‘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.

All the people saying you should not have children you cannot afford – are you aware that this ruling applies to people who could afford their children but fall on hard times through no fault of their own?

I am highly skilled and work in a technical field which moves rapidly. DH is a hard worker and when we married 20 years I thought we would never need to rely on benefits, barring any major events such as disabling car crashes. Back then it was possible to raise a family on one income. But the cost of living has soared and our salaries have not kept pace.

A few years ago my DF died unexpectedly leaving my DM with dementia without a carer, I took a couple of weeks off to sort things out and my employer decided I was no longer reliable so changed my working conditions so that I could no longer afford the childcare required to work there. And my skills were a bit out of date so I could not get another job in that field.

I started a non-technical business but at the start it was not making much money. DH was working but we could not manage on just his income. Fortunately this was in 2015 so we got tax credits for our four children. We just about managed until I managed to get back into my career. I was incredibly lucky in this respect so our ‘period of unemployment’ as I think of it (although we were both working) lasted less than a year.

Had the two child limit applied to us then we would have been in a serious financial mess.

The two child limit is population control, but applied only to those who are not independently wealthy. Anyone who needs to work can potentially lose the ability to work, so even if you can afford your children, a nasty turn of fate could change that. There needs to be a safety net.

This means that my two youngest (born before the two child ruling came in by the way) are growing up without the safety net that others have.

Previous posts also indicate a resentment against families raising children on benefits. I think the media fans this resentment. We used to live in a poor area and most of my children’s friends were only children. I expected this to change as years went by but most remained only children – the parents can’t all have had fertility problems. We knew only two large families on benefits.

Here's the thing. The work I do doesn't just help to fund me. It also funds my boss, and my bosses' boss, all the way up to the directors, who all earn shedloads more than I do for the work we all do. Which means I am working so that my boss (etc) can afford to have as many children as s/he likes.

So cry me a river that some people have their large families paid for out of the tax that I pay and the shedloads of money that (I hope!) my bosses' bosses' ... boss pays in tax.

There are 2 schools of thought on this.

1. only have the dc you can afford, often maintaining a lifestyle
2. Have as many dc as you want and stretch what is available to fit Neither is 'right', it's a difference in views.

someone who is expecting a baby with a no-marks man

Not being funny but what does that mean? Is it an autocorrect for no-hoper or something?

If only4, I too had only one child, had intended to have another but thing don't always work out the way you imagine and I was and am content with my one child (40 in the autumn), we're all close.

It certainly would have been hard if we had had another child. I worked part time and sorting out child care would have been difficult. I suppose we'd have managed, people do, but being very hard up and stressed can take its toll. I'll never know now! I did receive Child/Family Allowance, everyone did when I had mine, it wasn't means tested. I know that in previous years it was only paid for a second child and any subsequent children. It wasn't much but still useful. When he got older I gave it to my son every month.

I agree with those who say you should be in a position to support a child comfortably and it is irresponsible to have more if you can't afford it. Of course accidents happen but most of us can and do avoid pregnancy if we really want to.

Regarding the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge having a third child, we don't know if it was an accident. They wouldn't be likely to tell us! When I first read that the Duchess was pregnant with Louis, I was surprised because she had such a hard time (HG) with the first two and not many people would want to go through that again. So I think it might have been an unplanned pregnancy. However, having three is not too bad, it's not like having five, and Prince Louis is gorgeous.

Though having no more than two children is ethically probably right, I don't like there to be official, government rules about this sort of thing. In China the one child policy is rigidly enforced and there are severe financial penalties for anyone who has another as well as coerced abortions. I'd hate to live under a regime like that.

Why would you have a child you can't afford to raise yourself? I genuinely don't understand

I know a few women who’ve grown up in the care system, all but one have more than two children. It seems (from what they say) that they wanted love and a child provides that love to them, more children = more love.

I can’t berate such people, I just feel sad for them.

A no-mark means someone who is unsuccessful, a bit useless, etc.

Yeah No mark means a no hoper I think ,@GreenGrowTheRushesOhh

So many people on here are missing the point. Who cares about the reasons the parents have for having more kids? Making children suffer for that is cruel. Leaving children to be hungry and badly clothed because someone in power disapproves of their existence is disgusting and has no place in a modern society. It is no different than shunning "bastard" children.

I might well have only two kids when I really want three because of money among other things. That is irrelevant to the needless, disgustingly "moralistic" suffering of these children.

This is one of the most sensible and compassionate responses on this thread. I fully appreciate it grates, if, like many of 'us', you have restricted your family due only to finances yet become aware of some instances where larger families dependent on state benefits continue to have children they can't support without that help. Having kids - or not - is such an emotive issue and it's a very difficult issue so far as direct state involvement is concerned. However, it doesn't alter the fact that this isn't simply theoretical - there are already real life, living children who are being adversely affected by this policy. They are, in effect, being punished, to bring out a well worn phrase, for 'the sins' of their parents - and that doesn't sit right with me at all. Notwithstanding the fact that not all of those children will have been borne out of irresponsibility anyway - some will be the result of genuine contraception failure (so does the state expect abortions in those circumstances?), others may be single parent families claiming benefits for the first time following relationship breakdowns. Whatever the background to their conception are we really saying that we're okay about children living in poverty because their parents were either feckless or unlucky?

As some pps have already said, surely the only humane, responsible and compassionate course is to cast the safety net far enough to 'catch' all the children affected, no matter what their parental background - even if that does mean a very very small minority deliberately take advantage.

And we should stop looking at this issue in isolation. It shouldn't be an either or situation. Any decent first world country should secure the well being of its most vulnerable citizens, which, by definition, children are because they cannot support themselves. That doesn't mean that a compassionate attitude towards all children can't be maintained concurrently with programmes designed to a) curtail unplanned pregnancies (as much as you ever can), b) make working worthwhile for parents (affordable childcare, flexible hours etc), c) make working worthwhile generally (true living wages), d) affordable housing. In other words, giving as many people as possible opportunity and hope so the minority who irresponsibly conceive think twice about what they really want from life. I probably haven't articulated that very well but it's not a simple black and white issue.

I benefited from the welfare state growing up after my dad died, it meant myself and my siblings could eat proper meals, give my mum petrol money to take me to school etc.That enabled to get a decent education to degree level and then become a functioning member of society that contributes a significant proportion of tax.

Having said that, it does grinds a bit when people who do not fall on bad circumstances but keep popping kids out even when they are on low wages, however then you think do these kids deserve to be in poverty because of their parents decisions?

We only have two children, probably could afford a third and still maintain a comfortable lifestyle but decided against for various reasons, significantly carbon footprint of a third child.

@ThisMustBeMyDream

This is one of the reasons me and my partner are only having one child. My dad did leave me and my 2 siblings and my mum could not afford all 3 of us herself so we went below the breadline and were homeless for a while, we were split between other members of the family until we could get somewhere to live (our home was repossessed).

I am covering myself for if my partner does leave. I can afford to pay for the one child I have with no help from anyone else.

And yet...if you're wealthy you can have three or four children who never have to work; who are given houses/money/private education/trust funds as they mature into adults who will then give birth to another three or four children respectively (thirty years down the line).... and so it continues.
Meanwhile....we, or most of us pay taxes, are part of the 'just about managing', brigade who can't really afford to have children any more.
So...what happens when there's not enough people working and paying taxes to finance the upper classes and their choices ?

There must be a lot of only children here, is there? Some people have more than one or two children because they want their children to have brothers and sisters. The people saving or waiting to have children should honestly sit down and have a think because 1, by the time you’ve decided you’re ready you could be hindering your chances, 2, you might realize then you do want your child to have a sibling and, 3, if you considered everything in the clinical manner people are affording to this subject, you wouldn’t ever think you were financially viable to have a child because children cost money in a way that people try to calculate but which can’t be and nearly always mean a change in lifestyle choices- me and dh were both in well paying jobs, have gone below the poverty threshold and out again, while both working and now I’m a SAHM since ds3, we live practically and without many luxuries, sometimes having to majorly sacrifice and dipping into poverty. But this is life.

As my not so diplomatic Father used to say... 'If you can't feed them, you don't breed them.'

I agree, you shouldn't have kids you can't afford - hence why we will most likely stop at food. Child benefit is a great help, but we don't rely on it to feed and clothe our child.

I certainly wouldn't continue to have children on the premise that I would rely on child benefit.

No benefit is assured, so if they cut it completely I wouldn't be surprised.

There are apparently constituencies where a third of all children are affected by this.

And if the aim is to reduce the birthdate then the government needs to do more to publicise it: at the moment, many people only find out about the two child cap when they are already pregnant or even after the birth.

Spectacular own goal from a government that wants to reduce immigration. To put it crudely, if you have an ageing population, you either have to breed future workers to pay the pensions of the retired - or import them.

We only have two children, probably could afford a third and still maintain a comfortable lifestyle but decided against for various reasons, significantly carbon footprint of a third child.

I’m sorry but I’m agog at this. We can speak about people not having children for different reasons, but what if a person’s third child is a doctor that helps many people, or the scientist that invents a cure, or a career who impacts many many people’s lives? It’s like so many on this thread are forgetting the humanity aspect to all of this

That was carer not career!!!

It also worth baring in mind that the income cut-off for tax credits used to rise with each child. I think families with 3 children could earn up to 40k per year and be entitled to tax credits each month. So even parents with more professional jobs were helped by tax credits when having a third or subsequent child.

Jeremy Hunt wishes to half the abortion time limit from 24 to 12 weeks, could this has implications alongside the 2 child limit? We’ve seen reproductive freedoms going backwards in other parts of the world so a new time limit isn’t totally out of the question over here.

And the rape clause, I forgot to mention this in the OP. It makes me feel deeply uncomfortable. Also surely it’s admitting that in many circumstances an unplanned child does need the additional financial support of tax credits, whether or not the conception was consensual doesn’t change that.

It's a tricky one. I agree with the two child limit in principle for ecological reasons, but in practice I don't want to see any child to go hungry. The feckless and unlucky will always be with us and I don't see why the cleaner with one child should go without to push up the profits of the company that fund the CEO who has four. On the whole, better education, wages and childcare costs that allows women to work seems the most sensible way forward. As a short term measure, I would also happily fund free school meals throughout primary to ensure every child got some good, hot food each day without stigma.

I’m sorry but I’m agog at this. We can speak about people not having children for different reasons, but what if a person’s third child is a doctor that helps many people, or the scientist that invents a cure, or a career who impacts many many people’s lives? It’s like so many on this thread are forgetting the humanity aspect to all of this

But you can make that argument about anything. I don't want a second DC because I just don't. Who knows what talents I am depriving the world of!

Do you just keep popping them out till you get a good one?

Please, please can people stop with the "circumstances can change" excuse? Yes of course circumstances can change - illness, death, disability, divorce, unemployment - these can happen to anybody at any time. That's not news, its always been the case. The solution is to plan conservatively when it comes to family size, stick at 1 or 2 if your budget won't allow you to pick up the slack for 6 if things go tits up. Prioritise health insurance before baby number 3. Double up on contraception if number 4 would mean you can't afford to work any more.

@Celebelly yeah my hypothetical third could be a school drop out and turn into a low life criminal

peregrina I had ds in 95, so got cb, but that was it, and always has been for us. Married man's allowance had been reduced by Lamont when he was Chancellor, and withdrawn by Brown in 2000.

My Mum got family allowance for my younger brother, but not for me until later (I was born in 66 and db in 68).

I kinow there is a difference between cb (which used to be a universal entitlement) and tax credits, which have always been income dependent.

The computer systems, new staff training, appeals and the puck up of benefit changes by Social and Health care has cost more than its saved.

So the question is, are we happy with an increase in, poor health, infant mortality rate, maternal rate, rise in respiratory disease in children living in poorer homes, rise in the use of food banks and crime.

When it hasn't saved the UK any money?

Genevieva, the birth rate isn't dropping throughout the Muslim World. We aren't stopping tje rise in fundamental Islam and we are talking 9 children plus.

If it wasn't for Charities working in the UK children would be suffering from malnutrition. That's what you are saying is right.

Or are you saying that everyone up north should only have two because our high Streets and businesses aren't being replaced. A new claim for tax credits is someone who has been made redundant and there's been plenty of those over the last few years.

Or another Woman whose been abandoned by the Father of her children.

I to had my children pre tax credit times and posters need to take their rose tinted glasses off. Children suffered extreme poverty, so did women.

How can a Country that spends so much on nothing and gives so much Aid have it's children relying on Charities to feed them?

Those of you that live in London, are you out the way so your children aren't effected by the rise in knife crime?

Violent crime is on the rise across the Country, do you not think that Austerity is linked?

For what purpose have our children become so disposable?

And the rape clause, I forgot to mention this in the OP. It makes me feel deeply uncomfortable. Also surely it’s admitting that in many circumstances an unplanned child does need the additional financial support of tax credits, whether or not the conception was consensual doesn’t change that.

Exactly. A child is a child is a child.

While most people would rightfully be sympathetic to a rape victim, her child is no less or more needy than another child. That 'concession' if you can call it that, recognises a certain sum of money is required for a child's basic upbringing but by restricting it to children whose conception falls within certain parameters, the notion of the 'deserving poor' vs the 'undeserving poor' is perpetuated.