To be gutted that I won't be getting tax credits for 3rd child?

[GutenTag]

I'm just wondering what people's opinion is really.

We are trying for a 3rd child and I won't be getting any tax credits for this child as the government has changed the rules so that from next year tax credits are only paid for up to a maximum of 2 children.

I currently receive around £1k of TC for the kids and I would have received £4k for the 3rd if the government hadn't made the changes.

That would have meant an extra £250 a month. It's a lot of money for us. My DH works and I'm a SAHM. We have a £100k mortgage on a small house in a deprived area of town. We get by. We don't have much money left each month and I need to save literally for everything. I'm really really gutted. I really wanted 3 kids and this has meant that I'll be financially alot worse off now.

Of course I don't expect the government to "pay" for my children but it would have really helped, that's all. It would have eased the pressure off.

Just for the record we have never received any other benefits apart from JSA when DH was made redundant last year which was a godsend as we would have been homeless otherwise.

Do you think AiBU to feel/ think like this?

T his is my worry, highland. I have 3 and my ex walked out and left us. 9 years later the CSA has been unable to get anything out of him. With childcare costs, I just don't know how many single parents will make work pay if a third child is not supported by the system. Single parents have already been badly hit by benefit cuts already, this will see massive poverty in larger families. I also wonder how many women bleating here about not expecting the taxpayer to help out would be entirely self sufficient should something similar happen to them.

I think that this thread shows a dangerous attitude that is becoming prevalent in Britain. For a while we could all have been proud of how children from low income families were supported. Now a lot of people are in favour of withdrawing financial support. It's not our problem. We didn't have more children than we could afford. It's their own fault.

What about the children? Since when was it acceptable to let children fall into poverty and go hungry and be inadequately clothed because their parents should have realised they couldn't afford them?

This isn't what the OP is about but is the general attitude of a lot of PPs. Very depressing.

I also wonder how many women bleating here about not expecting the taxpayer to help out would be entirely self sufficient should something similar happen to them

I don't think anyone has any issue with the state stepping in when an absent parent fails to provide for their children. The Op is planning another child whilst financially struggling with the two she already has, with no intention of working to supplement the family's income once the next child is here.

And yes I could be financially self sufficient without DH.

And woefully ignorant of how the system actually works aswell.

I would be totally financially self sufficient without my DH. I would in no way even consider having another child if I thought I could not afford it. YABU.

There are already too many people in the world. Nobody needs to have more than 2 kids (probably 1.5 ideally but that's not really possible).

If you WANT more than 2 kids, by all means have them but don't expect to be subsidised - and that doesn't just go for the taxpayer - it also goes for relying on a man. All mothers should aim to have an income so they're not reliant on someone who could die/run off/get ill/lose their job. I would be completely self-sufficient without DH. And he would be without me, too.

Planning another baby if you can only just get by as things are is totally irresponsible. Why should the state pay for you to have another child?? I would like a 3rd, I can't afford it. I'd also like a Porsche and a holiday home but guess what, can't afford that either.

We have 3. Third was contraception fail. It happens.
We couldn't afford it and still struggle but we made him and we are responsible for him. We both work.

This is one of the reasons our economy is royally fucked, the government subsidising wages and peoples life choices rather than companies paying adequate wages and people being bloody responsible for multiplying willy nilly when they can't afford it.

I was under the distinct impression that the falling birth rate was creating an economic time bomb in the UK.

It's going to be pretty grim when we've got nobody to contribute towards our pensions, teach our children, wipe our arses etc

Yes the country is becoming overpopulated but that's not attributable to reproduction; rather we're living longer and taking up resources for longer.

I thought everybody was pretty much cognisant of this 'ageing population' problem.

It's even been mentioned in the DM...
apparently.

So if you have a problem with the OP, please don't go down the wholly disingenuous route of harping on about overpopulation. It is silly.

FWIW I'd rather my taxes were spent on supporting children and families than anything else bar perhaps the disabled.

So Ellen we need more and more people to be born to enable our pensions paid and arses wiped.

We're all fucked. Planet Earth can't sustain that line of thought (so many humans destroying everything). The UK now can't sustain itself with food.

That's a good point about people's partners leaving them - or dying of course.

I'm a high earner (no child benefit) but I'd struggle if I didn't have DH. The childcare costs would be insane and I'd struggle to run the house myself. Although I guess it's a moot point as I still wouldn't be entitled to any benefits if DH fucked off. I guess I just need to really hope he doesn't.

What about the children? Since when was it acceptable to let children fall into poverty and go hungry and be inadequately clothed because their parents should have realised they couldn't afford them?

What rubbish. I had 2 DC because that's all we could afford, as we had a DSS too. Don't put your children into poverty. Have what you can afford.

Depressing, no. Think about your life choices.

I agree Through - the old pyramid scheme argument of population growth is about as sustainable as, well, any other pyramid scheme!

But Rousette its naive to think people won't have children they can't afford - look at any number of countries with no benefits. People still have children even while their older children are starving.

I'm not prepared to let innocent children suffer to make some sort of stupid moral point. Plus even if I wanted to look at it completely selfishly, it's very bad for everyone to allow income disparity to be too wide. If you want to see how it works with the state keeping out and letting children starve then go live in Somalia and see how that goes for you.

This is one of the reasons our economy is royally fucked, the government subsidising wages and peoples life choices rather than companies paying adequate wages

If I have two children, the wage that I will happily work for and be able to live well is substantially less than if I have three, four, five, more children. Conversely, if you believe that employers should pay (ie, the minimum wage should be set) sufficient to fund seven children, people with two children will live like kings.

The actual problem is that employers are not expected to pay people more because of their personal circumstances, and it would be insane to expect them to. Benefits are needs-linked. Even if you discount the idea that people have more children to increase the amount of benefit they get, it is a design feature of benefits that having another child is cost-neutral: the additional benefits are supposed to allow you to live with n+1 children at roughly the standard you have with n children. If you are not on benefits, the huge costs associated with another child, up to housing costs, fall straight on the parents and act as a powerful disincentive.

What you do about this is a political debate. But it's not sensible politics to assume that the wider population are happy to continue to subsidise consequence-free additional children being had by people who don't work.

But Rousette its naive to think people won't have children they can't afford - look at any number of countries with no benefits. People still have children even while their older children are starving.

Lack of contraception, historic (or current) high rates of child mortality, no pension scheme so your children's income your only chance of survival in old age. None of this is true in the UK.

I agree Splendide but I can't help having this opinion and maybe it means just one person thinks about bringing a child into this world they can't afford.

You're quite right that those are factors and I'm being a bit hyperbolic. But you must agree that people will not all simply stop having babies if we cut benefits surely? So how do you deal with them? I can't think of any solution (allow children to starve? forced adoption?) that isn't completely abhorrent to me. Plus I don't think only well off people should have children.

I think splendide that we shouldn't encourage people to have children by making it an attractive option. Surely that's the right thing to do?

I'm probably well off by some standards (i.e. no food banks and real struggle compared to some) and I made a sensible decision not to go for a third. -which I would have loved--. A sensible decision taken, bearing in mind our finances.

Splendide - it would be better maybe to compare with a similar country to the UK economically. In Italy there are practically no benefits and the birthrate is very (too) low.

A grand a month?? I was getting about 900 when I was on mat leave with dd2 and a lone parent on smp. Your fella needs to get a higher paid job or you need to go back to work. The maths is nuts!!!

Assuming this is genuine... You need to be aware that tax credits may not last much longer at all.

What is unreasonable, is these folk we see on TV who have NEVER worked have a dozen kids, and will not loose their child benefit. It is not easy to afford kids, You are very lucky to be able to stay at home, most Moters dont have that luxury. As you already have 2 presumably, you already have quite a lot of stuff you need. When I had my 3 kids (1st marriage) we had our daughter and baby son sharing a room, then later 2 boys sharing, my kids didnt have their own room till one left home. People seem to be obsessed with such things, and kids get too much material stuff, says in the paper today the average age a child gets its first mobile phone is &, bloody ridiculous! If you REALLY want another child you will find a way to afford it.

Can I also say that tax credits as an idea are a disgrace. I don't mean that to be negative about those claiming (not their fault) what I mean is that the system props up employers who won't pay a living wage.
Taxpayers money is being used to allow big companies to wriggle out of paying people enough to live on. That's disgraceful.

Employers need to pay a decent wage. The problem now is how you change the system- if you take the tax credits away you cause real hardship. Total mess .