‘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 was amazed when William and Kate had a 3rd child. They are meant to care about the planet and environment. If they truly did they would not have had a third.

Totally agree. I can't deal with them and their three children, bookies say more are possibly in order (where do they get their information, I wonder?) and of course the Sussexes and their private jets/helicopters.

Madness.

The limit is completely fair! We need to draw the line somewhere.

The government have capped it to stop this culture of having kid after kid to get more money/benefits! Not taking any responsibility financially as they knew no mater how many they had they would be bailed out by the tax payer somewhere along the line.

I've always said if these type of people had to juggle work, childcare, finances etc they would no way have as many kids as they do.

We have one child and genuinely are in two minds about having another due to financial constraints and the exhaustion of working, running a house etc etc.

newmomof1 I dont know where you got that information from that the system is easy to manipulate. I can categorically tell you it isnt.

The system is designed to work against you. You need a degree in welfare benefits now to get what your entitled too. Anyone within the benefit system now is a commodity especially with the universal credit system.

Digital exclusion is the biggest problem with universal credit. I do work for an umbrella Christian agency in this area and I see far too much of what is happening in the system.

FYI the cost of benefit frauds is 0.007%. Yes you read that correctly. Less than 1%. Benefit fraud with overpayments included too, s 2 billion a year. Benefits which are unclaimed is 17 billion a year. Make what you will out of that.

Years of the Tory government making out people on benefits are scroungers and fiddling the system, to pay for the crash of the bankers in 2008 are taking alot of undoing.

I am not having a go. I am just saying how it actually is.

That said I do think there should be some leeway with this. The woman fleeing domestic violence is one example of where exceptional circumstances should be allowed in the 2 children policy

It is not all about money
No, until the outcome of poverty hits the headlines, people who fall under the poverty line complain that the government is not doing enough to help their children have the same opportunities than those whose parents support them.

What confuses me with these sort of debate is that their seem the an assumption that people who earn too much need benefits are able to afford ample children. My kids are now older but if I think of friends and colleagues earning between £40k and £100k as a family, I only know one with more than 2 children and they live extremely frugally. Most would have love more children but couldn't have offer them what they intended to pay for them (activities, school trips, driving instructions, support with uni etc...).

So why is it OK for better-off parents to limit the number of children they have to give them the best they can but it is not ok for those on lower income?

I was amazed when William and Kate had a 3rd child. They are meant to care about the planet and environment. If they truly did they would not have had a third.

Gawd, I hope they have a couple more! Anything to keep that awful Harry farther and farther from the throne.

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?

Well, I agree, it should apply to men as well and there definitely needs to be more legislation regarding parents who skive out of paying for their children but again, no one is forced to procreate with a useless bastard who's gone around fathering a bunch of kids and not paying for them.

Anything to keep that awful Harry farther and farther from the throne.

This is awful for people who got ill, split up or lost their job which is what welfare was set up for but anyone else should stop having kids they cannot afford or are fit and have no intention of ever working. Spare me the sympathy, people on welfare can also apply for a larger house when their families grow. Meanwhile, working friends struggling to pay a mortgage have to stay put and squash themselves in
.

Kashali
Oh absolutely,wage growth has not kept up with cost of living.
Long long gone are the days when only one parent went out to work,usually wife stayed at home with children and you could easily afford a nice semi on a single average wage.
It’s all bit hours here and there,no security of job or hours or money,all topped up by credits.
All so companies can extract their pound of flesh,maximum profits and good for the shareholders.Banks are winning,landlords too.
Shops and businesses are closing with the increase in technology,population is increasing,well these businesses need all this lovely cheap labour.
The cost of housing is absolutely unsustainable unless you want reduction in all services health,education,police everything you can imagine so that more and more money is going to the haves from the have nots via rent and high house values.

So why is it OK for better-off parents to limit the number of children they have to give them the best they can but it is not ok for those on lower income?
Because their opinion of “best” often includes things that are simply not necessary to give a child a good quality of life.
Eg own bedroom instead of a suitable place to study on dining room table with door closed.
Ballet and gymnastics instead of Rainbows and Church Kids club.
Driving lessons paid for by parents instead of by young person with own part time job at sixth form.
Support for uni - unnecessary is lower incone children have full maintenance loan.
Skiing holiday instead of a holiday in Wales.
Berries and Avocado instead of apples and bananas.
Boden instead of George at Asda .
So many middle class wants for their dc could be replaced and thus afford more dc.

“The government have capped it to stop this culture of having kid after kid to get more money/benefits!“

Because raising multiple children on benefits is the life of Riley.... Holy crap, what an idiotic thing to say.

Did you tell me to fuck off feelingverylazytoday ? What a good debater you are. I'm very impressed.

And please do keep making assumptions about me too. You know nothing about my background at all.

You can’t afford kids...don’t expect the state to fund your procreation. I would’ve loved more kids but couldn’t afford anymore than two...it’s called being responsible

The system is screwed. People who are entitled to it don't get it and people who aren't entitled do. It seems to be whoever knows how to play the system gets the money. I know someone who will never work as he doesn't see why he should when he can claim. Hes 43 and never worked a day. He manages to claim £300 per week, how? I have no idea yet a soldier who lost both legs is deemed fit to work because he can walk the required distance and cannot claim DLA.

I get tax credits and have more than 2 DC. We were comfortable and could afford them but then my marriage fell apart, I had to change my job to fit around the DC and school, my ex refuses to pay maintenance (CMS are useless) so we are now struggling. Life happens. Sort the system, make absent fathers pay for their kids, get the lazy into work and less children will suffer.

I don't want kids to suffer but work people just above the benefits threshold don't get a pay rise when they have a baby and we can't get a bigger house without paying more. Two child limit must have exceptions for twins +, taking in foster/adopted kids especially kinship care, and blended families especially where no child support is paid

@MarvellousMonsters so it's okay to keep popping kids out and not attempting to provide for your kids yourself??

I'm sure living on benefits isn't the life of Riley I'm not saying it is and I'm sure it's tough but if that's the case don't have so many kids and unless physically or mentally unable to work try and get a job that will support your family.

From my experience I know people including family members who are far better off on benefits than working.

Not sure of your situation but working with a child plus having to choose between having another or struggling for a few more years isn't the life of Riley either.

Actually i think tax credits is a luxury. In many countries there are no state benefits, and to keep having children on purpose or by accidental should beable to provide for them financially without relying on the state. Also with the forever changing benefit system as it stands today he is really that stupid to rely on benefits in order to live by choice.

2 kids is plenty for any family and the environment- once your family is done bloke can get the snip. No accidental 3rds. It’s what most people who have to pay for their kids do.

Well we should start by stpiing giving tax credits/financial help to those who don’t need them.
I’m in a great financial position but my borough still pays me £1000 per term for my child’s very private and very expensive nursery fees. I have friends who are millionaires and get it too, and most of them have 3+ children. It’s bonkers.

iam pridem, ex quo suffragia nulli / uendimus, effudit curas; nam qui dabat olim / imperium, fasces, legiones, omnia, nunc se / continet atque duas tantum res anxius optat, / panem et circenses. [...]

... Already long ago, from when we sold our vote to no man, the People have abdicated our duties; for the People who once upon a time handed out military command, high civil office, legions — everything, now restrains itself and anxiously hopes for just two things: bread and circuses.

It's funny people here think helping the poor is unnecessary and that if we just stop, the poor will "learn their lesson" and stop being poor.

Well, in ancient Rome, they knew the only way to hold power and keep the status quo was bread and circuses. We have our circuses with social media, TV, etc but if the Tories are stupid enough to keep pushing the pendulum where enough people start to go hungry then I fear what is next. Even America is not dumb enough to cut off food stamps for children. Obviously this policy hasn't been around long enough to have an effect but when you strip police down to a skeleton force and you don't feed the proletariat properly, it doesn't take a genius to figure out what happens with time. Unfortunately most people don't understand that keeping the poorest afloat is as much about keeping the country secure as much as anything else.

Hopefully people, irrespective of financial resource, will begin to feel intrinsically motivated to limit the number of children they have as the climate emergency begins to bite. More than two children won't be an issue for much longer. And as we will welcome larger numbers of climate refugees, we definitely will not have to worry about not having enough people to keep the country running. Gin cracks me up with their bananas insistence that increased immigration is somehow a bad thing. For 20 years, I have taught predominantly, although not exclusively, the children of immigrants and they grow up to be every bit as productive, enterprising and capable as your regular white British kid.
For what it's worth, when DP and I decided to try to buy a house, we bought a small house in a properly crappy area, so that we would be able to afford the mortgage on one income (both public sector, so not great salaries). When we talked about having kids, we again set as a baseline whether we would be able to manage on one salary. Because, you know, one of us might become ill, die or lose our job. So here we are in a tiny house, having gotten over ourselves about our neighbourhood, and that's OK. Because that's what we know we can afford, bottom line.

@Fowles94 just going off what I was told when I asked the job centre about UC for when DC1 is born hopefully they did lie to me because I honestly can't return to work next year if we can't get something child care is more than I earn in a week!

Why would anyone have children expecting the government to find them? Yes, we are fortunate to be funded for two. But please take into consideration your husband/partner may Leave or die before having a third if you are not adequately insured. I don’t think the public purse can continue to support people constantly having babies. They are your responsibility, not anyone else’s. I don’t qualify for any benefits as I choose to work and live from paycheck to paycheck. I will not have any more children as I simply can’t afford to. There has to be a cut of or our country would be even more fu*ed

Many years ago a friend got pregnant for the second time. She was carrying twins. Under the current regime that would automatically have taken her over the "two child" limit. It was a real struggle for them; they had a good budget for one extra child but two pushed them perilously close to the breadline. So that's one way people sometimes end up having "kids they can't afford".

Canny - I think multiple births are exempt so your friend would have been fine.

[[