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?

Stupid auto-correct.

Yet those currently claiming will be able to claim for however many DC they currently have
Personally I would have applied it retrospectively but that would have risked putting kids into poverty. So this is a workaround which means that no-one will be worse off than before providing they don't have more children.

The thing with the policy is that everyone knows about it and if you choose to have more kids then you pay for them.

People not currently claiming will in the future only be able to claim for two children.
Most people that do not claim any CTC at the moment are very unlikely to ever be in a situation where they suddenly need to start claiming for more than 2 kids. There was some Government research on the issue but can I find it now?

Significant changes to the benefits system are always difficult to introduce and it will always seem to be unfair to compare pre and post change claimants but that is just the way it is.

Another example Is ESA. New claimants from next year that get placed in the WRAG group will only receive £73.10 (same as JSA) rather than the £102.15 that they currently receive. Existing claimants will continue to receive £102.15.

Sure, if you want a 3rd child, go ahead. BUT, pay for that child yourself and don't expect us tax payers to pay. I am so glad this Government has limited tax credits to 2 children - I would stop it altogether if I was in power.

Pay your own way!

Not sure I would agree with very unlikely. Marriages end and that puts pressure on finances especially when there is a disparity in earning potential.
Definitely a two tier system with ESA.

I was going to say the same as Chipped. If DH pegs it then his life insurance pays off the mortgage and I get his NHS pension. No tax credits or CB for us either.

well you are very fortunate to be provided with (if it ever happened) a NHS pension,most low wage workers are on 0 hrs contract,low wages,no holidays and definetley not a pension, many cant afford to pay in even the minimum

I wonder if tax credits should be limited in age of child like income support automatic entitlement is.
I'm sure I'm not identical to all parents but I have claimed tax credits but now youngest dc is nearly at school i have increased my hours. I will no longer be entitled to tax credits. I feel hugely relieved!

years ago approx 16yrs income support used tobe two tier

eg-under 11yrs £35 a week
11yrs + £48

then they just made it one rate at the higher rate for all children

Zero hours contracts are an abomination and should be outlawed.
However - the question in the OP is not about that. It is about proposing to live beyond your means and expect working taxpayers to support you in that.

Marysunshine
I DO get it. I am fully aware that the OP would like a third child and that had she already had a third child she would be claiming money to help her run her household.
Do YOU understand the concept of tax credits? Do you realise how much it actually is? It helps sure, but it sure as hell doesn't go far, It's simply a top up for those of us who have no choice but to get by on a lower wage despite working the same hours as those that earn lots more.
It's a sad world when both parents HAVE to go out to work just in order to run a household, and a very sad world that sees children passed from breakfast club to homework club instead of coming home to a meal on the table, a sad world indeed where mummy or daddy can't come to see the Christmas nativity because they can't afford the time off.
I'm glad I'm a stay at home mum, I will endeavor to be there as long as I can, and I believe the government should support those of us who believe that a child's parent is the best person to look after them, not someone who is paid.

After all, if they are willing to pay someone else to look after my children why shouldn't they cut out the middleman and pay me?

Geez - Linds xxx you've lost the plot.

1. You are actually advocating the government ( that actually means those who work) pay you to have kids...........
2. Do tell - will only childless/ child free people be able to be midwives, teachers, nurses, doctors, shopkeepers, bus drivers etc etc to support this regime

It's a sad world when both parents HAVE to go out to work just in order to run a household.

And yet many of us (even highly qualified, higher rate tax payers) do have to do so just to pay for relatively modest accommodation and household bills in many parts of the country.

I believe the government should support those of us who believe that a child's parent is the best person to look after them, not someone who is paid.

But virtually nobody on this thread has actually said that OP's family should not look after their own children. They have pointed out that a part-time job in the evenings when the children's father is looking after the children would more than cover the amount she would have gotten from tax credits.

Marysunshine
Do tell, do you per chance send your children to nursery?

I'm not saying that every household with children should have one parent staying at home, I'm saying we should, as a society have that choice.

I married for love, I'm sorry I didn't check out how much my husband earned before I fell in love with him. But your very notion that I should have not had any children with him because he's not earning £35/£40k a year is fucking laughable.

So, how on earth do you think the country survived 30/40 years ago? When the vast amount of families had only one parent working??

And you seem to be ignoring the fact that should I go to work the government would earmark money to pay for someone else to care for my children, why shouldn't I have that money to look after my own children? Or do you, in fact work for the government who will only be happy when nobody actually cares for their own children, we may as well ship them off as soon as they come out of the womb!

lindz stick your sympathy for my dd 'missing out' through having a working mother. I've missed out, dd hasn't.

I pity your dc, missing out on the example of a mother who is independent and capable of doing both the ft parenting role and working ft. Rather than a mother who bleats on about her choice not to work as being superior, despite the fact it's only possible because most parents are capable of juggling both well. I can see why you think that way though, I presume you are one of the tiny minority of sahps that gives rise to the myth sahms only do so cos they are too pathetic to cope with a job as well. If I were you I'd stop, everything you say just discredits all the normal, decent sahps who do so because their dps can afford it, and they prefer it. Rather than because they are so insecure in their parenting ability they couldn't cope with work.

You really aren't in the position to be smug.

Haybott - that is also what I hear being said -
Take responsibility for the family you create and do not expect others who have to work to support their own family to also pay out to support someone else's

Haybott, I'm not saying they don't, I'm saying its a sad world that this has happened.
I don't live in one of those parts of the country thankfully. If I did I'd love 😀

*move

Marysunshine

uou seem to be under the impression that somehow you are single handedly paying for people like me to have children. I'm pretty sure your taxes go to pay other things that you take out for too.

I believe the government should support those of us who believe that a child's parent is the best person to look after them

Er, it's not "the government" it's your fellow citizens. Some of whom have to work, and have no choice.

And some of us haven't been able to have children - it's not been a choice available to us -- but we still have to pay for your choice.

So please stop patronising and judging others.

It's pefectly feasible for one parent to work part time around the other. Once the kids are older, hours can be increased. We have worked this way for 16 years to avoid high childcare costs and for one of us to always be around for our kids. It's hard as sometimes you miss out on family time and I know my dh often feels like a lone parent at weekends when I'm working, but at the end of the day we earn enough to give our kids a good quslity of life. we just make the most of the wekends we do get off together.

Lurkedforver1

It's funny isn't it, the only people who think that their children aren't missing out are those people where both parents work.

Working full time is NOT compatible with being a full time parent and if you can't see that then you're delusional. Nobody has the capacity to hold down two full time jobs.

You just keep telling yourself that your kids aren't missing out as you ship them off to nursery/childminders/out of school club, I don't really give a fuck because I'm here for my kids. Always, no ifs no buts.

Haybott and marysunshine
My husband works to support his family Thankyou very much. I don't have to. I cut my cloth according and don't rely on tax credits at all, they just come in handy.

YABU!!!!

Why can't you go to work part time???

Well Lindsxxx - I'll try to recall you multiple questions - but I will say first, I, like most people on here also had children with the person I love, and his income was irrelevant - because, joined with my own, it became OUR income - and our life choices were cut to suit what we could afford.

My two children attended private nursery ( my whole income was absorbed by that) until they went to school. So when they were at school I worked.

You say historically it was common for one parent to stay at home - yes - but that predated modern domestic appliances, the availability of birth control, liberated thinking that knocked on the head 'a woman's place was in the kitchen', equal opportunities in education and the complete exhaustion of our benefits system.

I do not believe my taxes single ha deadly support those who CHOOSE not to work outside the home - it's my taxes AND the taxes of every other working person. I'd rather my taxes saw an improving NHS, education system and care for those with a genuine need - not those who feel entitled to take the benefits out of a tax system they do not contribute to.

Working people are now expected to work even longer because 'the government' I.e. the taxpayers can no longer afford to let them give up. So what they have contributed into pension wise is denied to them.

It is unsustainable.

Well Lindsxxx - your last posts positively screams "' I'm here for myself,
and I'm cheerfully pocketing the proceeds of the hard work of others even though 'I don't need it, it comes in handy'

geez

Do YOU understand the concept of tax credits?
Yes and no[-one is denying this lady a family but she already has 2 kids and relies on state benefits to enable her to fund her family. In this situation expecting us to pay for her 3rd child is unreasonable and selfish.