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.

WooWooOwl maybe you should read it again then since you seem to have it backwards.

In my example they really do get £100 which they can spend as they choose. The £20 is tax which they pay and that's just the same as you spending £100 and paying £20 is tax. You are both taxpayers.

zzzzzz. Again, i do have empathy. Not that it reaalllly matters in an online forum!

You have completely lost me then BackOnly.

The way I see it is that if I spend £100, then that is £100 that I have earned, paid tax on already, and then some of that is going to go to the government if I spend it on things that aren't vat exempt.

If someone on full benefits spends £100, then they are being given a free £100 that they haven't had to work for, it hasn't been taxed before they got it, and whether goes on VAT will just be the state getting back the money it gave so that it can give it to that person again a week later.

Not the same thing at all.

It is just plain odd to consider yourself a taxpayer if all you pay is VAT on things you choose to own or get the benefit from.

The point is some people on benefits save the taxpayer money anyway, carers are a prime example
A lot of carers save the economy more as an individual than some of you will ever pay in tax...I know that is a difficult pill for some people to swallow though

But that doesn't just apply to people on full benefits. The same could be said for anyone in receipt of working tax credit or child tax credit.

There is much money exchanging hands in this country that has neither been earnt or taxed, yet it still stimulates the economy, resulting in extra revenue for the govt somewhere along the lines.

I don't know a simpler way to put it unless you have one of those sticky felt board things.

You may wish to see VAT as only the state getting back its own money, but in that case all those going on about "but I know someone who gets £xx benefits" should be discounting the amount that actually goes back to the government.

You can't count it at both ends and since the government doesn't make items VAT free for claimants we'll have to go with 'claimants pay tax'. After all if they put it under the mattress that's money the government won't have.

How about money spent on rent for council houses. Does that not count either for the same reason?

The real point I know is that I am raining on your parade. the whole "I'm a hard working taxpayer" thing. How do you feel about people who are so badly paid they don't pay income tax?

Reducing a person to how much inheritance they may get, how many cars they own and whether they have a mortgage is a bit callous, no?

If you looked at my life without knowing me, you would think, by those measures, that I am a drain on the state.

I won't be over the course of my life.

I disagree owllady. Looking after your own child or family is what people do, caring for an unrelated person may save on care fees but as a parent its just what you do.

As a parent you choose to have a child, caring and financially providing for that child is what parents are expected to do and not because it saves the tax payer money

VAT paid out of benefits doesnt make a person a tax payer, its just giving the state some of their money back ready to be given back again on the next benefit payment.

I think those saying it wouldn't be fair to parents who gave up work to care for disabled children are perhaps getting the wrong end of the stick. I don't think many people begrudge supporting disabled children, or those parents who cannot work as they are carers or due to their own illness/disability. I don't think that was what this proposal was suggesting.

I don't think many people would suggest that those who cannot work due to disability/illness or because they are carers for a disabled child are scroungers. I haven't seen a post on this thread suggesting otherwise.

I wouldn't support a cut in benefits to disabled children- whether their parents had 3 or more children or not. Surely their benefit relating to disability would be separate from CB/CTC (although I know there is a disability element) and thus not affected by caps to CB/CTC? I would support a cap on the number of children the state will support, as long as it was not applied retrospectively.

Benefits should be a safety net- for those who find themselves out of work or for those who cannot work due to illness or disability (or who are carers for an ill or disabled child/relative).

I don't doubt that living on benefits is not all a bed of roses and I doubt many people have children because they think they'll get rich on benefits. I do think the system allows people to have children they cannot afford to support, in the knowledge that the state will put a roof over their heads, and money in their pockets.

If you can't afford to house, clothe and feed the children you already have, then you shouldn't be having any more. If you can only afford to have more children if the state increases your benefits, you can't afford to have more children. I accept that those who lose their jobs after having children will be affected too (but perhaps that could be built into the system).

To be clear, I don't care how many children people have- as long as they can support them at the time they are conceived. Many people who are working and not receiving any benefits have to limit the number of children they have due to finances. My wages wouldn't go up if I had another child- I would be expected to fund that child on my current income. Why should it be different for those whose income comes solely or partially from the state- i.e. the tax-payer.

"Sadly, I suspect you would feel less threatened if every single parent fulfilled the stereotype of thousands of kids born of benefits so we can be bashed and put down and told we don't contribute anything..." blimey mumandboys did you actually read my post? I don't feel in the least bit threatened by you. I applaud you for bringing up your kids in the way that you are. what I said was that your ex P ought to be made, compelled, to pay towards his children. they are his after all. the govt is considering bringing the law in because it says the benefits bill is too high. if your ex P paid towards the children you would need less from the state to maintain your standard of living. he is the one who should be made to pay not the state and certainly not you. how do I know why your marriage failed? you didn't say and its none of my business. what is my concern is a man who fathers children and buggers off leaving the woman behind to do everything, pay for everything and be everything.

YABVU its time people took responsibility for themselves and their decisions. The Government will provide some level of support for your first two children but if you want more than that, then its up to you to ensure they are provided for.

'I disagree owllady. Looking after your own child or family is what people do, caring for an unrelated person may save on care fees but as a parent its just what you do.'

That is nonsense. Most parents who have NT children can expect those children to grow up and care for themselves one day. If you have a disabled child that needs 24 hour care that is never going to happen. Are you saying that disabled people have no right to expect state support? Can I also remind you that it costs the state thousands more a year to pay for an in-care disabled person than it costs the state to pay carer's allowance?? If you are a carer you are never going to be able to work. What money should you live on?

I can choose to not look after my own child though, the taxpayer would foot the bill
So you can be obtuse all you like mummy of one

Rent is not tax. It's rent. Regardless of whether it is being paid to a private landlord or a housing association or council, it is still rent, not tax.

I can assure you I don't have a parade here for you to rain on. I just see it very differently to how you see it.

You can't claim to be a taxpayer when the only tax you pay is on buying stuff for yourself out of free money you have been handed for doing nothing.

You can disagree, but you won't change my opinion on that one.

Quite, Owllady.

Wasn't Happymummyofone referring to the comments made by owllady about carers saving the govt money by looking after their disabled DC rather than the govt looking after them.

Btw I want to add I do all I can for my daughter and I believe care for her extremely well and I will be a powerful advocate for her for the time I have on this earth. As time goes on though it does get extremely hard. A teenager with severe and complex learning, physical and medical needs is somewhat out of the majorities understanding and that is being reflected on this thread. Good luck to you who think I chose this!

I don't think ignorance can be called sarcasm either

I would be amazed if some of the people on this thread had a tiny clue what it's like looking after a severely disabled person tbh. Why don't some of you try to grow some empathy?

Owllady is right - there are a lot of parents who decide they cannot cope with caring for a disabled child (who is an adult). Those adult children go into care homes that cost upwards of £100k a year. Carer's allowance is a tiny amount compared.

Owllady, no one is saying you chose to have your child suffer a disability. That would be unreasonable.

People who are carers for severely disabled family members are a very good reason why certain benefits should not be given exactly the same name as the benefits someone gets if they decide to be a SAHP to a child they chose to conceive while they were out of work.

Owllady No one is suggesting you chose to have a disabled child.
The argument that carers are saving the govt huge amounts of money by caring for their disabled children may be true, but in that case, any parent is saving the govt huge amounts of money by looking after their children, more money than any benefits pay.
If any parent suddenly decided to relinquish their responsibility to their child, the govt, as a last resort would have to step in. This would cost the govt a massive amount of money and I'm not even sure it is doable en masse.

I agree that carers should receive financial support from the govt, because in the majority of cases, carers either have to give up work completely or are forced by circumstance to reduce their working hours to adequately care for their disabled children.

OTOH, how many carers would honestly give their disabled children to the govt to look after if their carers allowance was reduced or stopped?
How many parents of NT children would give their children to the govt to look after if their child tax credit or child benefit was reduced or stopped?
Not many I would imagine.

I assume the govt relies on parents to continue parenting despite any struggles they may have, because that is what parents tend to do.
Giving up a child is usually a last resort after every other avenue has been exhausted, and the govt are only too aware of this imo.

'OTOH, how many carers would honestly give their disabled children to the govt to look after if their carers allowance was reduced or stopped?'

Probably quite a few, because it's kind of impossible to live on nothing at all. The question of tax credits and NT children is entirely different because those NT children will one day be able to work.

That would probably be true if carers allowance was the only income for a family with a disabled child.

If there are families with disabled children, whose total income is £59.75 a week, to pay for everything they and their DC needs, then I apologise for my posts.
I was under the impression that CA was a part of their family income, not the entire income of the family.

If this is true, then I can totally see why carers would have to relinquish responsibility for their disabled children if their CA was reduced or stopped.
In fact, I don't know how they cope now!!

I am not talking about normal nt, healthy children, I am talking about those with significant disability and illness. If you don't think people would put their children with complex disabilities into local authority care if their related benefits were withdrawn, you have little real understanding of the financial pressure as well as emotional.. a day at a hospital appointment can cost about £50 if not more, just on fuel and parking and after care for other children, that's with one person as a stay at home carer
My electric bill is 280 pm. I have a rated white goods. Two baths a day for one person with immersion on and off. 5 lots of washing a day 3 dryer cycles on average. Normal illness not taken into account

Dla is for the person who has a disability
Carers allowance is a payment paid to the main carer of that child if they earn under £100 pw in paid employment