‘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.

Maybe there should be a limit but 2 is authoritarian and discriminatory to certain cultures and ways of life. Buy everyone is expected to be a middle class Conformist in this country so no wonder the cap is so low, I mean come on three children isn't a large family at all.

@patopotato it’s also simply not true that “many corporations” pay no tax. They don’t. No such thing was proven by the “panama papers” There are perhaps companies such as Starbucks top company which doesn’t pay corporation tax in. The uk. This is because it operates as a franchise and the tax is paid by its franchisees.

It’s a bit alarming the lack of knowledge and understanding on these issues. If you want to pay out money to “poor” people to have an unlimited amount of kids who is paying for it? It’s always the “rich” but when you prove it turns out that they mean those richer than them only. And who is entitled? Cos if many of those paying for it can’t afford loads of kids, they will rightly not want to pay their hard earned money in taxes for others to have something they can’t afford Ford for themselves.

No one is stopping anyone from having more than 2 children, just that there will not be increased benefits for more than 2.

Chilli I have issues having items shoved up my vagina due to a sexual assault with an object when I was a child so yes some of those methods arnt available to me and also I've spoken with the gp about contraception and the only ones mentioned were the pill injection coil and implant, many ARE uninformed some most vulnerable don't have access to the Internet to research these things and NHS staff are definitely not telling about all of them when asked.

some people cannot even read or write.

@2eternities there’s the pill. That’s very reliable. No one has a right to live the life they want paid for by the taxpayer. 2 children is higher than average and is more than generous.

But you’re on the internet right now, and you can read and write. I’m just amazed you’ve never sat and googled ‘contraception options’ given you’re not able to use some of them, especially after an unplanned pregnancy. You’d know about the forms you can’t use if so.

To be fair, the majority can get by fine with the most common methods you’ve been informed about even if they’re illiterate or don’t have internet access, as I’ve mentioned earlier anyone engaging in consensual sex in this country is choosing whether to do so protected or unprotected.

zsazsajuju apparently she can’t use the pill, so only condoms are suitable.

But there are possibly other options now 2eternities knows what’s available to her from the link I shared. I can’t fathom how anyone would not take responsibility for their contraception and sexual health in a country where we’re so fortunate to have access to several safe and freely available methods.

Zsas the people you talk about definitely can afford more children, they just don't want to give up their flash finance car or downgrade their foreign holiday schedule, it's their choice to put materialism before having a family but they shouldn't pretend they are in the same shit situation as a vulnerable woman who has to prove to government busybodies they have been raped or abused. Honestly some people are just heartless pointless debating with people like that tbh.

Xenia

1. First point: No matter what those children who are going to suffer for this will exist. It does not matter how they got here. You cannot take away their existence because you feel an incentive is gone, it does not work like that. There were families with multiple children before benefits existed. And now it will be the case that either their parents may have fell on hard times so they made a mistake on how much they could afford long term (i.e. one becomes disabled and the other becomes the carer), their parents might have mental health issues (i.e. one makes impulsive decisions and the other leaves), or they may just have a lower IQ so they do not understand the repercussions. I do not think I need to go in to much detail about how there will always be people who make decisions that others know is not the best, like have you seen people who cover their whole faces in tattoos? Or people who engage in near death experiences for the adrenaline? People make decisions we don't agree with all the time.

1. Children will suffer. We shouldn't be losing our sense of humanity which is what is happening here. This is Dickensian.

1. The cost is miniscule when you compare it to the wider government budget. It's a false economy to say this will save anything when you ignore long term implications of an increasingly impoverished nation.

1. Attacking this benefit is symptomatic of attacking the broader welfare state. Poverty has already been shown to be on the rise. Children are going to school hungry.

1. As poverty rises so does crime. The police have been stripped down to a skeleton force. The rich are secure because they hire private bodyguards but the rest of us are going to be more vulnerable to stabbings, acid attacks, and break ins.

1. Workers will lose rights. As more desperate people are forced to join the labour market, companies will know that the safety net is on its way out (thanks Tories and Brexit) so the value of your labour will become even more worthless. The employers will know there is no safety net of benefits that people can rely on, so you will have more competition for worse jobs. All jobs will have a lower quality of life standard as a result. Eventually this pull away from socialism will mean losing things like breaks, mandatory holiday, and job security (see how the US exploits their labour market with fewer rights and less socialist protection).

1. Social unrest. The space between the haves and the have nots will grow wider. There's 2 things that ancient Rome has shown us that society needs: Bread and circuses. If enough people are not properly fed as time goes on, this could lead to riots.

1. Wage slaves. The more desperate people are for a job the easier it is for corporations to exploit them. People will have no choice but to work bad jobs. Corporations are monopolising, hiding money, manipulating the market, outsourcing to the third world, and siphoning money off shore. If we add another issue, we just fall further in to wage slavery where people cannot get by and living standards fall. This already happens with zero hours contracts but imagine what it will be like when we all work in Amazon warehouse-like conditions.

1. The economy. As poverty rises and employers are able to get away with paying less such as not matching inflation, there is less movement of money going around the whole country. People will be unable to buy things. Companies will start to cut down their workforce. More redundancies will create a vicious cycle that we cannot get out of.

10. The environment. This is a red herring. These children will still exist and this is a large distraction so people will not point fingers to the ones truly at fault. Corporations. Also, if we keep blindly falling for this argument without thinking of implications, it becomes more like a cult mindset rather than being based in reality. Hence my sarcastic example of old people on an ice berg.

11. Money. Any money saved from this will never go back in to services. It will be exploited through tax cuts for the very rich, the ones who hide their money in the Cayman Islands (see my example of the Panama Papers). And again, this will cost us more in the long run as crime rises and we have more people to jail.

12. The issue is the corporations (like Google, Amazon, and Starbucks) are avoiding tax on such a large scale but they are not being stopped from exploiting the market. The issue is not your fellow citizen just trying to get by.

13. We all benefit from benefits. Even if you don't get benefits (I don't) their very existence protects you. First they started to fuck around with the disabled by declaring people on their death bed fit to work, now it's kids in large families, but it will never stop for the Tories. They will keep plucking until we lose it all, so we need to protect it all and not make enemies with each other. If they can divide and rule, then we all lose. We lose the NHS. We lose everything socialism has gotten us.

Honestly who the heck do you think you are interrogating me about contraception the ones I knew about are unavailable to me and I asked to be sterilised and was refused and if you bothered to read my previous posts you'd see why I cannot use methods that involve hormones or having any object shoved inside me.

Great post pato, will probably be completely ignored and the same tired old trope about fiscal responsibility churned out ad nauseum.

Yes 2eternities, I’ve read your posts. And now you know about more contraception options :) that’s useful if you’ve not looked into it before, even if you decide to continue with just condoms (possibly plus withdrawal or natural family planning, which aren’t massively successful alone but will improve your chances over just condoms if you’ve had issues with them splitting).

Did you read a couple of years ago about Holly Brockwell, a woman who wanted to be sterilised? She won in the end. The NHS guidance suggests you’re more likely to be offered sterilisation if you’re over thirty and have had children so keep fighting/pushing and you will find a surgeon willing to do the surgery eventually.

By the way the rise in crime has happened here up north so blame it on immigrants all you want, even the police blame it on cuts. See my previous post about my local head of children's services. Totally ignored that aswell conveniently.

The ones I didn't know about involve an object being put inside which I can't deal with, also no need to be so patronising as that's how your post is coming across. I am also nowhere near the Level of low iq and lack of education as many others out there I also have two parents who both have decent careers my dad is actually really well off as I've explained before, so I am in a good position compared to many and even I have had issues with getting appropriate contraception.

Regardless of your history, regardless of your use or lack there of of contraception. Any children you birth into this world are your problem unless you are deemed unfit.

If you have one or 50. That's on you. Your responsibility and your problem. I couldn't care less.

The offspring you birth are also not the states issue.

Contraception zzzzz this policy doesn't effect me, or anyone else who disagrees with it here. Great regurgitation though

Regurgitation?! Like the same drivel you've been spurting for god knows how many pages?

As for your final sentence, better do away with childcare vouchers and free maternity care for all third plus children, too?

No again. This is all in real-time to the two child rule. Which the post is about.

Unlike some I have the ability to stay on topic

*relation

Nothing I've said has been on your level of regurgitation. You ignore every point made. I find you a bit sociopathic and creepy to converse with so I'm off.

contraception whilst this thread is about the tax credit 2 child rule, many posters have talked about not having children if you can afford to support them in a self sufficient manner and states that tax payers should not have to fund anybody’s decision to have more than 2 children. I think it is fair to respond to that and highlight the fact that tax payers are funding many aspects of people’s third, fourth or more children in terms of education, health, childcare. People that use those services are not self sufficient in funding their children at all.
It would be pretty boring if a thread didn’t diverse and include other relevant aspects. Most threads do diverse and include more aspects, otherwise there wouldn’t be much conversation to have.

It's so weird how @2eternities has such an issues with the rich exploiting the poor but doesn't mind getting electronics and money from her rich father. It almost seems like she doesn't mind when these things are benefiting her, but if they benefit anyone else it's a problem.

A lot of this rich exploiting the poor is simply not true. First of all who are the rich? those that earn 40k+ or 80k+? There are hundreds and thousands of businesses that don't participate in this so called tax evasion that you like to spout. These companies pay the so called rich who actually pay at least 60% of taxes nationally, and are less likely to benefit from them since they pay for their own health and education.

Also the fact that you think middle class people are having only 2 children don't want to strip down holidays is frankly ludicrous and just shows out little you know of the real world. At the end of the day, people have a standard of living they want their family to enjoy and it's been proven that every child you have reduces this significantly. There's nothing wrong with being responsible and deciding to have a certain number of children you can afford not only now, but further down the road when there may be some issues. Anyone who says otherwise is simply irresponsible.

THE ARGUMENT IS WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO WITH THE THIRD CHILDREN THAT EXIST NOW?

Starve them?
Take them away from their families?
Take them to food banks?

You will not stop people having children it's fucking nature and it cannot be controlled. No matter how many of you idiots think contraception is fail proof. So you condemn them to a life of shit basically.
Or let's stretch social services even further. I mean it's not like there's atleast ten threads on here a day telling someone to contact SS.

I have followed this since the beginning and I find it an absoloute disgrace some of the sick posters on here. I don't know whether you are deliberately trying some shock thing. But your answers are just vile. Have you forgotten that you are no better than any animal on this planet. Would you tell the hungry lion to stop having cubs. That's what we are just animals who think they know it all. And yes there is an argument for fertility and falling birth rates. But that is fine cos deep down the government hope we die off. Well alot of us let's face it, they still need cleaners and the likes.

You have no right to think you are above anyone. Society is based on the government's ideals. Don't you forget where we came from. How society developed. You tell her to keep her legs closed. You sit back and watch her children starve and you think this is fair society. Even animals help each other out.

What is civilized about watching people struggle. It's so easy to turn the other way when your safe in your bed at night and your belly is full. But one day you might find the tables have turned and you better believe that person who you judged and put down is probably the one willing to give you the helping hand because they have walked in your shoes.

@patopotato and @2eternities

I have been asking the same questions as you both for the whole of this thread and have gotten absolutely nowhere. It just makes me realise that alot of people on this website clearly are completely out of touch with issues that are effecting the lower income families and people receiving any kind of support.