Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To think capping child tax credits at two children will plunge more families into poverty

449 replies

SoonToBeSix · 15/12/2013 15:08

Can't link but article is in the Daily Fail. A Tory mp has proposed capping child benefit and child tax credits at two children in order to win votes.
What happens to those children whose parents circumstances change ie redundancy or there is a contraception failure?
This government is taking welfare cuts too far while continuing to let the very rich avoid paying the correct taxes.

OP posts:
TheBigJessie · 15/12/2013 19:33

Yes, it is ridiculous baubles. The first thread I saw, I couldn't believe it. I'd entitled the "men have needs" attitude among friends and flatmates in my teens/early twenties, but I didn't expect to see it on Mumsnet, as it's predominated by responsible parents who understand the gravity of having a baby you don't want because your bloke can't stand condoms/et cetera. But it extends even here, and it's not been just one thread.

DoYouLikeMyBaubles · 15/12/2013 19:34

Multiple births shouldn't be affected

People who are forced out of work via redundancy, illness ect should get a different sort of benefit entirely to suit their circumstance.

In the perfect world...

DoYouLikeMyBaubles · 15/12/2013 19:35

thebigjessie I'm gobsmacked, I really am.

FortyDoorsToNowhere · 15/12/2013 19:37

I think it would be a very sexist policy.

When a relationship fails, it's often the mother who cares for the child as she is the RP. It will mean she will OT have 2 children yet the father could start a new realtionship and have more and more children.

TheBigJessie · 15/12/2013 19:47

Given that foster carers don't get a bedroom tax exemption between placements, and that TAMBA (twins and multiple births association) was never successful in its campaign for first-born twins to both get first-child rate (as you can't exactly use twin 1's clothes as hand-downs for twin 2! Xmas Grin), I don't see any future government policies having the adoption, fostering, or multiple birth exemptions that we all agree on.

'Cos that would be sensible.

Sadoldbag · 15/12/2013 20:03

Merry mouse

2 quick points"children's homes" are hardly about these days majority of children are in foster carer

My seconded point is if people are so hard up that you would call ss to put your children in care over £17 a week than you Cannot afford to have a child

farrowandbawlbauls · 15/12/2013 20:05

It's not just £17 a week, that's just the child benefit. Add in the child tax credits and it's a sum that can be painful to loose in low income households.

Sadoldbag · 15/12/2013 20:06

Also merrymosue can I say the majority of children who are in care are not there because of poverty

Mental health
Neglect
Sexual abuse
Physical abuse
Drug addiction
Drink
Forced marriage issues
YES

But I never met a child who is in care simply because there parent is poor NEVER in my 8 years of working with children in care

Sadoldbag · 15/12/2013 20:09

Farrow

We'll of people choose to have more than two it can't be that painful

Personally if something hurts my family I don't do it If I do it means I can bare the pain we don't live in primrose hill because we can afford it of I told you I am taking out a mortgage regardless knowing that I would be in debut before London and that my children will be homeless I would be mad to do it wouldn't I and I would expect people to tell me so

annieorangutan · 15/12/2013 20:14

Its not 17 pounds a week sadoldbag as it also includes tax credits.

Sadoldbag · 15/12/2013 20:17

Well than Annie people should defiantly think on then

annieorangutan · 15/12/2013 20:19

They wont though a because this wont happen and b because it will cause more expenditure than it saves. This gets brought up from time to time but again its only a proposal.

IneedAsockamnesty · 15/12/2013 20:27

I just had to check the date on this thread to see if you had all gone quite strange and hoping you hadn't, but nope to my alarm you have.

Have you all failed to notice that we already have a benefit cap its just done on £ rather than amount of children.

So all those of you yelling about the next door neighbour with 100 children who not only has never worked but neither did any ancestor nor there dog. They are already capped to £500 a week.

So this issue has already been dealt with.

But feel free to continue ignoring actual facts and making up a load of bollocks about people you know

merrymouse · 15/12/2013 20:27

Children in care cost the state money whether in a children's home or a foster home.

Mental health is impacted by poverty.

most importantly, for most of the past 8 years there hasn't been a benefits cap.

What do you expect additional children to do - disappear?

Sadoldbag · 15/12/2013 20:34

Yes is impacted but not the sole cause

Like I said I never meet a child who was removed from a parents because there parent was poor as the sole reason usually

There parents are poor and neglectful or poor and abusive

You can be poor and a good parent

But the answer to help someone out of poverty is not to encourage them to have more children or to give more benefits

1sassylassy · 15/12/2013 20:39

This idea has been rejected by David Cameron www.telegraph.co.uk/news/10518862/Two-child-benefit-cap-rejected-by-David-Cameron.html

merrymouse · 15/12/2013 20:39

you can be poor and a good parent

And how poor is poor? Not having enough money to feed, clothe and house your children does tend to impact on your parenting.

Again, the benefit cap and benefit caps are quite recent. 8 years ago we had a different government.

merrymouse · 15/12/2013 20:40

Benefit cap and benefit cuts

Trigglesx · 15/12/2013 21:18

This policy will unfairly penalise women - mainly single mothers. And it's not like they'll have easy access to child support enforcement as it's now going to cost them to try and go after it when it's not paid.

It will also make it more difficult for women in abusive situations as they will feel even more financially reliant on the male partner. And kindly don't say "well that's incentive for them to leave then" as it's just not that simple.

mumandboys123 · 15/12/2013 21:41

Sigh. It is so disturbing how many people just don't get that sometimes, with the best will in the world, life falls apart in a spectacular way and that as a society, we benefit from having a welfare state in terms of lower crime rates and a society where our children's lives aren't shortened 'cos of dirty water or for the lack of immunisation or even basic nutrition.

I have three children. I didn't plan it that way. I have no idea where the third one came from but there you go, he's here and I do my best by him. My children's father walked out on us and 5 years later, the CSA and the court system haven't been able to get him to pay any maintenance. I work full time - as a teacher - and I am in receipt of tax credits which help pay childcare. I have played about with the figures a bit this afternoon and I am pretty sure that I would struggle to continue working if I received no financial support from the state for the third child. I simply couldn't afford him. I have no time to take on a second job, I work about 60 hours a week as it is. I could afford my children, absolutely, when they were conceived. My ex and I ran a successful business and our eldest child was in private school with the other two set to follow. So a full-time single mum (not by choice) in a professional position under this new proposal would mean that I would be forced to consider what happens to my children....the youngest to go into care? all three children to be cared for by their father full-time because he earns more than me (and that would mean they would never see me again because their father sees me as unnecessary in their lives, as it stands he simply 'allows' me to look after them but he genuinely believes he could take them from me if he wanted to) despite the fact that I was a stay at home mum for many years (because we could afford it) and the children had been brought up by me? the children to be split between parents and brought up apart, rather than as a family unit?

The Government has legislation aimed at making NRPs support their children. Unfortunately, when an NRP is self-employed, there are many legal loop holes that can be jumped through which reduce maintenance payments to nothing or very little. I have bombarded my MP with details of my situation - and would suggest any other PWC in my situation do the same - but the fact of the matter is, there will be no change because the self employed need some kind of incentive to try and build business, create jobs, pay taxes....and this is inconsistent with their need to pay for their children.

So for me, it would be very much a tax on me, as a working mother who after marrying someone she had lived with, after travelling and getting a good education, after developing a career and having a secure home to bring babies home to, was left to clear up the mess my ex left me with. I did nothing 'wrong' and all my ducks were very securely lined up in a row. But I still ended up reliant on state handouts. It would also be a tax on my elderly mother who, rather than spend her hard earned money in old age, has done everything she can to make sure her grandchildren don't go without and have a secure roof over their heads. My ex, of course, free to have additional children and support his (various) partner's children.

You can't get insurance against a spouse deciding they want out and becomming a total twat in the process. Savings would only have helped if they were in my name only, not in a joint bank account my ex cleared out. The house would have still been repossessed because it was in joint names on a joint mortgage that I wasn't in a position to be able to pay myself. The court system could, perhaps, have helped avoid this had it worked a little more quickly. But I only got into court 'cos my mum paid for it as I didn't qualify for legal aid (and the rules on that have changed so much now that very, very few people will qualify for it).

When you are shouting 'stop being irresponsible by having children you can't afford', I hope you remember that not everyone who is struggling today was always in that situation. And that people who are struggling are usually doing as much, if not more, than can be reasonably expected of them to improve their lot. And those of you who think that 'parents' should be responsible for their children, some of us are only one person who have to do the job of two...and the Government is very, very much happy to leave that as it is.

BackOnlyBriefly · 15/12/2013 21:43

For the benefit of the few who hadn't noticed.

This plan was intended to take money from working people not just the unemployed.

And from sensible people who planned ahead and then lost their jobs or moved down to less well paid jobs

And from people whose 2nd child turned out to be twins

And from people with adopted children

The bit about not counting children already born was a one off. It didn't say that if you were rolling in money and had 5 kids that you would be immune if you lost your job.

It would even apply if you voted Tory.

Hope that helps.

SoonToBeSix · 15/12/2013 22:19

Excellent post mumsndboys

OP posts:
ShylaMcClaus · 16/12/2013 00:03

Fantastic posts, BackonlyBriefly and mumandboys.

mummymeister · 16/12/2013 00:20

so mumandboys the problem here is your ex P who after 5 years has paid you and your children absolutely nothing. the issue for me after reading your post is I still fall on the side of capping benefits but really think it cannot be beyond the agencies to find this man and make him pay. it is him we are subsidising and paying the benefit to in effect and not you (if that makes sense!) a lot of posters seem to be in this position. single parent with 3+ kids and an ex P who contributes either nothing or just a fraction of what they should. capping benefits would be effective if all other things were equal. if your ex P paid up then you wouldn't be so dependent on the third child benefit. so I guess this is the heart of the problem. great in theory if everything works elsewhere as it is supposed to but a crap idea in practice.

WooWooOwl · 16/12/2013 08:31

I agree mummymeister. The problem wouldn't be a benefit cap for first two children only, it would be the parent that thinks he doesn't have to pay.

I think the system we have only encourages that attitude in NRPs that don't want to pay up. They know they don't have to pay because other taxpayers will.

Putting a cap on benefits to two children does not mean that we have to leave children to starve. They can be provided for by their resident parent, through JSA, through the CSA, which needs to be given more power. I think parents that don't pay for their children should become in debt to the state until they do pay, and until they pay they should be credit blacklisted. So no driving licence, no finance, no credit cards, no mortgage, until they support their children and pay back the money that the state has paid until then.