‘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.

People saying don't have children you cant afford? When I got pregnant with ds I was married, we both worked full time, earned enough to be able to support a child & for me to work p/t afterwards. When I was 7 months pregnant, my then husband went blind driving to work, a month later he was diagnosed with MS & by the time ds was born was in a wheelchair unable to do the most basic things for himself. I went back to work when ds was 8 months old, my husband had been finished at work on medical grounds, I could only work p/t as my husband could only manage to care for ds for part of the day, we had to claim tax credits to supplement my wages & my husband's disability benefits. When ds was 6, my marriage ended & within 6 months I was unable to carry on working as I was suffering from MH problems & disability arising from problems I was born with & trauma from ds birth, I have never been able to work again. I never intended to have to rely on benefits but unfortunately i have no choice. Walk a mile in my & thousands like me's shoes before saying benefits for children should be stopped. Everyone, no matter how fit they are today knows what will happen tomorrow.

There’s a lot of hyperbole this thread, equating not paying benefits for more than two children to locking them in cages is a bit extreme. If NHS wages aren’t enough to live on, that’s an argument to increase them not give benefits for everyone who wants to have a large family.

I think 2 children is entirely reasonable and you can’t expect the taxpayer to support any more (they will still be paying benefits for the family but it will not increase any further so the children will be supported).

You can’t expect other people to support your kids. All the nonsense about “babies will come when they come” and how waiting until you can afford to care for your child means you will be a “geriatric” mum with kids with birth defects is utter rubbish.

If you can’t afford kids you shouldn’t really be having any never mind more than two. Accidents happen and people fail on bad times but as a general rule, people should take responsibility for themselves and their families and not expect the taxpayer to pick up the tab for their choices.

@nat6999 the thread is about having a two kid limit for benefits. Do you have more than two kids?

Again the two-child limit also effects a large number of working families. To get tax credits for a third child a family would earn 40K or under a year... so that includes a lot of ‘typical’ married families with a mortgage and both parents at work
Then they can't afford a 3rd child.
Nobody is entitled to have state support in order to bring a 3rd life into the world.

'It makes me so mad that you are mums are on here saying this stuff, while Jeremy Hunt and his mate Boris Johnson are promising more tax cuts for the well off
Another daft comparison.
Believing that the state shouldn't have unlimited welfare for people to procreate doesnt mean being in favour of the Tories or tax cuts for the wealthy.
As many of us have said, we want a welfare state that supports those who need it and for money to go on public services, not giving hand outs for having sex and more kids than you can afford.

it's not at all daft! There's a pot of money - the Tories choose to spend it on the rich. £8.3bn to take children out of poverty it's about choices. So not at all daft.

And to my mind, it's an easy choice to make.

you lot blithering on about the parents - it's not about the bloody parents. It's about the children.

And if you read the actual report that this thread is talking about you'll learn alot more besides. A 2 child limit is not going to solve the issues in this country. It's just going to drive more families and children into poverty. And you are all playing into the Tory's hands. It's a national disgrace that in this country people can't afford to buy food. .

Yes, nobody has answered my question,

Why should children suffer for their parents choices?

Or do you quite simply not care?

Because the thread is about evidence that children are suffering due to all these cuts.

The parents need to lift them out of poverty and be responsible for decisions they made i I don’t buy into “it’s all the governments fault” whatsoever.

We should be making it harder for people to choose to do this not easier. Harsh penalties should be in place for failure to provide adequately.

The welfare system should be a last resort in hard times. It should never have got to the stage where it funds people’s choices ie to have children they can’t afford, stay home, work part time etc..

Taxes shouldn’t be funding adult choices, they should be funding their own.

They can't lift them out of poverty!!! How?? Their jobs don't pay enough. Their rents are too expensive. Their childcare bills are massive. What should they do? Really? God that's an incredible view. Do you think that parents want to live like that?

The welfare state was created for a reason.

It doesn't 'fund people's choices' I am sick of this ignorant narrative that says that people on benefits are living the life of Riley.

'Harsh penalties'? What exactly does that mean?

Typical Thatcherite, nasty attitude right there.

@annaninnity the welfare state should be a safety net not a lifestyle choice. Many people who don’t get benefits choose not to have a third because of resources. There’s no reason the same consideration shouldn’t apply to people receiving benefits.

Some people evidently are brainwashed to believe that poor people are getting handouts and are living a cushy life on tax credits whilst they themselves have to work for every penny.

It's the narrative that suits the government so that people turn on each other instead of realising that it's rich people who take away from you. It's called divide and rule.

Much easier to look down on the vulnerable though, eh? 😡

Yes, nobody has answered my question,

Why should children suffer for their parents choices?

Or do you quite simply not care?

Here's my answer to your question: children suffering at their parents' choices is the price we pay for living in a free society, where people have reproductive freedom and a relatively non-invasive state.

If the state were to allow tax credits for four children instead of two, childbearing would find equilibrium and we'd be having the same conversation about how cruel that limit was in a few years' time.

The thing is, it has to be weighed against the suffering to children that is caused when people keep expanding their families to the point where they cannot provide adequate parenting. Suffering to children is going to happen regardless of which way you do it.

MoominMantra
Why the assumption that those of us who agree with the 2 child limit have been brainwashed, hate the poor, look down on the vulnerable etc?

I want better welfare spending in many places, better disability benefits and support, better funding of children's centres, better funding in social care, would push for a higher minimum wage, better funding of mental health services, better funding for NHS services. I'm in favour of all of that precisely because I care.

I just don't believe that people should expect state hand outs for choosing to have more children than they can afford to support.

How about another stupid idea in the name of the environment?

Let's round up all the old people who have overdrawn their lifetime tax contribution in pension, NHS, social care, and council housing and put them on a floating iceberg in the middle of the Arctic?? People obviously don't need to live to 100 and should have properly saved more if they wanted to live so long! They are a drain on the environment! 🙄

Do you see how asinine this line of thinking becomes? It's starting to become like a cult.

The thing is, it has to be weighed against the suffering to children that is caused when people keep expanding their families to the point where they cannot provide adequate parenting. Suffering to children is going to happen regardless of which way you do it.

Very true. Whether some on this thread would like to admit it, financial incentives matter - they distort behaviour. Where they relate to cash payments for children, it sets in motion a perverse chain of thoughtless reproduction that someone has to come along and break at some point.

Which is why the past ten years have been painful.

Potato you've not really a deep thinker, are you?

AlaskanOilBaron

I would throw that accusation right back at you. Maybe you should take a course on critical thinking and study how people eventually get targeted.

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—

 <strong>Because I was not a socialist.</strong>

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Martin Niemöller

This whole thread makes me want to leave the U.K. and run for a Scandinavian hill. When the welfare state is gone and you are locking yourself in cages at night to protect from riots and games, dying for lack of health care and working for slave style employers.... then I hope you don’t have the audacity to say you didn’t see it coming.

Spot on Lola.

Suffering to children is going to happen regardless of which way you do it.

And that’s the sad truth Kokeshi. There will always be children who struggle because they were born to parents who didn’t think for a second before having them about whether they could actually provide adequate resources to raise that child. People who are in work have to consider whether their income will stretch to another child before coming off contraception. Surely that level of taking responsibility is even more important to encourage in parents who don’t even work to begin with and are incapable of providing for their children. We’re not exactly saying that third children shouldn’t get any state support, they already get healthcare services, education, etc. as they should. But if removing the financial incentive to have another child means fewer people produce excess kids knowing this financial support is there to catch them then that prevents suffering in a way that incentivising people to have kids for financial benefit simply doesn’t.

I think as we’re so fortunate to live in a country with a welfare state people forget about personal responsibility and that ultimately the only entity responsible for a child being brought into and living in poverty is the grown adults who chose to have them. There is no excuse in this day and age with access to multiple forms of contraception and safe legal abortion.

People act like massive decisions such as family planning are out of their hands and ‘oh well, what can you do? Babies come when they come’ which is a complete insult to countries where people don’t have access to contraception, healthcare, abortion, and cannot always choose to abstain.

It's a national disgrace that in this country people can't afford to buy food

I don't disagree, but that is another point entirely. And little to do with the government, actually, and everything to do with greedy employers who don't want to pay a sensible salary.

The point here is does the country need more people? And the answer is it doesn't and is therefore not going to encourage large families through the benefits system.

The thing is, it has to be weighed against the suffering to children that is caused when people keep expanding their families to the point where they cannot provide adequate parenting. Suffering to children is going to happen regardless of which way you do it.

There are children in 1 and 2 child households suffering because of feckless parents, not because of lack of money, but because of lack of parental care.

"Some" parents deliberately used to have more children just for the state benefits. There is no denying that. The question is how extensive was that abuse.

There are no easy answers, but we have to at least make a start on tackling the problems around feckless parents and benefit abuse.

It's the narrative that suits the government so that people turn on each other instead of realising that it's rich people who take away from you

The top 1% of earners cover 28% of the tax

The top 10% of earners cover almost 60% of the tax

These earners will also be covering their own healthcare costs and not costing the NHS, be paying for private schooling so not costing the state education system and, of course, be paying higher rates of council tax for more expensive homes. Not to mention the fact that they're likely to spend more so will be paying more VAT etc.

This concept that rich people are somehow massively benefiting is ridiculous.
If you start penalising high earners any more they'll just leave the country - and take 60% of the tax payments with them.

The vast majority of government spending is actually on pensions - for which gasp rich people pay for their own too.

Very true. Whether some on this thread would like to admit it, financial incentives matter - they distort behaviour. Where they relate to cash payments for children, it sets in motion a perverse chain of thoughtless reproduction that someone has to come along and break at some point.

On a different vein, exactly the same with senior dentists and doctors who are choosing to work fewer hours to avoid the 62% marginal tax rate on their earnings over £100k. And the same with parents earning just over £50k and losing child benefits - they likewise choose to work fewer hours (refuse overtime and promotions).

Financial decisions do drive behaviour in all areas of society, not just benefits, but also the higher paid. It's incredibly naive to think that peoples' behaviour isn't driven by financial matters and therefore by the tax and benefits systems.

Income tax is wildly missing the point. This isn’t about high individual earners it’s about companies who avoid and evade tax worth far more than any individual. That’s why cross country cooperation (like the EU!) is so important to ensure if companies want to sell to us they need to contribute to our society.