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

All children born in the UK are entitled to free health care and free education until 18. And a roof over their heads if necessary. That's not nothing.

I'm completely comfortable with the change. If it makes people think really hard about having a third - maybe take out some of that boring insurance and save a good chunk of money first - well good.

If your family is finished after 2 children then look at sterilisation or double up on contraception.

And as for women forced into repeated pregnancy by abusive partners - investment in women's shelters and services and legal aid would be a better investment

^Seems like the government want mainly rich educated types to breed to secure long term economic prosperity in the U.K.
Just a thought.^

Yeah, they've really thought this through. rolls eyes.

And tax credits are hardly a small amount . If you are not working it is an extra £60+ a week per extra child !

So no comments about gertrudes situation?

Sorry i am being rude and using you as an example gertrude

I do think sterilisation should be more widely available. There's such a huge culture against it here, too. 'Oh, no, it's so final!' 'What if your children die?' 'What if you hook up with a new partner?' to the point where people who truly know they never want any more children, EVER, are fobbed off with birth control that's unsuitable for them.

Those saying we need to save money... if that is reuse then why is the triple lock on pensions still untouched?

Pensions are the largest part of the benefits bill, at £108 billion, and increased by 25% since 2011.

Plus, £10 billion on elderly care payments.

And £29 billion is spent on personal social services. (So adult social care - a significant proportion of this is for the same group also getting pensions.)

Of the rest:

£41 billion for people who are ill or disabled.

£10 billion goes on elderly care payments.

£44 billion for family benefits, income support and tax credits. This includes benefits such as child benefit and support for people on low income.

Around £3.5 on benefits for the unemployed.

Out of work people claiming Jobseeker’s Allowance and Universal Credit equalled 760,200 people in January 2016.

The government are spending their time tinkering with that £44B that affects families with children because they rely on pensioners to vote for them. That's the reality.

(All figures from ONS.)

Through except this affects people like me. And in particular, people who are not yet like me but who will be should life throw them a curve ball.

Finally found what I was looking for.
New claims for three or
more children born before 6th April 2017 will be accepted by tax credits until November 2018.

It was confirmed in a written parliamentary statement on 20 July 2016 that new claims from families with more than two children will continue to be taken in tax credits until November 2018. As a result of this announcement we expect some changes to the conditions for claiming UC in digital areas.

needs, what really should happen is that employers (including the state, if you're teaching in a maintained school) should be paying better wages generally. Employers have been relying on the state to top up their poor wages, because they could, and employees have therefore come to rely on those top-ups. It's not the state we should be furious with, but the employers (which as I said, can include the state!).

If a person like you might find yourself looking for a better paying job because the state is no longer topping up your salary and you can't afford to keep your children fed and clothed, then your employer is going to lose a lot of good employees and might perhaps start paying decent wages.

Not sure if I'm making myself clear, but I don't think it's the employees who are relying on the tax credits so much as the employers. This is possibly the only way the government can force their hands.

Reow you should say sorry.

'Throwing out there...' horrible situations that could happen to anyone and that could be horribly impacted by a government decision by privileged middle aged corrupt men?

Bet there will be a lot of pregnant ladies drinking raspberry leaf tea and eating curry towards the end of March !!

BarbarianMum Very apt name you have there. It's 16 for most child related things although they are classed as children until 19.

Let's just sterilise everyone on less than a single income of £42k per year shall we? That'll solve eveything.. Oh and then go Logan's Run when we all either start getting long term health conditions or the cut off age of 65 (cos that's a valid research based number).

I've never considered abortion to be tragic It isn't tragic for people who want one, it is tragic for those forced into it.*

DH and I decided to terminate in our early twenties because we couldn't support a child at that point - I felt, at the time and still do that it was our responsibility, of course I didn't want to be in a position where I had to have an abortion but it wasn't tragic, it was just the way things were.

I don't have a problem with a rule that benefits stop at 2 in theory but I think it's been poorly thought out . It shouldn't be taken away from people who have it and the issue about children born as a result of abuse is a mess- I listened to the piece on Woman's Hour, it was suggested that it hadn't occurred to the policy makers and so they had to rush through the rule about 3rd party corroboration it was suggested this could be Women's Aid or SS as opposed to an actual witness or a conviction but it's far from clear.

Wow this moved fast didn't it, just caught up. Interesting.

Something that has jumped out at me: all the cant feed em don't breed em etc brigade, do you all realise that tax credits / universal credits are also top up benefits ie claimed by families and individuals IN WORK. Because the way things are now wages are not enough! even 2 FT wages! we are not just talking about the daily mail style feckless unemployed

my friend works FT as does her H for example

It is more likely to make people more careful about contraception if they think the state won't pick up the bill for large families. Most people have to consider finances when deciding how many children to have. And your employer doesn't give you an automatic pay rise for every child you have. Only the state does that. It's a good idea IMHO.

And in the meantime....what?

No I suspect people will use readily available contraception more.

They know it's coming so have no excuse.

Those not on benefits have to settle for the family they can afford,why should those on benefits be any different?

I think this is long overdue and a good idea.

I don't think the abortion rate will increase people who want to keep a baby even when unplanned will usually find a way to do so. It will mean more families struggling but I don't think people will choose an abortion just because the benefits aren't there.

So...ROCKET......You think we should all be allowed to have as many children as we wish without worrying how to pay for them?

You also seem to think the Government should pay for said children.......where does 'the government 'get the money from?

TAXES, yours ( assuming you work) , and mine, and most other peoples, so you are saying........we should all pay more to the Government so that it can be paid to people who want more than 2 children and do not work or work part time....or are on low incomes....really?

My best friend is a senior manager who has one daughter, like many she would love another child, but paying full time nursery fees, a mortgage and saving a bit for the future, between her and her DH who also works FT, they cannot afford another set of nursery fees so have wisely USED CONTRACEPTION and accepted their one child family....l am certain she does not wish to pay even more tax to hand over more benefits to those who recklessly get pregnant with no means to support the child.

Do you think this is unusual amongst the working population because it is not......your sense of entitlement is sickening.

Ah Somerville Somerville Somerville. I knew i wouldnt have long to wait.

DH is 67 in a few weeks time. He recieved his DLA to PIP form a few weeks ago.

Under PIP he can expect to be reassesed and reassessed as much as they deem fit.

As the years go by there are going to be ppl in their 70s and 8os keep having to fill a 40 page form in every year and a possible "medical assesment" every year.

Now to Universal Credit for mixed age pensioner couples. When this comes in in this area we will be affected because we claim HB For this purpose because i am much younger than him we will then be classed as a working age couple. Which means he will be classed as being of working age until he is 90 (for the purposes of UC) simply because he is married to me.

People don't want the government to tell them how to live their lives yet complain when the government says "your choice and responsibility"

Exactly

I agree with the change. There isn't a bottomless pit of money and how it is spread across the increasing population needs to be carefully thought through. It isn't a 'right' to have as many children as you like and have other workers pick up the tab.

Let's just sterilise everyone on less than a single income of £42k per year shall we?

Do you want to talk about the actual policy change, or just what's going on in your head?

It really is as simple as - if you can't afford another, don't have another. Of course, people find themselves in difficult and unexpected financial situations and, of course, I have every sympathy- I really do. We both work. We live modestly. We can't afford another.