‘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.

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.

The comparison between limiting tax credits to two children and deporting the elderly to an iceberg is yours.

This whole thread makes me want to leave the U.K. and run for a Scandinavian hill

Go for it. Who’s forcing you to stay?

But I'm actually with @Booboosweet on this one.
Though not physically in the same place, of course, we'd be living in seperate shacks in the mountains just in case one or the other is also an arsehole.

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.

Then they shouldn't be allowed to exploit the market here. CEOs currently make 361 times what the average worker makes.

In the 1950s, a typical CEO made 20 times the salary of his or her average worker. Last year, CEO pay at an S&P 500 Index firm soared to an average of 361 times more than the average rank-and-file worker, or pay of $13,940,000 a year

Make no mistake, the rich are parasites on the working class who actually contributes to economy through purchases and pays tax. The rich pay a lot to avoid the tax that rightly belongs to society. Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's. It was never their money, it's the public's money, born of the market. Google, Amazon, Starbucks, etc are not doing business here for the moral good of the public.

Go for it. Who’s forcing you to stay? confused

If you love American ideology, why don't you go there rather than trying to strip this country of its social safety net?

The comparison between limiting tax credits to two children and deporting the elderly to an iceberg is yours.

And? What's your point? People with cult thought processes have done worse.

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.

You do realise that the EU is exactly the reason why some big firms are "avoiding" UK tax don't you? Firms are choosing the EU country with the lowest tax rate and basing their head offices there, i.e. Ireland. Then they can happily/legally pay all their corporation tax (at a lower rate) in that country and pay nothing in the countries where they are actually doing the trading. That's why there's a race to low corporation tax - to encourage multi-national EU firms to relocate or at least not to leave to a cheaper jurisdiction.

In the 1950s, a typical CEO made 20 times the salary of his or her average worker. Last year, CEO pay at an S&P 500 Index firm soared to an average of 361 times more than the average rank-and-file worker,

In the 1950s firms were generally a lot smaller and simpler. The comparisons are meaningless as you aren't comparing like for like. Over the decades, we've seen the trend of there being fewer but larger companies, many spanning all continents and embracing dozens of separate "brands" or subsidiary companies.

It's a bit like all those people whinging when a company like Tesco posts a £100million profit. There'd be no headlines and no whingeing if 1,000 independent stand alone supermarkets made £100,000 profit each would there? What's the difference?

Good. They shouldn't have children if they cannot afford them!

Kazzyhoward

I still find it relevant.

The average German chief executive earns €171,000 a year, with €22,500 in bonuses in a good year.

The ratio is far lower in Germany and their country has a healthier economy. At a certain level, the rich become parasites especially when they spend so much to not pay tax.

If you love American ideology

Where did I say I did? Or are you just making assumptions?

why don't you go there rather than trying to strip this country of its social safety net?

Again, I want the welfare system to be strict purely so it can be generous and effective for those who need it most. Those who are ill and disabled we should care for and support properly. Those who make unwise decisions with regard to family planning in the expectation that the benefits system will spare them the consequences - absolutely not.

There are definitely parents who only have children for the benefits. DH is a college lecturer and he sees it with his students now. There are kids that have done a Level 3 course and passed who should then be out in a job, who instead, come back in September and do a level 2 course just because their parents tell them to stay in education so they can still claim their benefits. It's really sad. DH said you can see the controlling parents, making their kids do courses that are lower levels than they've already got, effectively hindering their children instead of pushing them to do better for themselves. DH sees several kids every year in this situation. It's incredibly sad. The parents will outright tell DH that "little Johnny has to come back in September to do another course, or we'll lose our money".

I definitely agree with there being some limit on state support for larger families, to act as an incentive for limiting family size.

However, I think it should be set at three rather than two children. That takes account of people who have a second marriage, or a multiple birth. But the benefit for the third child should be discretionary - with reasonable criteria.

On the most simple level - a family has five children. Even putting aside whether or not they should have five children, the amount of resources those children consume over their lifetime is phenomenal.

Five children's tins of formula
Five children's disposable nappies
Five children's clothing
Five children to be schooled
Five children to be fed using food that comes largely in plastic
Five children's toys, hobbies and interest

Yes, of course they might all be bf, cloth nappied, wear hand-me-downs, self-sufficient and be home-schooled - but that is not likely to apply to most families.

Then they will grow up and want to drive a car each!

How does it work with universal credit?

Tax credits are being changed to universal credit in my area. Is there still a limit?

I thought there was already an exception for multiples, like if your second pregnancy turns out to be twins. Need to check up to date policy though!

@RebootYourEngine It works the same way. UC will not pay child support to a parent who has a 3rd (and onwards) child that was born after April 2017. In this case, they'd only get child support for the 3rd and other consecutive child:

Child1 born May 2013: child support
Child2 born February 2015: child support
Child3 born July 2016: child support
Child4 born February 2017 (born before April 2017): child support

Second scenario:

Child1 born May 2016: child support
Child2 born May 2017: child support
Child3 born December 2018: not eligible
Child3 born June 2019: not eligible

And they grow up and pay taxes that will pay towards your care, if you need it. Our birth rate is below replacement level, services aren't safe under the Tories anyway, but having less young people paying tax won't help.

Or they grow up, claim benefits and have loads of children and cost the taxpayer even more whilst adding to an already overpopulated planet. Don't know where this myth comes from that every single child will grow up to be a hardworking net ta

taxpayer.

Well said @ThisMustBeMyDream !!!!!

My DD's Dad left me and doesn't even contact me re: our DD. I'm disabled (was before he came into my life) and I cannot work for at least another 5 years. I get full disability benefit. He was my Carer. He swore he'd stick around and pick up the slack so to speak regarding the parenting things I can't do due to my disabilities. It was because he was around that we had my DD. Then he ran off with a Nurse when DD was 13 months. So I'm now a disabled single Mum.
You wouldn't believe the judgement I get
"Why did you have a kid when you knew you'd be raising her on benefits"
"Benefit scrounging, work dodging single Mum"
(And my personal favourite "And where's the father?!" - Said in an accusatory tone)
I feel like I should wear a T-shirt saying "I didn't CHOOSE to be a single parent! We used to be a family!!!"
Yes I only have one child which I realise isn't what this thread is about but the principle is the same and the judgement is still there.

And they grow up and pay taxes that will pay towards your care, if you need it. Our birth rate is below replacement level, services aren't safe under the Tories anyway, but having less young people paying tax won't help.

The average person takes out more in terms of benefits, pensions, NHS useage, etc., than they pay in taxes, over their lifetime.

So unless the "extra" child is going to end up earning more than average they're going to be a drain on society in purely monetary terms.

Yes I only have one child which I realise isn't what this thread is about but the principle is the same and the judgement is still there.

Well, you’ve got it half right there- neither the specifics of the thread nor the principle are the same.

The problem is there needs to be a consensus among nations on multi national companies, which are too complex for our tax system at least. They should stop investors taking out loans to buy companies and then loading it with debt - companies should only be bought via shares, and interest not allowed for tax. Also make royalty payments not allowed for tax - as for companies like Starbucks!

However, I agree people should be limited to two children, except for multiples! Over population will destroy life as we know it.

@INeedNewShoes You have 30 friends?!?!?!

I have two

DH is a college lecturer and he sees it with his students now. There are kids that have done a Level 3 course and passed who should then be out in a job, who instead, come back in September and do a level 2 course just because their parents tell them to stay in education so they can still claim their benefits.

More of the perverse/unintended consequences of ‘helping hard working families’

They’re in a worse way as their children gain independence, rather than better.

The average person takes out more in terms of benefits, pensions, NHS useage, etc., than they pay in taxes, over their lifetime.

So unless the "extra" child is going to end up earning more than average they're going to be a drain on society in purely monetary terms.

Correct. The current net-contribution income is somewhere around £36k

If you earn less than that, you are most likely taking more out of the system than you are putting in.