible for Child Benefit you (or your partner if there's two of you) would need to be earning more than £44k pa. That's twice the national average wage!

AIBU to think that by the time most women and/or their partner earn more than 44k - if it ever happens, they would be infertile?

"I don't see anything wrong with claiming CB or TC. These things, I believe, are to offset the high tax we pay in this country. But I don't like the idea that people choose to have two or three more children while living on jobseekers - with rent and CT paid, heating allowance, free school meals, free milk, etc - knowing they will not even be looking for work. And I don't like that the system allows this, although I have no solution as it's the kids who would suffer if the government put caps on the amount paid and that's not fair."

TattyBo, just a couple of points:

We do NOT pay high taxes here compared to other countries in the EU.

The system does not "allow" anyone to claim jobseekers allowance and not actively look for work. At our jobcentre the staff would go through a list of any suitable vacancies and get you to fill out an application on the spot. You have to take in a detailed list of all the jobs you've applied for, which they can check. If you refuse to comply they will cut off your money.

Sorry - that should have read " Bigtatty"!

'Is it really such a bad idea to be able to afford children before you bring them into this world? People fall on bad times and the state should be there to help them, but to knowingly have a child when you will have to survive on benefit is just lazy and selfish.'

The OP and her partner are working and get CB and tax credits.

Hardly 'surviving on benefits'.

If you had read my posts expat, you would see that in that post, I wasn't referring to the OP's situation.

DD is 9 and when I had her there weren't any tax credits or working family tax credits, etc. Only child benefit, everything else is fairly new.

There seemed to be plenty of kids about 10+ years ago. Though saying that the birth rate has gone up in the last decade, I wonder if that is related to the increase in available tax credits?

I read your posts, curly, which imply that the working poor should't have children, either, because they can't afford it without tax credits and CB.

Or perhaps you just meant 'scroungers'.

I know I keep repeating myself but tc and wtc have been around in one form or another since the 1970s ...family income supplement was introduced in 1971...its not a new thing

Yes, I just meant the scroungers. The ones that knowingly set out to have children when they will have to rely on benefits. Maybe I should have phrased it better and said 'soley' on benefts.

Child Benefit and tax credits, are imo, very different to income support or JSA.

I don't have a problem with the working poor having children, but they should limit themselves to one.

Why is the idea of living withing your means such an awful one?

I get CB, obviously, but we could survive without it. My kids would just have to get less for Christmas and Birthdays and not do any activities. That's the difference. If child Benefit was the only way I was capable of feeding and clothing my children, then I would have thought twice about having them.

Children are a lifestyle choice, not a right that everyone is entiltled to because our government is too soft.

grin at allowing the working poor one child

Are twins included in your policy?

Sounds like China...

Currently, people do have a right to have children.

If you want to abolish that right, how would you go about enforcing it? Sterilisation? Forced adoption?

Personally, I wouldbe very wary about having a child if I had to rely of TC to feed andput a roof over my children's heads.

Not because of any moral viewpoint, but because it leaves you entirely vulnerable to the vagaries of economic and political policies.

Without a doubt, this government will be seeking to erode TCs until it is only available to the very few.

I'd stop bloody funding it, that's how!

Child benefit would only be payable for the first child, and there would be no moving people into bigger properties or providing free anything for the second child. All benefit would be provided as if there were only one child, and if people chose to have more than one, they would have to fund it out of whatever income they already had.

Shocking theory, I know.

Really shocking, most members of the begrudge it brigade cite two children as the reasonable number. First time I have heard one. I am truly shocked.

Two children cost alot, especially when it's other people's money. Personally, I think one is more than reasonable. Being an only child isn't that bad!

What would happen if someone had more than one child, and then had a drop in income, because their second child was disabled, or the parent lost their job, or one of the parents died, or one of the parents decided to leave and wouldn't pay anything towards the upkeep of the children?

It isnt shocking at all, if you live in China.

China, that place that has one of the worst histories of human rights abuses in the world. The place where baby girls are left to die on the street. The place where women are forcibly dragged to abortion clinics and to be sterilised.

I am sure you have heard of it, big place in Asia.

Second child ending up disabled - the child would still be a citizen in it's own right that would be entitled to disability benefits.

Parent lost their job, that's what JSA is for, and they wouldn't be part of the group of people who chooses to have children whilst living soley on benefits anyway.

One of the parents died, not sure yet, will think about that one.

One of the parents left - they would still be financially responsible. The CSA would start doing it's job and providing for childen, rather than just taking a spare bit of cash away from a few people.

Old people cost a lot when it's other peoples money. When you are in your nursing home I hope this generation do not begrudge you some of their taxes.In 30 years we will have two workers to every retired person. In light of this I think two kids is not unreasonable and even a single mum on benefits is not economically inactive.

Riven, that doesn't make sense. Those are part of the cost of having children.

Old peole have paid into the system. And if they haven't then they're not costing any more than they would if they stayed young and lazy. Except in healthcare obviously, but the NHS is something I passionately believe in and much better healthcare is something that in my world, would be vastly improved for everyone, regardless of income.

YANBU
and by the time I had DS I had been paying tax and NI for ten years straight so felt I was entitled to a little help.

I second the poster who pointed out that maternity pay is (unless you have an unusually generous employer) a government funded benefit. Not many of the "I pay my own way" mob have turned that down - I certainly didn't (I do know one woman with a very rich DH who resigned at 30 weeks).

The only thing that I agree with curlymama on is that universal CB seemed like a reasonable deal to allow for the fact that the tax system for the higher paid used to not give you any additional allowances for the costs of childrearing (unlike eg the French system). Now budgets are tighter all round we won't get it any more, and that seems fair enough too (though we're not in the London 45-55K family income bracket - I can see why some of them are a bit pissed off).