‘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.

And no, no one has addressed MY points.

I'm failing to see why anyone must address your points or pontificating or they are wrong, immature, jealous, etc etc ? Who appointed you Leader of the The Thread? People have their viewpoints, some are different from yours, so you consider them all manner of silly, pathetic adjectives. Okay . . . my 10-year-old even recognises that line of thinking as silly, but, well, it makes you feel better about yourself obviously, more morally superior, so by all means crack on. It matters not, the policy has plenty of support across the government and from constituents. It's here to stay.

Now, now, swing, you know everyone is a potential Einstein! Mustn't suggest otherwise.

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.

Well, she will no longer get more and more benefits if she has more than 2. Those days are over. Good, IMO.

I'm failing to see why anyone must address your points or pontificating or they are wrong, immature, jealous, etc etc hmm? Who appointed you Leader of the The Thread? People have their viewpoints, some are different from yours, so you consider them all manner of silly, pathetic adjectives. Okay . . . my 10-year-old even recognises that line of thinking as silly, but, well, it makes you feel better about yourself obviously, more morally superior, so by all means crack on. It matters not, the policy has plenty of support across the government and from constituents. It's here to stay.

Don’t address my points because you can’t. Everyone else’s same “point” repeated ad nauseam has been countered. Mine hasn’t. Either counter it or keep proving my point that you lack the critical thinking skills to even attempt to do it. Please continue with the ad hominem attacks, you’ve shown it’s all your capable of. And as you do it, you keep proving me right.

Either counter it or keep proving my point that you lack the critical thinking skills to even attempt to do it. Please continue with the ad hominem attacks, you’ve shown it’s all your capable of. And as you do it, you keep proving me right.

Um, okay, Pato, those who do not bow to your commands are definitely in the wrong and prove your superiority and are attacking you, the Great I Am. Yes, you are must put upon, you should well cry foul!

The policy is here. It has broad cross-party support. It is here to stay. The message is clear: no more extra benefits for those who chose to enlarge their families past what is to most an entirely reasonable point, especially considering climate change. C'est la vie.

...the Great I Am.

Do you even know what fallacy is? I suggest you try to google it sometime.

Don’t address my points because you can’t.

I can, I just find you quite immature and boring and sanctimonious and CBA'd with the likes of you.

But hey ho, the policy's here to stay, no matter what you think. I think it's great, the message is clear. You don't need more than 2 children to have a family life and if you do, you can support them yourself without extra funding from the government.

Do you even know what fallacy is? I suggest you try to google it sometime.

I know what Dunning-Kruger effect is, however. On you go. You're tedious in the extreme. And again, never mind, the policy is here, it's here to stay, one is free to dispense with one's time and money looking after all those downtrodden and put upon souls who have had more children than they can afford rather than expecting the taxpayer to fund their choices, that would indeed be indicative of social conscience to those who disagree with the policy, to step up and fill in those gaps. Alas . . .

I can, I just find you quite immature and boring and sanctimonious and CBA'd with the likes of you.

I don’t believe you can. Prove me wrong. Otherwise you are wasting everyone’s time if you can’t hold a debate in a thread and want to keep repeating the same post over and over.

Besides, the thing about democracy is, things can always change. So it is a policy now but as power and money is consolidated in to fewer hands, something will be forced to change.

You are a legend in your own mind, Pato. LOL @ 'wasting everyone's time' if one doesn't spend it addressing The Emperor Pato. Haahaa. Are you Jeremy Hunt in secret . LOL if you think oligarchy will mean increased benefits for people who choose to procreate excessively. Okay . . .

This policy costs more than anth

You are a legend in your own mind, Pato. LOL @ 'wasting everyone's time' if one doesn't spend it addressing The Emperor Pato. Haahaa. Are you Jeremy Hunt in secret hmm. LOL if you think oligarchy will mean increased benefits for people who choose to procreate excessively. Okay . . .

So you have made the decision to not Google fallacy.

And @ the rest of your post all I can say is...

Cool story bro. 👍

Than it saves anyway. To the poster above,since when did it become a crime for a young woman to want to be a mum? Not all of us want a bloody career!! This is blatant brainwashing, people have been told being a mother is a worthless job and only money and a job can bring happiness. It's her choice and who are you to put her down? Not everyone wants to work many women want to be a sahm. Nothing wrong with it

A 'career' should I say.. And FFS at whoever thinks three kids is 'breeding excessively'!! It's a normal sized family.

No one is stopping people from becoming parents, just not increasing benefits past 2 children.

I pity the poor third child, we'll end up with workhouses again.
I wonder if it came down to it and children were taken from parents when they became homeless if the likes of Oral would open their house to them?
I know I would, I never want to see a family homeless because of stupid policy. We have enough money in this country to look after everyone who needs it. We just have a government who makes the rich richer and the poor, much poorer. The mc are fine, and just need to tighten their belt, have fewer holidays and luxuries.

Oral b as people said folk are still having the extra kids so don't think climate change etc is really featuring on their radar. I know two families on benefits who have had their fourth and fifth since this policy came in! It's not stopping people I'm afraid. Though the head of my local children's services believes cuts are contributing to an increase of kids in care, which in their own words is costing the local authority a fortune. Punishing the poor costs money, it doesn't save it. Poverty also causes depression and mental health problems, also physical problems brought on by stress. More for the NHS to fork out but the rich don't care as they don't need it.

It's a bit simplistic to say "why have more kids you can't afford" considering the fact many people's circumstances change after they have had kids for reasons outside of their control.

No it isn't. I won't have more than one child because if I end up alone without a job I think can still take care of that one child. Lots of people divorce or lose theor job, you need to factor this in your decision to have children.

I wonder if it came down to it and children were taken from parents when they became homeless if the likes of Oral would open their house to them?

Great, I'll send them to you. I'm currently working abroad to pay for my mortgage and medical treatment not provided on the NHS that my son needs (he has ASD so nope, will not be allowing strangers to bide in our home). I'm afraid my budget doesn't extend to paying for other people to get more benefits after 2 kids or housing them, but since you've offered, you can let your local council know you're available to house the homeless, I'm sure they have plenty to place with you.

It's all very well saying don't have kids you can't afford.

Child benefit is there for the child, not the parent. It's children who go without. They're citizens just as much as their siblings.

These cuts are all to avoid rich people having to pay for the financial crisis. Why does a baby born as the third in a family have to pay the price when a CEO doesn't?

Oral b I was referring to the poster who was saying how bad it is her DD friend wants to be a mum rather than aim for some high flying career she probably knows is out of her reach because of who she is anyway (with people like her friends mum looking down on her and her family).. What's wrong with that? Why have people been conditioned to believe happiness doesn't come from family but from work and material items?

the answer is pretty simple I'm afraid. Such a pity so many have been taken in.

Nothing at all, 2, she just won't get extra benefits past 2 children and will be expected to prove she is looking for work once the youngest is 3 if she remains on UC. If she wants to find an alternative source of income that is not the government to enable her to be a SAHM and pay for having more children then she is free to do so.

Cranston Some women are more fertile than you and end up with more than one child unplanned. My second was a failure of the only contraception I can use for health reasons. Don't put your own circumstances onto everyone and no no one should feel they have to kill the baby growing in them over money. This policy is already costing more than its saving anyway... Putting people into poverty costs money but then this rule is political anyway hence such a low cap at the acceptable middle class 2.4 child perfect family. This idea three children is a large family makes me crease, my sisters GM had 11 and DP is one of 6.

CEOs pay huge amount of tax. in afct next in British history has a bigger proportion of the tax burden fallen on fewer shoulders. For the higher earners half of what they earn is taken away and add 9% more on that for those with student loans to pay back too.

The 2 child rule is a very popular policy and likely to be here to stay.

Orall b The cap doesn't come into it so why are you waffling on about it? Read the bloody posts again. Can see why your bitter though reading your other post. No wonder you hate benefit claimants sounds tough