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?

Or maybe that's just an old fashioned middle class view...

Or maybe, as you said earlier in your post, "life doesn't work that way anymore'?

Believe me the government is far smarter than you when it comes to wriggling out of paying anything.

But they're not are they?

All these pettifogging cuts, but still no limit on assets, savings or child naintainence a claimant can have and still qualify for TCs.

It's upside down. Or, more likely, a bribe to Tory-leaning families whose income isn't stellar on paper.

All gone quiet OP - gone off to fill in job applications?

Was that aimed at me...the government being smarter? We have an accountant that comes every year to do the figures. It's all seems complicated as there are lots of assets (my OH farms) so everything ftom the cattle to the crops have to be valued. No idea how it all works but he comes up with the figures. But tax credits are there to help people that haven't earned as much as others. However it's earned.

the cook

"When I'm PM it'll be the rules that you can only have children with one person, whoever you have your first child by that's it - (rape excepted). See how you like them onions."

Looking at this comment it looks like its just aimed at women not men. Because rape is mentioned.

So im taking it its just aimed at women not men. So why are you saying that women have to have a child with only one person and yet not saying the same of men.

Because its this kind of misogynistic attitude that keeps the status quo of child maintenance in the mess that it is.

Its coming straight from the same climate that says single mums are sluts and single dads are heroes.

helena but of course. Single dads are amazing heroes doing a wonderful job of being mother and father. A sahp with a dp is doing a hard but amazing job of raising children. And a single mother isn't doing everything the couple does but singlehanded. Oh no, they are getting just deserts, and just as well they pay others to raise their dc lest they pass on their low class morals.

Ffs I'm waiting for someone to suggest a return to magdalene laundries next so we can have a full house of wanky posts.

Its the only idea that hasnt been mooted Lurked.

Marysunshine, she's not "not working" she has children to look after. What people on here are suggesting is that she get a job in order to support her family, a lot of women are in a catch 22 situation whereby the sort of job they could get would mean they are simply working to pay for someone else to look after their kids. So no net gain and a stranger caring for your kids. Nice.

and a stranger caring for your kids. Nice

Naice little bit of demonising those who use childcare and professional childcare itself.

Why the fuck have kids

Pay fot em without government money or shut your legs

thecook

its not always a choice especially when there is an abusive man in the picture.

There have been several threads about reproductive coercion for instance.

Another one for the offensive twat list

Since when did DC become a luxury consumer item anyway?

From the way some are going on ....since you had to pay for them yourself.

Or maybe some people just believe in the money fairy.

Mine have never tipped me into bankruptcy.

It does seem a trifle strange that so many people are objecting to quite minor state subsidies so that the nation's shop assistants, care workers and cleaners can afford to do something as wholesome and mainstream as have a family.

Most tax credit awards are small.

The average family size isn't very large or growing.

Housing costs are at a historic high.

Why the panic and snarling?

What do we want exactly if it isn't that the majority of citizens can just about afford a mainstream family life?

Okay so I can see that the OP's scenario is mildly more controversial to some. But it concerns a household with a FT worker, an intact family, the planning of s third child, not a sixth and the until- recently lauded thing; a SAHP.

It's not as though it's some tabloid scenario of PT work and complex step family webs with tattoos and addictions all round. The over reaction is startling.

I linked an article earlier Dacre about how some nurses and teachers could be priced out of London due to the HA raising their rent by 20%

Now if any of those teachers happen to teach the DC of some of the more holier than thou on this thread im sure they wont mind the slight disruption to their kids education because they wouldnt be so hypocritical as to moan about it right???!!!

Imo the welfare system is to help families in need. It is designed to be a short term solution to assist those in crisis - it is not designed to become a life style?!

Quite Helena. People need to live don't they?

Tax credits were designed to be long term though Eiram.

just5minswithDacre

"Although the rate at which that [income inequality] gap has increased has slowed since the 90s, it hasn't closed at all."

Er, yes it has. The latest IFS study "Living Standards, Poverty and Inequality in the UK 2016" shows that income inequality between the richest & poorest in the UK has actually decreased since the financial crisis.

At the lower income end, more people are working than ever before, for more hours, and are taxed less. At the higher income end, there has been very little, if any, pay growth plus changes to tax policy such as loss of personal allowance.

As for the wealth gap, this is very misleading. What you really mean is the distinction between those who own their home and those who don't (as the vast majority of personal wealth in the UK is tied to property, and residential property values have risen substantially since 1998 ). I don't have a problem with frustration about not being able to get on the housing ladder. But as most people need to live in their own home (of the 2/3 of UK households who own their home, 97% only have one home) it is not the same as being so wealthy you can live off the interest from your investments without lifting a finger.

Let's get our facts straight - it doesn't help anyone to bandy around myths like this.

Er, yes it has. The latest IFS study "Living Standards, Poverty and Inequality in the UK 2016" shows that income inequality between the richest & poorest in the UK has actually decreased since the financial crisis.

No, you can't do that. You've taken one study (there are several to choose from), taken out your magnifying glass to zoom in on a very short recent period of less than a decade (in which the change is that runaway growth at the top temporarily stalled, not that anything at the bottom improved a single iota) and blithely declared there to be no problem. How terribly convenient.

The number of people on zero hours contracts has increased to 801.000

www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/number-of-zero-hours-contracts-increases-by-104000-a6920716.html

As for the wealth gap, this is very misleading. What you really mean is the distinction between those who own their home and those who don't (as the vast majority of personal wealth in the UK is tied to property, and residential property values have risen substantially since 1998 ).

No. I don't really. That's part of the change of the past 30 years; far, far more people own multiple residential properties and millions own none, thanks to the deregulation of the rental market.

Additionally, in past generations, those that couldn't expect to inherit, had their own decent chance of establishing themselves as homeowners. Now, that's increasingly not the case; a rising proportion of FTBs will only buy because they have deposits from family and later they'll inherit too. Some of us will be very lucky and others will be doubly thwarted and that trend will continue. It's a multiplier effect.

I don't have a problem with frustration about not being able to get on the housing ladder.

Do tell the tenants that you 'have no problem' with their frustration. I'm sure that will be a great solace to them

But as most people need to live in their own home (of the 2/3 of UK households who own their home, 97% only have one home) it is not the same as being so wealthy you can live off the interest from your investments without lifting a finger.

That middle 'own own home and no more' slice will shrink.(Containing an over-representation of the affluent left sticking to their principles, I should imagine, insofar as they will resist the siren call of BTK, but at some point many of them will have inheritances choking their savings accounts).

And all this before we even look at the top decile or two.

BTL

User146.
Well if employers were "forced" to pay Their employees the living wage as apose to the NMW people wouldn't have to rely on the government to top up their pathetic pittence.