‘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.

PP - so it's basically a case of race to the bottom 'why should they have that when I haven't etc'.. Maybe ask why cost of living is now so high people on way above average wage are living like they are on the pittance that is state benefits? It's not the people on benefits fault is it?

Divide and rule

So who is actually the "poor" family?

Both. They have both been exploited by a system that has kept wages stagnant and cost of living soar.

But taking from the benefits family actually makes the working family worse off, because it makes both families more reliant on jobs with terrible conditions. If the corporations know they can only push employees so far, because they have a safety net of benefits that they can fall back on, then they have to provide some quality of life to those employees but if there is no other choice but to work those jobs, then they don't have to offer anyone anything.

I'm a big supporter of tax credits, as a mean to support on low income, low not because they chose to work the minim hours possible to claim the maximum benefits.ut to support those working FT or next too who carry out duties that are poorly paid. I have especially sympathy for people who work in the car industry.

Sadly, yet inevitably, tax credits was quickly seen as a way to not work or work very little whilst still receiving enoug to enjoy a reasonably decent life.

This 2 kids threshold was inevitable when tax credits started to become a lifestyle, people with 4 or 5 children working only 24 hours as a couple. This policy is going to affect innocent kids and yes, it is unfair, ut the alternative is a growing number of kids, brought up by parents on benefits who statistically are more likely to have fewer qualifications, fewer skills and more likely to bring up kids who will in turn copy their parents lifestyle of having children and relying on benefits.

So yes, this policy will impact on some innocent children but even these chiodren will fair better if there is more money to support the nhs, education, social care etc...

Thankfully, most parents on benefits are responsible and although would have considered having more when it meant more income will stop at two because they want the best for their existing children.

As for contraception it work as well for higher earners than those of benefits but somehow, it would seem that all the majorities of contraception 'failures' affect the latter. Not one of my friends or family members who relid on contraception for many years have had a contraception failure, not one. Funny that!

So yes, this policy will impact on some innocent children but even these chiodren will fair better if there is more money to support the nhs, education, social care etc...

But shows how lovely a person you are that you will pick on someone who was gang raped as a kid and had their education messed up because of it. Honestly who do people like you think you are?

2eternities: while nobody would deny it’s terrible you’ve been through such horrible life experiences, you can’t keep bringing it up as a defence mechanism when someone challenges what you’re saying. You’ve done that more than once on this thread when you don’t like someone disagreeing with you and it’s not on.

You have no idea what other posters have been through unless they choose to tell you, and perhaps other posters don’t think it’s necessary as it just looks like trying to shock someone into not daring to challenge you.

it just looks like trying to shock someone into not daring to challenge you.

No it just looks like the rest of you are brainwashed pedalling the same crap and attacking individuals for personal circumstance rather than addressing any of the other myriad number of issues in a broader economic sense since it's easier. Like parrots. Stop watching channel 5.

My mother had children she couldn’t afford (and yes we were raised solely on benefits, one of those mystical people that don’t exist according to MN a lot of the time).
She had 4, while not working and claiming. My dad never had a job either - and she was an awful mother (her attitude to parenting much the same as working, that tells you what you need to know).
Growing up, pardon my language but we didn’t have shit and this was during the Blair years as well when things were certainly easier than they are now for a dosser.
The 6 weeks summer hols were spent indoors bored out of our minds. We rarely went on school trips. Never had any treats or hobbies or extracurricular activities. My clothes were hand me downs that were bought in tescos and cycled through at least two siblings before they got to me. Our furniture was cheap Argos MDF that broke and got patched up the best we, or my dad could. I spent a couple of years sleeping on a mattress on the floor with my sister. One Christmas we went without heating and it was freezing.
We mostly lived on cheap cupboard food (beans, pasta) with some kind of frozen food such as chips or fish fingers. Yoghurts, fruit, vegetables were a rarity and the fridge was absent of anything other than a bottle of milk for most of the month. Water, gas and electric were strictly rationed.

It was sheer laziness that stopped my mum getting a job and for that, she deserves to be condemned. 100%.
Despite our rather shitty upbringing financially speaking, I’m grateful that the state didn’t let us starve. And that upbringing means that my sister entered the workforce at 16 and has worked since. I entered the workforce at 17 and have worked since. My older brother started his own accountancy firm and is doing well too. My younger brother (almost 16) will also do great things I’m sure. Of all of us only my older sister has children but she has fought bloody hard to make sure that her sons have a good life. As have all of the children of the Blair generation that I’ve met personally and given I grew up on a large council estate I know more than a few. I genuinely can’t think of anyone who was raised in the same circumstance as I was that went on to do the same as their parents/mother. I’d even go as far as to say we all want to work harder to be better than our parents.

Well done if you’ve read this far but can I just ask why, on a parenting site no less, we’re happy to allow children (who’s financial station whether working or not isn’t their fault) to be subject to fuel poverty, starvation or eviction? Why would we rather have children grow up in B+B’s or reliant on food banks?

My mother had children she couldn’t afford
Mine too, she had 5, Dad always worked but in the 80's 90's he had at least 3 nights a week at the pub.
We never had nice clothes, often holes in shoes, no holidays, no treats.
We all left school before A levels, leaving cert in Ireland, couldn't wait to get a job to buy a pair of jeans.
We were loved but it was boring and worrying.
It effects DC different. I picked the cheapest communion dress as I knew DM was poor, 2 years later my younger DSIS choose a really fancy expensive one, I resented her, now as adults she is in a much better position than me, she has a rich husband too, she always went for what she needed, whereas I worried there'd be enough so settled for less in life.

Haha, I wouldn’t watch a channel 5 if you paid me PatoPotato 😂

I don't have a TV license so don't watch C5. . I fully support this policy. A move in the right direction considering climate change and the environment.

Like I believe any of you would ever admit to watching channel 5 lol you guys sure like to spout off the same propaganda though 🙃

It doesn’t win people over when you call their sincerely held beliefs propaganda. As I mentioned earlier in the thread I’m very much on the left politically, vote labour, consider myself a socialist, wouldn’t wipe my arse with the daily mail let alone read it. Doesn’t mean I’m incapable of holding a positive view on a specific policy instigated by a party I despise. Part of learning and gaining new knowledge is being able to look at things critically and individually instead of just calling everything you disagree with ‘propaganda’ :)

It doesn’t win people over when you call their sincerely held beliefs propaganda.

When you have quite a few people repeating the same thing and addressing no other points refuting their statement.... It's propaganda.

If it hurts people's fragile egos to hear that then tough, you've been fooled by corporations. Take it up with them.

Like I believe any of you would ever admit to watching channel 5 lol you guys sure like to spout off the same propaganda though 🙃

Wow, how mature and clever you are. When people disagree with you and state their views they are liars who are brainwashed by C5. Aren't you winning there, said no one ever.

I'm lucky I can get help for DS3 because of when he was born. When I had him I was married, ex"D"H was working too and there was no reason to expect that to change. My life was blown out of the water in 24 hours and I am now a lone parent and reliant on top ups and help with childcare at least until all my children are in school. Under this rule I would be really struggling through no fault of my own. 🖕🏻 for anyone who judges. Walk a mile or two in my shoes then make your mind up.

Aren't you winning there

A child thinks others not being fed is a cute game. Are you doing yourself any favours here?

When people disagree with you and state their views they are liars who are brainwashed by C5.

Besides that, what did you actually refute of what I said? Because I didn't see any posts made refuting the effect on the wider economy. Parroting the same drivel that responds to none of that is propaganda, sorry if that hurts your fragile ego as well.

If it hurts people's fragile egos to hear that then tough, you've been fooled by corporations. Take it up with them.

Parroting the same drivel that responds to none of that is propaganda, sorry if that hurts your fragile ego as well.

You’re really concerned about other people’s egos aren’t you? Is your ego bruised or something? Cos I can’t see why else you’d be so fixated on trying to paint other posters as being ‘fragile’ or ‘hurt’. Perhaps because your jabs about Channel 5 and ‘propaganda’ haven’t really landed well.

A child thinks others not being fed is a cute game. Are you doing yourself any favours here?

I don't find my views in support of a policy limiting benefits pay outs to do children a cute game at all. Not here to do myself favours. Nor is voicing support for this policy 'parroting drivel' or symbolic of a 'fragile ego'. Interesting but ultimately weak attempt at projecting and armchair psychology. The policy is well-supported in government and by constituents. It's not going to change.

You’re really concerned about other people’s egos aren’t you? Is your ego bruised or something? Cos I can’t see why else you’d be so fixated on trying to paint other posters as being ‘fragile’ or ‘hurt’. Perhaps because your jabs about Channel 5 and ‘propaganda’ haven’t really landed well.

Wow who needs to pay shills when people like you do the dirty work for free! Lol.

Did you want to respond to my points or do you want to continue with ad hominem fallacies? It may work on others but not me because I really couldn't give a shit.

@DrCoconut, of course circumstances can change but anyone having children should be aware of that. If everyone only had 2 children then if circumstances did change for the worse they would not struggle as much as if they had more than 2.

Life can be tough, people can lose jobs, marriages break down particularly when children come along. No one should be so complacent thinking that they can afford 3, 4, 5 etc children without thinking about what could happen in the future

Interesting but ultimately weak attempt at projecting and armchair psychology.

Like I said to your double, did you want to address the points I made on the wider economy or continue with the ad hominem? I was right when I told a previous poster that that's the path your lot go down because it's the easiest. Takes no critical thinking at all! Such a difficult thing for some as can be seen in this thread. 🙄

If you RTFT you’ll seen very many posters who’ve made their points, I don’t see why they need repeating on page 34 when asked by someone who relies on, as a PP said, sneery armchair psychology digs and trying to make out people who differ from you are speaking from the ego. The fact you refer to ad hominem attacks when everything you’ve written is here in black and white is frankly amusing. Come back when you’ve grown up and can debate the merits of policy without needing to call people shills or suggest they’re lying when they respond to your digs, nice try but you’ve had your fun 😂

Come back when you’ve grown up

Ad hominem. Staying the course on your attacks, why not trying being a little more original especially as you have been called out on this bullshit now?

And no, no one has addressed MY points.

They have repeated themselves ad nauseam with parroted points that could have come from a dodo bird for all they are worth.

Most likely you will never address my points but keep trying to come up with more ad hominem fallacies. And you know why? Because you can't.

AngrySquid, it's fantastic that you and your siblings have managed to develop a good working ethos despite your upbringing, but maybe it was being brought up with so little that prompted you all to avoid repeating what your parents did.

My experience is sadly quite different. Won't go into too much details but there is a definite trand already taking place in DD's school, with a number of girls already mothers or pregnant at 18/19 and not working, almost all coming from single mum's families on benefits. I remember one of them coming to the house and when I asked her what she was going to study after school as they just finished their GCSEs, looked at me and said that it didn't matter because she loved kids, looked after her nephews and nieces regularly and she hoped to become a SAHM to her children. She is now 19, has one child and pregnant with her 2nd, not with either father, not working. It makes me so angry because she was a lovely girl, funny and caring, and according to DD, didn't do badly at school.