‘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.

So the likes of Jacob Rees Mogg or Boris Johnson can keep pumping out kids regardless, but the little serfs they directly make their money from aren't allowed to have any children

If you were to peruse these boards you'd find many overpopulation threads where posters from this very thread heap even more scorn upon wealthy Westerners having big families (me included).

This is a hugely pressing ecological issue as well as a fiscal one.

@Alltheprettyseahorses don't be ridiculous.
The country will always be populated enough for that level of service. You're just being dramatic without any intelligent discussion.

Yes people who have their own money can spend it how they like. Shocking.

Some of these responses are really troubling.

Yes, tax credits are a relatively recent invention and plenty of people raised kids without them. But the economic landscape is very different from what it was then. My mum was not a high earner but managed to buy our first house outright in a major city, as a single mother, for £12,000. She got a job with one of the large banks as a clerk in branch at 16 and stayed with that employer until she took ill health retirement in her 40s, with a decent pension for the rest of her life. There weren’t zero hours contracts etc. Over a million people below the poverty line in this country are part of working families.

Furthermore, some people are irresponsible and will have children they can’t afford. What some of you are saying basically is fuck those kids, it’s the parent’s fault. Yes, it is - but it’s not the child’s fault.

Then of course there’s the hideous “rape clause”...

It’s appalling that people support this.

Contraceptionismyfriend Rubbish! For a start, the UK's reproduction level is already below replacement rate, the same as most Western countries. So you will run out of skivvies sooner than you think. I'd also point out that the money of those in positions of undeserved, unmerited power and privilege is absolutely not theirs, especially when their money is made from actively manipulating the markets to keep others poor as well as paying wages so low their workers rely on top-up welfare. Not forgetting tax avoidance of course, so they benefit from a country's infrastructure and services from the NHS to roads to schools while contributing nothing in return.

Sorry, I meant she bought the house with a mortgage, but as a single mother she could afford to do so.

There are many things I can't control, but I am absolutely in control of the magnitude...

That's great, you have planned for pretty much every possibility I'm sure. You get a pat on the back.

Anyways, let's say there is a little girl named Sally. Sally goes to school hungry because she doesn't have anything to eat at home. She has holes in her socks. Her clothes don't fit right anymore. She won't have presents on her birthday or on any other holiday. She's the third child to parents who did not mitigate every possibility.

Sally can't change any of this.

Now what does society say to Sally? Not Sally's parents. Sally.

Tough shit?

What do you think happens to these children in poverty? That they just suddenly disappear? That the policy will work and people will stop having children?

What happens to the children that have been thrown under the bus whilst waiting for the policy to work? Someone will still need to support them. That burden will fall on Local Authorities, schools and charities.

Whilst you're congratulating yourself on your amazingness of choosing to only have 2 children, and have probably 'worked hard' to get where you are (neatly discarding all the privilige that got you there in the first place), your children will be at school with these children.

They will be the children who need extra support from the school, the ones more likely too be suffering with behavioural and eductional issues, the ones who are most risk of exclusion, who then go on to not to have jobs, who have to rely on the state for support - or who put high strains on the health service.

It makes no sense.

Well considering how one menial job position recently received over 400 applications including those of graduates I don't think that's something we have to worry about for a long time.

The idea that limiting adults to the amount of children they can provide for being abhorrent and shocking is quite funny.

...considering how one menial job position recently received over 400 applications...

Consider the companies that have outsourced, exploited third world slave labour, monopolised, forced individual employees to shoulder the work of groups of people, capped wages, manipulated market forces, stripped the environment, don't pay tax they should, lobbied against unions, lobbied against taxes, and hid profits offshore.

Reserve your anger for them.

Whilst you're congratulating yourself on your amazingness of choosing to only have 2 children, and have probably 'worked hard' to get where you are (neatly discarding all the privilige that got you there in the first place), your children will be at school with these children

I think my point was actually that it’s really normal and not amazing whatsoever.

The idea that limiting adults to the amount of children they can provide for being abhorrent and shocking is quite funny.

That’s not what’s shocking and abhorrent.

You’re not limiting parents to having two children, unless you’re sterilising them after the second child is born. Maybe that would be acceptable to some here.

The children are still being born and whether that’s down to awful irresponsible parents in some cases or not, children cost money. This attitude basically means those kids are screwed.

More over, you’re not limiting people to two children. You’re mainly limiting women (unless they’re not the resident parents) because men can go and impregnate as many women as they want, as many times as they want, and those kids will be paid for unless the man sticks around and makes a joint claim.

You're not limiting people to 2 children. They're free to have a dozen if they want. The difference is that they'll only get state benefits for the first 2. If people can afford more, then no one is stopping them.

Kazzyhoward

And in my previous example, what should society say to Sally, the third child of parents who did not mitigate eventual possibilities? Tough shit?

I can't understand why some posters think the government is limiting them to two children.
I am sure they don't care how many DC people have, as long as they can pay for them.
It is fair, the problem is it has been to fair and abused badly for people.

But what happens to the children above that limit? They exist, they need to have their needs met. The data is clear about how this is pushing those children (and families) into poverty. How can that be OK?

So hopefully those children rightly reserve their anger for their selfish parents and then grow up knowing that they require common sense and restraint as adults.

Potato lots of people have given you thoughtful responses to this very question but you just ignore them and carry on as you were.

Why don’t you you know, read the thread?

So hopefully those children rightly reserve their anger for their selfish parents and then grow up knowing that they require common sense and restraint as adults.

I don't think we should be ok with child poverty and kids going to school hungry as has been reported. I don't want us to become America.

But what happens to the children above that limit? They exist, they need to have their needs met
Their parents need to meet those needs.
If they need 2 jobs to do it.
Going forward people will be aware of the change.
I believe the extra money should go towards social care, MH services, extra help for disabled parents, the elderly the vulnerable.
Not Sally who never worked with 5 DC.

Potato lots of people have given you thoughtful responses to this very question but you just ignore them and carry on as you were. Why don’t you you know, read the thread?

You have not said once what you would tell Sally. Sorry but you're full of it.

Do you think I’m obliged to respond to your variations on the same question repeatedly?

Of course it's not the child's fault but choosing to have a child is (or at least SHOULD BE) a huge choice for most people in a civilised society. Contraception is free and easily available. Yes, mistakes can happen but there is ample free contraception. As a taxpayer I object to paying for anyone to have more than two children.

All the people who think there should be no limit to how many children a household can claim tax credits for, do you realise the money doesn't just come from nowhere. It comes from the taxes of people who work.

Perhaps everyone who works should just give up their jobs and be given loads of money from the magic money tree to allow them to have whatever they want, be it more children or an expensive car? I mean, it's their right, isn't it?

Sorry mummy and daddy are shit Sally. Have you asked them why they have failed you as parents?

Do you think I’m obliged to respond to your variations on the same question repeatedly?

Lol well when you don't want to properly respond to a whole half of the debate, I have tried to make it very clear what the question was. You can keep repeating that the parents are irresponsible until you are blue in the face but it doesn't answer the question of thoughts towards the children. You are just focused on your anger towards the parents but the parents aren't the only ones affected by this. I know people do things I will never do or used, I have never needed cancer treatment, I have never needed social care, I have never needed rehabilitation, but I want my tax money to go towards vulnerable people. That includes children. All this money saved by the way from cutting off children, regular people will probably never see. It will go towards the very rich who siphon it offshore.