‘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.

The more you give,the more some will take.

I agree. Those companies who benefit from their employees having state funded hewthcare and education, with the state subsidising their paltry wages through tax credits, yet they still evade tons of tax legally, and the tax gap (between what’s expected and what’s actually paid) totals billions and they get involvement in writing tax law itself if they’re big enough...

Yes, the more you give, the more some will take.

What’s staggering is that you don’t understand this is a smokescreen designed to keep people punching down. You’re clearly not entertaining the costs caused by this “saving” false economy

Of course this limit also applies to those who were perfectly capable of affording the children they had until life took a bad turn. This can happen to anyone, and the majority of the people this affects are working hard and doing their best. But much easier to vilify the small number of families having tons of kids and having never worked because they can’t be arsed. And guess what, even their children deserve to eat and have shoes that fit.

These threads are absolute magnets for the entitled grabby irresponsible people you’re talking about.

Imagine being so devoid of empathy and human decency that you think the only people protesting this are those directly affected.

I only have two children (twins, so only expected one) and didn’t receive a penny in benefits until they became entitled due to disability. This rule doesn’t affect me personally in the least.

I hope they don't expect care in their old age due to frailty or dementia because, quite frankly, if they do then they should have planned their aging process much better so why should we have to put in the money, time and effort to fix their mistake?

This is really getting quite silly because the subject of the thread is limiting tax credits to two children and the dissenters keep going off on incredibly wild tangents like 'why don't you just kill all the old people'.

To your silly point, though, I hold myself to a fairly high standard of health, I put myself through gruelling workouts and I eat a diet far different to one that I'd like and drink far less red wine than I'd like. If this proves not to work, then I'll be off to Dignitas.

There is absolutely zero chance of me idling away in a state-funded bed unless someone both contravenes my living will and strips me of my assets, which I believe is illegal/unethical.

even their children deserve to eat and have shoes that fit

What a load of bollox.

I think if you had 3 children you might wonder (in advance) if you can afford to feed them or put shoes on their feet.

But no. No personal responsibility. Let the taxpayer pay. We can stay on benefits and have as many kids as we want, cos someones always gonna pay (though not us obviously).

These idiot liberals. I don't think they'd be so "liberal" if they had to pay cash directly to these people who have big families they can't afford. (they get money for the first two kids, lets keep sending that cash over, six, seven kids, whatever....). Poor people CAN have kids btw, they'll get housing AND benefits. But maybe just maybe its not right to expect the taxpayer to pay up endlessly (thats me and you by the way) to often lazy sods who won't work .

But no. No personal responsibility.

Lol

"Kid, you need to take some personal responsibility. You should have chosen to be born to rich parents, obviously. I did, and look at how successful I am! Sorry you were so dumb as to be born poor, not my problem 🙄"

I can't agree with this: No. The children of high earners are more likely to grow up to be high earners because of their contacts, not because they are more intelligent or talented. Opportunity is only ever bought, never earned. That's why we're in the mess we're in.

It is not 'only ever' bought. Yes, certainly, plenty of people do get their foot on the next rung of the ladder because of who they know but that is not always the case and for those who do have contacts they mostly still have to work hard and have their own ability to make a success of an opportunity.

I know of people who have got where they are today through sheer determination and hard work and a certain amount of natural intelligence or a particular skill for something. They didn't have premade contacts and opportunities but sought them independently at the right time. (I don't include myself in this - I wouldn't have my career without support from my parents for example as childhood private lessons was the start of it).

Pato
Yes that is all true but we are talking about the other end of the spectrum as well.

I think if you had 3 children you might wonder (in advance) if you can afford to feed them or put shoes on their feet.

You would. I would. Some people are shit and they don’t.

Personally I’m not comfortable with looking at my wonderful little boys and knowing that, if they’d been born to less responsible parents, they might not be getting dinner tonight.

I’m not comfortable knowing that a responsible who had kids they could afford are now struggling to feed and clothe children like mine because they’ve been abandoned by their partner, or they’ve both been made redundant, or one has a critical illness or dies.

It is the children who are suffering here, and I cannot be okay with kids paying the price for having irresponsible parents.

Again, men can have as many kids as they want as long as they aren’t around long enough to go on a tax credits claim. So how is this about taking responsibility?

This is really getting quite silly because the subject of the thread is limiting tax credits to two children and the dissenters keep going off on incredibly wild tangents like 'why don't you just kill all the old people'.
I agree.

If you support the 2 child limit on tax credits then:
You must be in favour of Trump's child detention centres
You must hate the poor and love mocking and judging the vulnerable
You must hate people with disabilities (even if you categorically state you'd be in favour of raising disability benefits where there are dependent children because that's not the same as popping out sprogs)
You must be fine with large corporations avoiding tax through loopholes because you demonize the poor
You are the sort of person who explains how trump gets into power
You must be right wing politically (even if you support a better welfare state and higher public spending in other areas)

It couldn't possibly be that you're a totally reasonable person who happens to have a different opinion on a political policy.

I know of people who have got where they are today through sheer determination and hard work and a certain amount of natural intelligence or a particular skill for something.

Very, very few people come from below the poverty line and end up very well off and successful. And yet these threads are always replete with them, it’s remarkable.

It's funny.

Some of you people really believe that poor people will just "learn their lesson" and stop being poor if the welfare state is stripped. What kind of history classes were you taking? Do you know the degree to which poverty sunk before a social safety net was created?

Let's just have workhouses back again.

Plus capital punishment.

Plus beat the shit out of children who are naughty in schools whilst we're at it.

Oh and reintroduce God into the equation.

As for those people who are in prison? Living a life of luxury.

Opportunity is not only ever bought- what a ridiculous thing to say. I was brought up on a council estate but I worked hard at school, had good aptitude, gained a good career and am now a high earner. Lots of people, really most see the reward from hard work. Life of course isn’t always fair but it is often fair. You can’t expect everyone else to pick up the tab for your lifestyle and when they expect to plan your finances like everyone else, make ridiculous excuses.

@Bitgold

We aimed for 2 kids. But our second pregnancy turned out to be 3 kids.

So, we didn’t plan for 3 kids. But neither did we want to terminate the pregnancy because it was twins. So here we are. A 3 child family.

So you think we should have done... what, exactly? Terminate a healthy pregnancy because it’s too many kids? Drown one of them in the bath because it’s a financial stretch for us?

What, exactly?

And again with the hyperbole. The two child limit is hardly the workhouse. It’s a perfectly reasonable limit on state support.

@Bitgold

Argh. Rather a big typo in my post. Hopefully it’s obvious. An early sentence should have read “our second pregnancy turned out to be twins”.

I consider myself a pretty empathetic person and support the idea of subsiding (up to two) children per family as I believe everyone has a right to reproduce but I was raised poor- it wasn’t pleasant but we were loved. No food and constantly unable to pay bills kinda poor! I worked my arse off and so did DH- we missed out on a lot of fun always making the sensible choices purposely so we could be high earners (circa 100k pa) I think we’ve done bloody well!

Threads like this are filled with anger and people suggesting that we should have more taken off us- or penalties for being high earners 🤔 erm NO! We literally just climbed out of that pitt so don’t try to pull us back in!

Maybe if you’ve been wealthy your entire life then you wouldn’t be as annoyed as threads like this make me but why should I have more taken off me to pay for other people’s children? I donate monthly to the charities I choose and pay my taxes (which are already higher) and aren’t eligible for any sort of benefit/ help, so why is the fact you’re working in a minimum wage job my problem?

Nobody got me a job with their ‘connections’ I wasn’t handed any advantages by wealthy parents - my mum worked in a shop PT and my dad was on disability 🤔

But no, clearly everyone who succeeds in life has had it handed to them on a silver platter 🙄

It’s a bitter fact to swallow but being poor/ low income does not sentence you to live your life that way. It might make succeeding a bit harder but NOT impossible and those who stand around saying ... well I couldn’t do better because my parents weren’t wealthy ... BULLSHIT you just didn’t make it!

Oh and those ‘daddy can you get me a job if I kick this coke habit’ types - anyone who has ever worked in a firm with them will tell you that NOBODY is under any illusions and whilst they might be employed they rarely do well 🤔 most end up stuck in low level managerial jobs just about getting by whilst going on fancy holidays with their parents money!

However LOTS of posh kids are actually SUPER bright, have attended the worlds best schools/uni’s and are the right people to be doing world leading jobs!

You can be rich and fail - you can be poor and succeed but ofc there’s always going to be a bit of a tip to the scale! But unless you all want COMMUNISM just accept that’s the way it is!

Benefits are a safety net, not an entitlement and certainly not a way of life. (Unless you have particularly difficult circumstances or are disabled)

@PaddyF0dder the limit doesn’t apply where there are multiple births. So no need for you to do anything different

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.

If you have an unplanned pregnancy, you weigh up all the options. You think carefully about what you can afford etc and you make the choice. Whether or not you have benefits. So it doesn't affect that: they can't just give it out to those who have an unplanned pregnancy can they!

Sinkgirl
I agree and I do understand that it is a race to the bottom.
I guess because I was very lucky being born when I was,I can see how life has in any ways got much harder in general.
You used to be able to go to work and buy a house and life in comparison was sweet.Three times multiples would get you a mortgage.Try up to ten times multiples now.Thats if you can even get a job that can pay the cost of living.
The agenda of its racist to be against freedom of movement and won’t someone think of the doctors,is a smokescreen to covers the millions arriving to do hard zero hour contracts for minimum wage for so many companies who basically just want slave labour.

Yeah fuck those irresponsible poor people, they should have known better than being poor!

Why would you have THREE kids if you’re poor? How would you provide for them? I don’t know many people who are not “poor” and couldn’t have 3 kids because of the expense!

I also think that 9/10 (probably even higher) of the people currently feeling so strongly that ‘rich people/ high earners should be peanalised’ would do a complete 180 were they suddenly to be offered a high paying job or come into money.

Billion dollar companies avoiding tax = shit
Middle class families not wanting to lose EVEN more of their income = 🤔 completely reasonable

But the limit of 2 is so reasonable and justifiable - isn't it? And how did people come to this so reasonable justification? Why not 1 or none at all. Well that really doesn't play well in the opinion polls does it? But '2' well that's reasonable and something Middle England can get behind and feel both moral that they are supporting a safety net, but also fits with their strongly held beliefs about personal responsibility and meritocracy.

Bullshit. All of it.

What is the actual cost of the social budget? As I've said the numbers in perspective are small. The savings the government makes negligible overall (as the cost just gets picked up elsewhere in the budgets of LA's) and arguably the costs in the long run are greater (both economically and socially)

It's political manipulation, pure and simple.

And in the meantime, we have shocking (and growing) levels of child poverty in a supposedly First World and hugely affluent society. Some of the worse in the world for a developed nation.

@spiceupyourlife I agree. I also made my own career through hard luck and it’s a bit frustrating when friends or family claim “it’s alright for you” because I’m a high earner. I worked very hard to get where I am, I wasn’t lucky or have anyone hand anything to me. Plenty of people at my school did well, lots did not. There were lots of opportunities there but many didn’t have the attitude or aptitude to grasp them.

I think it’s right that we do support poorer families but there is rightly a limit to this. Which is fine with me.

There has to be a limit. And no one is saying take away all benefits. No one is saying take away the safety net. But it's bonkers to not try and guide people toward only having the children they can actually afford.