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?

Thanks Dragons. It's nice to be recognised. I think there is no easy answer to the tax credit situation though because some people just will produce more and more children. I do wonder if perhaps they don't have the empathy or ability to look at and comprehend the wider picture. We cannot leave these children in dire poverty either. Abolishing them would hopefully give the ME ME ME generation cause to pause and reflect.

What you can afford is a very subjective term and depends on many things. We have a different kind of lifestyle i suppose because we are quite self sufficient and we have wood burner where my partner gets an endless supply of free wood through pallets from work. That cuts our heating bill to zero. By the time I had had number three child tax credits were being cut, so the tax credit income actually went down and child benefit was frozen. It was at the start of the new government and austerity. But I did make a post earlier where I talked about how tax credits were seen as part of family life and you were highly encouraged to claim when my oldest two were little. That meant we managed. We did definitely struggle after child number three but I am back at work now. Child tax credits are undoubtedly a double edged sword but I don't think anyone should be bashed for claiming them. That is an important point to make because there are plenty of families out there who managed fine when tax credits were first brought in and now are seen as scroungers.

Just one further point. When I had my first child and went back full time to work I was on a different income tax code to reflect that. Maybe that should be reintroduced? It was stopped when tax credits were introduced in 2003 but when I was growing up didn't families get an income tax break.? It isn't a new thing is it?

I'm going out now but will come back to this.

I think the number of "accidental" pregnancies would drop significantly as would the number of two plus families so it has the added benefit of being better for the planet and resources too.

There would be a case for neglect if the child was not being provided for so children would be protected by the state. People need to realise children come with great responsibility and financial costs, not just something they want or to use as a reason to not work. If they are not prepared to do everything to support a child financially then they shouldn't become parents.

1/3 is an accident which means 2/3 aren't

The deserving and undeserving poor debate goes back to gladstoneband desrali

The benefits system as a whole needs a complete rethink. Claimants who are able to work should be encouraged to do so, as much for their own dignity and mental wellbeing as for freeing up funds for the NHS, education etc.

I know someone who doesn't work and receives benefits that equate to an annual pre-tax income of £35k. There is no way that she could ever possibly hope to get a job that pays anything like that amount. She has no qualifications, no skills and no work experience, so would only be able to get unskilled, low paid work. Consequently, she has no intention of getting a job - ever. So, we the taxpayers will be funding her for the next 50 years at least!

But she won't be getting that amount for the next 50 years 80sMum. The amount for single claimants is really low.

My friend was made redundant from his job last September (thankfully now back in work again) and as a single claimant he got less than £700 a month...he had to pay rent, contribute to council tax, pay all other bills and feed himself from that paltry amount. He is in social housing so thankfully his rent wasn't ridiculous but it was still a struggle for him. That's the future your acquaintance faces...why would anyone choose that? On a happier note he got another job in May and is earning a reasonable amount once more.

Yes but you forget an able bodied single man can sort himself out, it's a different kettle of fish for a family. I would have loved to have taken a very well paying job in Katy Texas but having children meant I simply couldn't go. My ex on the other hand was offered much less money but without the hinderence of setting up home for children, schools etc off he went

I know someone who doesn't work and receives benefits that equate to an annual pre-tax income of £35k. There is no way that she could ever possibly hope to get a job that pays anything like that amount. She has no qualifications, no skills and no work experience, so would only be able to get unskilled, low paid work. Consequently, she has no intention of getting a job - ever.

I have severe mental illness, I receive benefits. If you (plural) bullied me into the public, as much as I HATE to admit it, I'd probably end up hurting myself or others... Badly. As in... Badly. I have before.

LOTS of people with MH issues can 'put on a face' andd fool everyone expect those who know them most intimately.

It doesn't mean they're sponges.

OH, AND I get a impressive sixty pounds for being DS1's carer. We're just rolling in your money

God, I'm such a filthy scrounger.

What was it that a previous poster said..... Oh yes! If she had it her wqy people like me and my DC would be in workhouses.

I THINK DH would be safe because he's a police officer.

But unwanted scum like my children and I? Well, now I KNOW, t least.

The point missed though and probably by the claimants themselves is that a) not getting a job isn't an option it just isn't because the kids will leave home eventually and if as much energy was dedicated to working and gaining skills, they would get more than £35,000 in the long term. I've had this conversation many many times.

bear, you are right that back a long way people (although in practice then often just men) got a tax allowance for a child. It may just have been for the first child. The problem with that was it went to men so you could have a rich man who kept his housewife and children at home with hardly any money and not even properly fed. So child benefit was brought in - I think in about 1970s? so it went to the mother so she could use it to feed the children even if her husband gave her no money at all and it was non means tested so very cheap to administer and meant wives of very rich men who did not pay the wife a penny still had income. That was a fairly wise principal. It was never a huge sum and it was less for the second child as it continues to be now. Now it's no longer universal and you have to ask your live in lover what he earns and if he or she earns a lot you don't get it and if you earn too much (like I do ) then you don't get it.

I would prefer much lower taxes and fewer complicated tax reliefs. The new higher single person tax allowance of £11k is a good start but we need national insurance perhaps to be merged with that as that starts on income in any separate employment where you earn about £7300 and is very complex.

I have no problems with people claiming benefits they are entitled to. I support a higher tax allowance coupled with lower tax credits as it was silly when people were being paid £3k tax credits and then paying £2k in tax. Much better than they just pay the £1k in tax. It was money just moving around.

It wasn't rich men not feeding their children it was working class men going to the pub on a Friday night and blowing all the money on booze. Child benefit came in around the 50's I believe.
The facts are wages have not risen since tax credits were introduced, 1998 I believe. And that is the issue those benefiting are corporations not individuals

Moving the money around also created jobs that didn't previously exist, liverpool and Newcastle have around 4,000 people employed in their call centres that wouldn't have jobs if not for TC

The only large families I know (4+ children) are stinking rich or very poor

I didn't know anything about tax credits until I became a single parent overnight and had to give up work to care for my disabled dc. Not a popular view but they are very generous (in my case.) I was amazed at how much I was entitled to.

Why should my family fund yours? Think yourself lucky you get any support at all. We lost our child benefit because my husband is a higher rate tax payer - arguably we could afford to lose it but the child benefit was in MY name and I most certainly don't earn enough to pay HRT. We were an easy target.

If you can't afford another child, don't have one. But if you do have one, don't expect the government to pay for it, you selfish thing.

There was none of this before Cameron and his conquer and divide.
When I first came on here not one thread had a negative post about tax credits as they aren't benefits anyway.
Cameron moved the goal posts and did his curtain twitching speech
and you all fell for it, hook line and sinker, what idiots.
Then, some feel hard done to because the entitlement was lowered and all those losing out started to moan about people on benefit.
It is so obvious and people complaining make themselves look like jealous dicks.
We lost ours, blah, blah, blah. You must earn enough if you lost benefit.

Why should my family fund yours? Think yourself lucky you get any support at all. We lost our child benefit because my husband is a higher rate tax payer - arguably we could afford to lose it

What? You were claiming child benefit and you didn't even need it? How entitled of you! (Not just you, the vast majority of families who didn't need to including George Osborne who claimed his entitlement for a good chunk of time). All those childfree adults funding your lifestyle choice and you didn't even NEED it? Gosh, no wonder we are in this pickle.

Fine to claim tax credits etc. but what about the kids when they grow up? It is doubtful we will have a welfare state in the same form.
Parents need to think about providing a springboard to something else. I am not saying buy them a house. But help with uni debt or a rent or mortgage deposit. In 18 years what will happen?
I stopped at 1 because I felt I need to provision for an increasingly uncertain future.
Am pretty sure this thread is a wind up though.

YY Gilly and we'll end up with Victorian poverty and no safety net whatsoever.

Kennington

Some people believe in letting their grown up offspring make ther own way in the world, irrespective of income.
We don't all want to or feel it necessary to set them up with uni fees, living costs and deposits for houses. That's quite a mc/ upper class attitude and great if that's what you want.
I think it better to encourage your dc to stand on their own two feet and educate about the value of money throughout their childhood.
In 18 years it might be a lot different to now, we may be back to lower fees, and grants again, rather than loans.

Don't be darrrrft.

pissss.. this was the change remember when "child benefit" as it now is was brought in
"It was modified in 1977, with the payments being termed "child benefit" and given for the eldest child as well as the younger ones; by 1979 it was worth £4 per child per week. In 1991, the system was further altered, with a higher payment now given for the first child than for their younger siblings. In October 2010, the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government announced that Child Benefit would be withdrawn from households containing a higher-rate taxpayer from January 2013."

It certainly makes sense to give it to the lower earner in a family and when it was universal it was protection against even a richer parent not feeding their spouse and children and I agree also because some working class men pissed their wages up a wall after a night out drinking rather than handing money to the wife for food for the children.

In my view anyone can claim what they are entitled to - good for them. If the state doesn't like its rules the state should change its rules. I would also support the removal of the triple lock on state pensions and also the other universal benefits for the elderly including those who are very wealthy.

I hope May can help middle income families more, perhaps make 40% tax only be payable for those earning over say £60k or £100k gross per person and remove all upper tiers of national insurance too.