To think the abortion rate will increase after April this year?

[RocketQueenP]

When the new rules on tax credits / universal credit come in ie when no one can claim benefit be it top up or otherwise for any more than 2 children

Sadly I am helping a good friend cope who has just had an early abortion, she did not plan the pregnancy and one of the main reasons is she and her DH are low earners/ They already have 2 at school, and won't be able to afford to have this baby. She is devastated and has admitted they could have squeezed another DC in if it wasn't for the new rules. I think this will happen a lot. :(

In times gone by people would adopt out children that were unplanned that they couldn't afford and I really feel that this is what we are headed back to. Not adoption but, you get my drift

I also think the government fully know this and its one of the reasons they have brought it in. Simple population control

Sorry, your post was deleted

'And if there was more in the welfare pot we could afford to support families with children with disabilities better.'

Hah, the first cuts they made were to disability benefits...

Elvish - children with ADHD, ASCs and other disabilities were not in mainstream schools in the 90's, they were in special schools and behavioural units...so I'm not sure what your point is.

But all the other posts, the ones about people in benefits - they're not who is going to be affected most by changes to tax credits, they'll still be able to claim most benefits, it's people in work that will be affected most.

Well Im not in the US, im talking about the UK and things are vastly different here, let me assure you!

In the US, ABA is much more available than it is here. It always has been. When I wanted my daughter to start ABA 13 years ago the so called experts around us acted like I wanted to join a cult! Local authorities engineer a situation where children are not diagnosed so they can avoid paying for provision. Paediatricians, SALTs and OTs are told not to recommend numbers of hours of provision so that there is no evidence they need to provide it. So parents have to spend thousands on expert reports.

Another thing is that families of disabled children are not at all properly supported in the UK. I would love for more to be done because stopping work is often so very detrimental to the other DC in the family as well as the MH of the parent who is staying home to look after the disabled DC.

It is also extremely expensive to have a disabled child. The equipment and resources we have are all niche so cost a lot. Teaching DS the concept 'on top' took a specialist kit from lakeshore that was $25. We have special 'sticky' bubbles that cost $5 a wand and are not refillable. DS was going through a wand a day at one point when we were working on eye contact.

Sorry I thought you were saying that Elvish has a ds with SEN at school in the US. I'm getting confused!

I completely agree Want2 - I'm not surprised you don't want to move back here. It's a nightmare. And anyone who saw the Baker Small scandal on Twitter will realise the contempt Local Authorities have for parents of disabled children that they barely manage to hide.

Just seen this. Absolutely sickening. Lying PIP assessor gets caught out and plays the "i was only following orders" card. And he was a paramedic and now is moaning hes likely to get struck off by his regulatory body.

Diddums.

www.disabilitynewsservice.com/pip-investigation-capita-made-me-a-scapegoat-says-disgraced-assessor/

Where you should be looking instead of tax credits is universal credit.

There is where the 2 child limit (for claims without transitional protection) comes into play irrespective of the childs date of birth.

And there is where the income bits that were so effectively stopped with tax credits happen.

And those income changes with universal credit will affect all families claiming universal credit needsasock including families with disabled children if they need to make a new claim after a six month break. The universal credit rules mean that people will be scared to earn more and come off tax credits if they can't guarantee that those earnings will be permanent because they will be up shit creek if they have to reclaim after six months or more. I'm glad you have pointed out the fact that universal credit rules are different to tax credits as it is a really important point.
So people who already have three or more children and are not claiming a single benefit will be penalised by the system if they have an income drop and need to claim benefits because they won't get as much as people currently do on tax credits. It really is a back door method to shafting anyone with children who finds themselves in hardship.

I thought the cap didn't apply to parents who had a child with a disability. Or to existing claimants. Only new claims will be affected. Benefits had to be cut eventually. I think most people do understand that.

I agree with the new welfare rule on the 2 kid limit. If you can't afford kids don't have them. ... and yes the population DOES need controlling

However I am sorry to hear your friends had to go through this. It can't have been an easy decision but it's the right one

Great berol. Not sure who's going to be around to care for the hugely disproportionate number of baby boomers who are going to need care homes in the next few decades, since Immigrants are out and population control is in. The birth rate has only picked up a bit in the UK in the past 15 years thanks to non natives. Even with this we have an aging population and we need to balance this out with more kids rather than less.

vivien

The exemptions for disabled children only allow for the (lower than currently) disability element.
Current claiments is where transitional protection comes in.

You have it until you come off the benefit for 6 months, then you don't.

So someone who currently has say 5 kids gets a pay increase or a better job that for what ever reason is temporary on reclaim only gets paid for 2 and the drop in UC amount now starts at something like £191 a month.

These kids already exist they are not born after the widely advertised date they are already here.

YY Sock A similar assumption was made when they said in 2013 that they would not be moving ppl over 65 from DLA over to PIP. They meant the ones who were already over 65 THEN.

Now they are starting to move them over meaning inviting them to apply.

I find it weird that people talk about having kids like they are luxury items. These kids grow up to be people who will work and pay taxes

Not necessarily.
Inter-generational welfare dependency is a huge issue. How are these children of parents who keep having children for the benefits expected to develop a work ethic or even a desire to earn the money they need?
This has the potential to affect that cycle, which is a well overdue step.

Also can't figure out what the issue is if the abortion rate DOES increase. Not that I believe it will, but why would that be a negative?

Yet again not everyone who gets help with tax credits doesnt work. Up until recently i was working 3-4 12 hour night shifts a week and dp full time we still got a small amount of tax credits. I now work days so our three children definetly know you about work and how you have to do it.

I know alot of people with various numbers of children in similar situations.

At the end of the day isnt one of the biggest problems that wages are to low and rents to high. I know people will say you should just get a better paid job but someone has to do the low paid ones.

I know there are people out there who have no intention of working but it pisses me off hard working people in low paid work get tarred with the same brush.

square most of the people getting tax credits are working so it isn't about preventing generations of worklessness. Or do you think that the low paid are feckless and need to work harder?
Lots of essential jobs are low paid - nursery workers, care home workers, hospital porters, teaching assistants, bus drivers....even nurses and teachers who are single parents will probably need some tax credits in order to cover the cost of childcare. And we can campaign for higher wages but then people have to pay more for services to cover the increased wages, so if the living wage goes up to £10 per hour it is highly likely that most people's childcare cost will rise and the same for other goods. So raising wages needs doing but the knock on effect is that the cost of living will rise and the lowest paid will still not be earning enough to live (but the govt won't care because they will say that the living wage should be enough).
The main problem is the prohibitive cost of housing and utilities which have both risen far faster than wages but I can't see them getting much lower any time soon.

Thank you sixisthemagicnumber you said that so much better than me!

'Inter-generational welfare dependency is a huge issue'

Evidence for this, please? The government had to admit they didn't have any after saying it.

One thing I have seen in my area is that families with social housing g often go on to have children in social housing - so for example the grandparents next to me - their kids and GC (teen mum !) all have it

No skin off my nose but it's very common and I wonder at the drivers and how sustainable it is

I'm not sure how social housing fits into the debate because anyone can apply for social housing - it isn't just for people on benefits. But generations of the same family living in social housing won't be much of a future problem anyway because in most areas you can't get social housing housing without waiting for many years due to the chronic shortages.

Social housing is a thing of the past for most people...

These days if you bid on a house, it usually has at least 300 people bidding for the same house. Generally, to get to the top of the housing list you need to be very unwell and not just be looking for a house.

The fact that people don't know this just goes to show that they are happy to perpetuate untrue statements about the reality of issues like social housing and it's all based on what they've decided to think even though there is no evidence to back it up.