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?

Dear God did somebody actually write that ?

I wrote that as someone with a lifetime of crippling anxiety depression. I don't have children. For those reasons.

Anyway we aren't talking about disability benefits

I wrote that as someone with a lifetime of crippling anxiety depression. I don't have children. For those reasons.

So not only were you being vile, you were lecturing someone on something you have zero experience of?

'You do realise employers used to pay enough for people to live on ? Who wants to train as a teacher for example, work hard and realise you can't afford kids without going cap in hand to the government I mean really ?'

Why should anyone realise it when it is simply untrue. There were just as many low paid jobs 40 years ago as there are today - perhaps more so! Sure, there would have been some relatively better paid, but many also worse paid. I am not sure what the position of teaching was, other than you started low but with many increments. However, getting back to tax credits; as most teachers are paid by the state, it works out cheaper to generally pay teachers (and other public sector workers) less and allow top ups for people with young families, bearing I mind that most workers do not have young children most of the time.

(Juggling work and parenthood, paying for expensive childcare from low wages etc)

There were just as many low paid jobs 40 years ago as there are today - perhaps more so

Maybe. But 40 years ago housing was affordable (fair tents, secure private tenancies and rent tribunals) and desperate child poverty was still common (no winter coat, inadequate food, no heating in bedrooms).

Do we really want to go back to that any faster than we already are doing?

Fair rents, not fair tents

justtowarm we really are not 'one of the most unequal countries out there' so your 'preachy rant' is innacurate. I do agree that inequality causes a lot of issues. The distribution of wealth amongst a few extremely wealthy people is shocking (and actually the slew towards the top few % is far worse than people generally think). However, according to the gini index (one measure of wealth inequality) we are ranked 108 out of 145 countries, with country 1 being the most unequal. There are a lot worse out there!

What a pathetic post. If you cant afford another dont have one. There are alot more people in worse off situations than you. You sound like youre getting quite alot tbh as we dont get that much. You say you aew living in a deprived area already etc why dont you go back to work save some money then try for another instead pf sponging off people who pay into the pot

It's irritating for you, but you say you're a SAHM choosing to have a third. I work full time, as does my husband, and we only chose to have a second child because we could afford one. But the tax I'm paying as a working mother is going to you so you can choose to have a third child. I'd love a third child but I'm being responsible about it. Is there any reason why you can't work as well so you can afford a third child? I just find something wrong with this picture where you could "afford" a third child without working whilst I couldn't do so whilst working.

That's a big fat YABU. Why should we tax payers subsidise the fact you want three kids!?

Regarding withdrawal of tax credit for third child, there is a simple & sensible answer to this which is to NOT have a third child if you can't fully support it yourself & be thankful for the support you get to keep the two children you already have. Yes, everybody has a choice regarding how many children to have, & I respect that choice, but the tax payers who are subsidising your children DO NOT have a choice where their taxes go. I had one child, by choice, but I wouldn't have had more anyway if it had meant somebody else was helping to support MY children financially.

Yes rents were cheaper, though much housing was truely awful, but many people were low paid, tended to marry and have children younger and most mums of young children stayed at home. So, yes child poverty was common and I wouldn't want to go back to that.

Sorry, but YABU.

I understand that you're gutted but I'm a full time working mum and would give anything to have a second child but realistically never will because we can't afford to. When my husband didn't work through ill health we still weren't entitled to anything. He now works full time and we still couldn't afford to do it.

It's simple, if you can't afford to, then don't have a third child. It's better to provide for the one (in my case) or two (in yours) and not be irresponsible and have a second or third just because you want to. It's something you have to accept and, yes, it's hard but that's just how it is.

What a pathetic post. If you cant afford another dont have one. There are alot more people in worse off situations than you

This is the problem isn't it? The endless comparing?

Half the posters on the thread are saying 'we can't afford three so why should you?' or, 'we have highly paid jobs so why can't you?' or, 'people managed on the poverty line in the 80s, do why can't you?'

Op is essentially saying the same; 'why should others have benefitted from something that I am being denied?'

Cameron has been very successful in making us a nation always checking each other's plates.

It's a race to the bottom.

One more and you'd have got a council house too!

I don't think it comes from Cameron. There's been tension between those reliant on welfare and those who don't for some time.

Yes rents were cheaper, though much housing was truely awful, but many people were low paid, tended to marry and have children younger and most mums of young children stayed at home. So, yes child poverty was common and I wouldn't want to go back to that.

But we're going to go back to that.

Housing costs are sky high. Low wages are stagnating. Inequality is sky rocketing. University is becoming unaffordable. Zero hour, PT and 'flexible' contracts are growing.

We had the introduction of NMW in 1999 and TCs in the early millennium, measures which both softened things a bit. But now TCs are being dismantled and employment rights are being eroded again.

It's not a cheerful picture.

I can see your argument however I am a single mother to 1 child - I work, get CTC and wtc, and some (but very little) housing benefit and I scrape by each month... When she was conceived and born, I had a very well paid job but circumstances changed since then and worse off now... So would never dream of adding another child(ren) to the mix.
Although, I do know someone and she's due her 3rd in January... She'll receive ctc for them as its before the cut off date but she's never worked, boyfriend doesn't work (both VERY capable) and have everything paid to them. It winds me up that they can afford nice things and go on holidays and have branded food and clothes whilst I'm on the breadline - so I agree 2 children max should be paid for but should be dependant on child's ages (eg paid for upto a certain age like 11 or older) but that's my opinion!

As an employee, you cannot say to your boss, "I want another child, will you give me a pay rise of £4K per year to cover the expense please?"

We all have to make decisions that are a trade off; it's called living within your means. Whilst I've always said that if you did the sums you'd never have children, because they are just too expensive; when you already have two and know the cost of a third is prohibitive, you need to be sensible and make the decision to live within your means. Your other two children will be massively affected by the financial strain a third child would create. It's the difference between giving them a reasonable life and struggling.

I don't think it comes from Cameron. There's been tension between those reliant on welfare and those who don't for some time.

Cameron really contributed to it, encouraged it, gave it a vocabulary and a legitimacy and ramped it up.

10 years ago there was still real support for anti- child-poverty measures. And much more social cohesion generally, I think.

Now everyone turns in each other.

on^ each other ...

Benefit bashing goes back decades

As far as the OP is concerned if you are only a couple of pay days away from homelessness (eg if your OH lost their job tomorrow) then the sensible thing to do would be wait until you have at least some decent savings ......if you want to bring that time closer then go back to work and save hard and then try for number three if that is still what you want once you have some security for your children both present and future.

You cannot be serious.....
It is not the government paying out the benefits you receive, it's taxpayers who have to contribute out of their earnings!
Don't have children you cannot afford - get a job, work hard and save - then consider expanding your family.