‘Two-child limit taking toll on family life’

[SweetMelodies]

www.itv.com/news/2019-06-25/two-child-limit-taking-toll-on-family-life-study-suggests/

So the first detailed research into families effected by the 2-child policy, where tax credits are only paid for the first two children unlike in the past when it was every child, has taken place and has found that families are suffering as a direct result of this.

A lot of comments on SM seem to forget that many many working families are effected as well. Even some families with ‘above-average’ incomes used to be entitled to tax credits for a third or subsequent child.

Any thoughts on this? I have mixed feelings as to whether it will work on in the long-run or not. Of course we all know families who have carried on having babies with no thought because each child has meant another monthly tax credits sum... but then there are also the families who are going to face one unplanned pregnancy that could push them into poverty and make their other children suffer.

No tax credits were available for families when I had ds (iirc), or only for the very very poorest. You had kids if you could afford them. If there has to be a cut off, then two kids seems reasonable. Should we be encouraging more people on the planet?

I earn too much to receive tax credits but live in the SE and so my mortgage for my tiny house is high. I genuinely can't afford full time nursery care and we can't afford for me or DH to be a SAHP so we are having to make the difficult decision that we can't afford to have children. It's very sad but with wages so low and the cost of living so high (and no we don't go on holiday every year or eat out all the time) a lot of friends feel the same. Therefore I think 2 children is enough.

This annoys me because I and most of the people I know who don’t qualify for any kind of benefit wait until we can afford kids. Unclear why people have kids they can’t afford.

If you need state handouts to afford to raise your kids then the sensible option is to stick with the limits the government supplies. If you then choose to have a third, fourth, fifth kid then you have nobody to blame but yourself. T

When I was working full time we couldn't afford another child and we were not entitled to any tax credits at all ,.

Tax credits didn't exist when i had my 2 DD's, My EXH was the breadwinner we had to manage on his wage it wasn't easy but we survived, i went back to work part time when my youngest went to school it made life a bit easier, my mum's generation only got family allowance for the 1st child she went on to have another 2, we didn't go without much

Im going to sound very harsh for this but if you were so close to the breadline that having another child would tip you into poverty then would you not use at least two types of contraception so unpanned pregnancy would be impossible?
Also if you are so close to the breadline in the first place should you be having two (any) children?

I do understand people lose their jobs etc etc but that’s only in a few circumstances that life conspires to really fuck you up a lot of the time it’s people thinking it’s their God given right to pop out as many children as they want without a thought of how to pay for them.

A lot of people have to put off or not have children because they are not financially secure enough to provide for them. It makes a mockery of the fact that some people are desperate for children but put the child’s needs and wants ahead of their selfish desires to have a child come what may when there are others that expect anyone and everyone to magically find their brood.

If their were less of the people happy to have children without a thought as to how to pay for them there would be more money in the pot left to help people with families truly in financial strife through absolutely no fault of their own.

I think the limit being set at the basic population replacement level makes sense. Everything above this is a luxury from the societal, environmental and economic point of view, and therefore has to be funded as a luxury.

I appreciate that it;s hard for those hit by this but the bottom line is that people should not have children they can't afford. And no, that is not saying poor people shouldn't have children. Having children is not a right.

*find their brood = fund their brood 🙄

Ideologically there should be disincentives for having more than one child, including financial, to stop us destroying this planet. But no child should suffer poverty. I don't know what the answer is.

We carefully budgeted having a child and waited until we could afford a child before having our son. We may not have other children because of the financial implications. I don't understand why people have children they can't afford. I think having hover support for two children seems perfectly reasonable.

We're not entitled to anything and think it's ridiculous to have children that you can't afford

Encouraging people to have no more children than they can afford is a difficult area of policy-making to get right.

I have a lot of friends who want 3 children but can only afford 2. Why should that only apply to some people. That's just life. You can't always have what you want. In a lot of countries you would get no assistance. No one NEEDS more than 2 children. If you want more, go for it and pay for them yourself

I don't live in the UK any longer- can someone confirm though this policy didn't affect parents who already had more than two children, but only families who subsequently had more than two children post the policy being introduced? So the article is talking to families who already were aware they wouldn't be receiving any further benefits for further children- and now seem surprised that they can't raise more children on fresh air?

It's a bit simplistic to say "why have more kids you can't afford" considering the fact many people's circumstances change after they have had kids for reasons outside of their control.

Some of the responses here are downright selfish and smack of "I'm alright Jack attitude".
So you have 3 kids with your husband. Then he leaves. So what? You are not working, or working part time. In fact, with 3 kids earning 40k you would still be entitled to some assistance (and under UC it could be even higher depending on childcare costs/disabilities/rent). So you are working full time even. But the government now says you can only get what you should have for 2 children. So do you hand one of your kids to their dad and tell him to raise it? No? Do you make one kid suffer and have less than the other 2? Or do you all suffer by having not enough income to support your 3 kids according to what the government previously said a parent with 3 children needed to live on?

But then again, your husband would never leave right? Never die? Never lose his job? He'd always have the kids 50/50 and pay for them? Yeah? No. Have a dose of bloody reality will some of you

Last night I caught an episode of a program called Mega Families (I think), about people with ten kids.

In one family, one parent worked. In the other, she was about to give birth to number ten but didn't have a partner and joked about maybe using contraception next time.

I feel guilty for even owning a judging hat, but oh god did I have it on last night.

It's a wonderful idea, that if you can afford a large family that you can have a large family because there's no law saying you can't have one. Your body, your choice to impregnate it as many times as you can.

But I don't believe that having more than one or two when you're not in a financially suitable situation is a good idea. Though circumstances can change and someone who could afford to support their large family could suffer hardship through injury sickness, death etc plunging them into the same situation as the single mum from the program - single with ten kids.

My friends would flame me for my views on how many kids people have, but I've known several families with eight or more kids and there's so many problems to consider.

I think any policy resulting in children living in poverty and not having their needs met is despicable. I would rather pay for a feckless few to pop out six kids and sit on benefits than see millions of children suffer. I don;'t mean pay thousands a month so they live in the lap of luxury, but enough to house, feed and clothe them is surely not too much to ask.

Pointless measure. The amount of families having 5+ kids is miniscule. Studies show that capping or limiting benefits in this way doesn't stop people from having more kids. It just means the kids that people do have are more likely to grow up in poverty.

Part of me thinks you really shouldnt have children if you can't afford them. We both work, qualify for no benefits, not even CB, and had to weigh up very carefully whether to try for another child after DS. Why should people have several children subsidised by the government?

But the other part of me is aware that it's children who suffer when benefits are cut. People will continue to have children they can't support, either by accident or deliberately, and those children will be in poverty through no fault of their own. A compassionate society needs to support such children - the trouble is, too much support means the feckless choose to be reliant on benefits, espeiclaly if they are poorly educated with few qualifications so unlikely to be able to earn well even if in full employment.

I don't know what the answer is, but on balance I'd rather pay benefits to the feckless than read about children sitting in dark damp cold houses or going hungry. (NB I know not all people on benefits are feckless).

my mum's generation only got family allowance for the 1st child she went on to have another 2, Maybe it changed but when I got family allowance you didn't get it for the first, well I'm sure I didn't. You did get a tax allowance for each child and for being married.

In terms of policy to discourage people from having more kids than they can afford, education is key, and ensuring it pays to be in work, so that sitting on benefits having child after child is not seen as the most attractive option. And how about going after absent parents who do not pay for their children properly? Maybe, just maybe this would help.

@ThisMustBeMyDream you're absolutely right - circumstances change and the system should be there to support these people, who are in the situation through no fault of their own.

It should be there to help people who've been made redundant or families have separated and there should also be support to get these people back into work, into positions where they can still financially and emotionally support their families.

The problem is the current system is abused by people who don't want to work, or never have worked, because it's so easy to manipulate.

So many people on here are missing the point. Who cares about the reasons the parents have for having more kids? Making children suffer for that is cruel. Leaving children to be hungry and badly clothed because someone in power disapproves of their existence is disgusting and has no place in a modern society. It is no different than shunning "bastard" children.

I might well have only two kids when I really want three because of money among other things. That is irrelevant to the needless, disgustingly "moralistic" suffering of these children.