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

[SoonToBeSix]

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.

Fuck off it was rude.

YOU were rude asking her why she couldn't afford to eat when she had already stated the main reason. You were basically asking her to justify her spending - THAT is rude.

That has to be the fastest angry response ever! I find it really hard to believe with the income of 4dc's that people are that poor. I might be really naive but a hell of a lot of people manage with much less :/

cantheyseeme why do you think there are food banks right now in the UK in the 21st century. It's almost understandable to feel bewildered by that because it ought not to be possible.

And while the 2 child policy is only an idea at this point - it's possible this was put forward to gauge reaction - the government are saying they will need to cut welfare by billions more soon.

If they are talking about scrapping child tax credits as well as CB then it would be much more than £30. I get child tax credits with a disabled premium for my DS who is autistic and that is £143pw in tax credits just for him, plus £20 child benefit. He is an only child so in fact this policy wouldn't affect us, but if you had a third child who was disabled (and there is no mention of making disabled children exempt) then it could be a loss of thousands per year (would be over £8k for us).

The income of 4 DCs has expenditure of 4 DCs.

I find myself skipping meals, and as I have already said on this thread, we have all the money we receive to live on with no debts. Fact is, it doesn't go that far and some weeks DP and I have to live on tea, toast and cereal while the DCs eat proper meals.

Its not only rude to ask a poster why they can't afford to eat, its also extremely naïve to think that benefits for 4 DCs lifts anyone out of poverty.

Its not there to lift people out of poverty, its a resort to see people through bad times so i understand its not pleasurable, ive claimed benefits before and although its not much i do think its enough to live on. I feel REALLY stupid for asking this but what is the difference between today and 5 years ago that food banks are now so prominent?

Bedroom "tax" or wahtever you want to call it.
Fuel pricew have risen
Food prices have risen..

thats just for starters and part od the reason we have increasing use of food banks.

In the case where a person is disabled, or is the carer of a disabled child, is it right that they should live in poverty?

Its a short term safety net for people who can get a job, but for people who can't work, they are being left in poverty.

As for food banks, benefit rates haven't risen as fast as the cost of heat and electric, fuel, clothes, even rents in private houses are higher and people are having to top their rent up. Sanctions are also leaving people high and dry, for weeks, with no money for very minor infractions. And then there are those who are being told they are fit to work when their own GP is saying otherwise.

There aren't enough jobs to go round either, so "get a job" is not the answer, some people won't get a job because there is a huge difference between the number of vacancies and the number of people looking.

Just to remind everyone who thinks this is a benefit bashing thread - this policy will affect EVERYONE with 3 or more children wether you are working or not. However, as posted by a previous poster - the idea has been rejected by the PM for now but please don't think we've heard the last of this idea. This idea will come about again and again, just before they announce more cuts.

There are sickness/disability benefits that are meant for however long it takes you to get better. Which can be never.

There are tax credits which are to lift you out of poverty since we're created an economic system where employers don't pay enough for people to live on.

There are unemployment benefits intended as short term cover, but that only worked back in the days when if you really wanted a job you went and got one. When I started out there was always work if you were willing, but that's no longer true.

Most of the welfare budget isn't for unemployed people anyway.

There's a graph here which shows what goes where.

Most apparently is spent on pensions

cantheyseeme, I'll tell you why I can't afford to eat it shall I, not that I should have to justify my spending to you or anyone else for that matter.

It's freezing in my house, I live in a council house (yeah go on bash me for that as well) I live in a steel house which does not hold its heat, ds who is AUTISTIC feels the cold so heating is on a bit more in winter. I am on prepayment meters which any person should know is a lot more expensive in the winter. The extra 30 pounds or so a week that I would have put on the food shop is now going on gas and electric, yeah? So I go hungry. I put petrol in the car, ds cannot cope on public transport so I have to have a car which gets funded out of his DLA. Ds has violent meltdown and physically attack me and his sisters and numerous doors and walls, again I have to repair these out of my own pocket. And then theres christmas, none of the four have had much this year, then Ive had school concert tickets for the two little ones and I'm sure you are not suggesting I miss those are you?

I'd rather have your life thank you,are you jealous of me being stuck on benefits looking after my DISABLED child. You know what I had my own house once, good job, partners wage coming and I stood where you are right now looking down from a great height moaning about people on benefits, yadda yadda, now I am here and believe me it aint all rosy.

How dare you is all I can say

Yanbu. The cb is the only money I have. Dh and mil were sitting yesterday and bitching about this and saying what a good idea it was and would put an end to all the "scroungers"

I so wish I had the balls to tell them to fuck off and to point out to mil that her precious son gives me no money so without cb I would be fucked!!

I just have to vent cos I am getting crosser and crosser by this.

Life is a series of choices, some good some bad and some choices we don't really want to make. We also can't have everything we want.

I am very fortunate to be able to stay at home (work from home too) and look after my child.

We do not get child benefit

I believe that you should only get child benefit for your 1st child. This is because, even though you know it will cost, you don't understand the cost until you have had a child. So help at this point would be good.

Any further children that you choose to have or accidentally have should be your responsibility. You have the choice to use contraception, you have the choice to terminate and you have the choice to keep your legs shut.

You are entitled to have as many children as you want but you are responsible to take care for them, no one else.

I haven't thought through the multiple birth scenarios.

Subsequently we cannot afford to have another child and we haven't had one. That is our choice, we could of course move house to a cheaper/smaller one and various other options and IF we had fallen PG by accident we would have to have changed our circumstances to accommodate, if that was our choice to do so.

People need to take responsibility for their own lives.

I agree that it should be capped at two. There are some areas that need ironing out I.e. I wouldn't like it to be retrospective, and multiple births might require some leeway. But generally, I don't think people should be paid to have in excess of two children.

I wouldn't cap it at one, as meboo would like, but there is definitely an argument for capping at two.

The thing about disabled children is a valid point, but disability payments should be completely separate, and more in proportion to what the real costs of a persons disability are.

This is where the labour government went wrong. Or right, seeing as they knew what they were doing and git the result they wanted. They created all these extra benefits and called them all tax credits, but there should be a distinction between all the different types of tax credit. There is a big difference between someone claiming tax credits to pay for 70% of their first child's childcare costs so that they can work! and someone else claiming tax credits when they have never worked but then put in an extra claim for the fourth child they just had. There is also a difference between someone who doesn't work claiming tax credits to feed the child they conceived while they were on JSA, and claiming tax credits to top up their full time minimum wage job, or to pay for the costs associated with their child's disability.

And why the fuck did they call them tax credits when they can be awarded to people that have never paid tax?

We need to separate and differentiate payments made because of disability, childcare, and because someone has had children they can't provide for.

By lumping all these things in together, the labour government confused people and made people who have good reasons for claiming the same as people who are irresponsible.

meboo on the principle you are describing I think we should not have any benefits at all.

So tell me if we closed down the welfare system entirely and then through redundancy or accident you found yourself without food for your child what would you do?

Yes people need to take responsibility for their own lives, but when they don't the consequences of threat choices don't just miraculously vanish. They affect us all. Also, as any grown up should know, sometimes life can be unpredictable. We don't provide a safety net for 'them', we provide it for us.

Ladyglam i WOULD have said something. Your DH is a financially abusive scrounger.

Unless a parent has savings that will pay for them and their child until they are at least 18 then they have had children they may not be able to provide for.

PEOPLE who create children. As opposed to WOMEN who create children. See this is where it falls down. A majority of the time, it's the woman that will be penalised in all this.

I see this point, but then it's also the woman that gets to decide whether a baby is born or not. Men and women can make exactly the same mistake, but only one has the opportunity to deal with it in the way they choose. Which is great if you're a woman, not so great if you are a man who is forced into having a child you don't want and can't afford to pay for.

I agree that there should be much tougher measures in place to ensure that both men and women have to take financial responsibility, and that if they don't then they become in debt to the state so that at some point in their lives they are forced to pay, but I also think that men should be afforded the same rights as women when it comes to their finances. There should be some kind of system whereby fathers of unborn babies can legally relinquish their financial responsibility in the same way women can if they choose termination.

Of course men can choose not to have children - they can keep their pecker to themselves.

And women can keep their legs closed, so if it's that simple, then there's really no need for all the worry over whether women will disproportionately suffer if child related benefits are capped to two children.

Problem solved!

Please don't assume our lives are all that different....that is all i am going to say.

I am a bit thick, so will ask outright what this will mean.
Does this apply to children that have already been born? Or children born after said cap?

Thing is although it sounds good in theory, in reality this will only make the children suffer.
Circumstantial change and moralistic implications of abortion will not bode well under these new plans.

I'm sure no-one in this land purposely has children for the sake of £48 a week ? Why would they £48 is not enough alone to buy what a child needs, let alone make profit for these apparent scroungers.

Confused as to what they expect to achieve by this, apart from push children further down into poverty as their parents won't be able to afford the bare minimum to keep their children in food & clothes.