‘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.

Why should children suffer for their parents falling on hard time?

Perhaps their parents might consider the following: three kids seems like a high-risk proposition, how will we cope if we lose our jobs, maybe we should stick with two.

Yes life can change in an instant so before you have kids, ask yourself ‘what’ll happen if things go wrong? Can we afford to have more than one?’
I did so I only had one.

BossAssBitch: so we have to have several hundred thousand in savings then before having kids then do we?

Perhaps their parents might consider the following: three kids seems like a high-risk proposition, how will we cope if we lose our jobs, maybe we should stick with two.

That's a great suggestion if you could guarantee that everyone was financially responsible but last I checked pay day loans, credit cards, and bankruptcy were still a thing. So if the parents are irresponsible, the children should be punished? Because that's what this does.

Not everyone has financially responsible parents, just FYI.

I don't get it, we are in one of the richest, most advanced countries in the world and we begrudge people how many children they have, when the hell are we going to get angry at inequality, low wages etc. instead of always blaming the poor? get angry people!

also, you know, our enlightened leaders are simultaneously getting us all frothing at the mouth over immigration AND are trying to limit the number of children we have, well, who's going to be working to support our pensions then? (not to mention their exorbitant privileges?)

It used to be that the people who received benefits did so because of finding themselves in temporary difficulty. I don't understand why these days, a large number of people believe they are entitled to be given free money from other people's taxes, to pay for the choices they make, whether that's having multiple children or anything else.

I have paid in to the system all of my working life and when I need help to afford things for my family surely I should be able to take out some of that system.

Comments like this astound me. Taxes are paid to run the country, not for you to treat it like a savings system which you can dip into when you feel like it.

Sicario
My heart sinks every time I read a thread on here featuring someone who is expecting a baby with a no-marks man, with no money, an unstable home environment and a bleak looking future. I want to scream STOP HAVING CHILDREN to all those men and women.

Couldn't agree more - it's really depressing reading some threads on here. No idea what the appeal is of having babies with multiple losers.

I think the law should of been bought in for 2 children going forward. I don’t think those who were already receiving tax credits for their third child should of had it stopped.

FFS. I don't claim anything (apart from childcare vouchers and child benefit).

My DM as she brought up DC in the 70s survived on child benefit and nothing else - her grant as a student and then her salary.

What would these people do if there was no tax credits etc? People these days pop out more than one kid, don't work and expect the state to pay for it. what happens when the magic money tree of the state runs out or refuses to pay out anymore?

Oh and I was also brought up when kids had to pay for bus fares. We had to walk otherwise.

I see quite a few kids riding the bus to a school which is an easy 10-15 minute walk away. And we wonder why we have an obesity crisis in kids??!

Hope men understand that being the most fertile mammals on the planet they are the ones who produce the babies. Human males have the same brains as human females so they should be able to work this out.

Human males also wish to live with human females and their children. Ergo, they know and understand, given they have the same cognisance as female humans.

That's a great suggestion if you could guarantee that everyone was financially responsible but last I checked pay day loans, credit cards, and bankruptcy were still a thing.

What a bizarre comment. Should people not be financially responsible?

So if the parents are irresponsible, the children should be punished? Because that's what this does.

Who is responsible for those children, and for living up to their own financial obligations? Could it be the parents?

We are a ‘blended’ family. Ugh hate that term 🤦‍♀️ However, we have done the sums and even with a household income close to £62k, we can’t afford a child together. He pays maintenance and over £150 per month in fuel to see his kids. My maintenance is unreliable and currently non existent. We would also need a bigger house and a bigger car. We therefore decided to be grateful for what we have.

Come on people, think outside your own little box. Life can change an instant. We are all 1 medical tragedy away from our lives being upheaved and our financial standing being rocked

This^^

You might have something life changing and totally unpredictable happen, which means you are suddenly unable to provide for your kids in the way you previously could. You may have tons of savings, medical insurance (which often excludes a lot of conditions) and family support but almost no one has enough money saved to see you through a life changing episode which means you may never work or earn a decent salary again.

That situation could happen to anyone, regardless of whether they have 1/2/3 dc or more. It should not be that people are punished if things happen to them that are beyond their control and planning.

Taxes are paid to run the country, not for you to treat it like a savings system which you can dip into when you feel like it.

Part of running the country is having a social safety net. The NHS is an example of this. When you have companies paying poverty wages to the lowest paid among us, then people need benefits to survive. This is the fault of the richest who exploit the poor and in essence are having their companies subsidised by allowing them to keep wages low while CEOs and shareholders swallow record profits. The world is a much difference place these days and most families need 2 incomes to get by, rather than 1 which used to be the norm.

Yes life can change in an instant so before you have kids, ask yourself ‘what’ll happen if things go wrong? Can we afford to have more than one?’
I did so I only had one.

So presumably you have £K's saved to support your one if things go wrong for you?

Children need feeding and clothing. If their parents can't do it society needs to step up

drizzleinbrizzle

actually this scenario did happen to my DM in the 1970s. She divorced my DF when I was 4 and my DB was 2 and went from being a SAHM to facing losing her home and not knowing what to do. A family friend acted as a guarantor on her mortgage, she let rooms out and studied at night school to be a teacher.

If she got payment from book publications (she wrote a few books which were mildly successful) then she overpaid her mortgage etc.

We lived very frugally.

So don't talk to me about changing your circumstances.

Too many families have it way too easy these days.

Her DH became self employed so that he could do some childcare so she could do her research but it has been such a struggle for her to keep their heads above the water.

While I do sympathise, I think in this case she needs to leave her studies and get a job, or accept that she's going to have a low income. Studying for a PhD is a luxury for sure - yes, it's very unfortunate that they had two accidental pregnancies close together, and a huge shame that she'd need to stop studying but I'm not sure benefits should be used essentially to fund someone's PhD.

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

This is the most superb post I've ever seen on Mumsnet.

All people everywhere, have as many children as you can, on the minuscule offchance that one of them is one of the tiny handful of the world's genius pioneers; ignore the fact that those pioneers were, in almost all cases, the product of high-quality education and an intellectually nurturing home life, the likelihood of whose provision decreases with each addition to the family.

Meanwhile, also ignore what will actually definitely happen which is that continued rapid population increase will cause social and environmental problems far in excess of the powers of any genius pioneer to solve them.

I’m afraid I can’t muster any sympathy here for the parents only the kids.

If you can’t afford to support children don’t have them. It’s a privilege not aright. People always bring up - well people’s circumstances change. Except for illness there’s very few people who would move from good jobs to long term unemployed. Surely in these circumstances the answer lies in better disability benefits.

We do need to limit children for environmental reasons. We can’t afford to fund people’s children we need cut offs. Personally I think that should be one.

What a bizarre comment. Should people not be financially responsible?

Of course people should be financially responsible but it's not realistic to say that all will.

Who is responsible for those children, and for living up to their own financial obligations? Could it be the parents?

Society is responsible. If your parents had undiagnosed mental health problems, stretched themselves financially and were made redundant or made disabled through an accident, I would want you to have the ability to eat if you were a child with more than 1 sibling.

I would never have more than 2 children it’s to much of a risk, also adult children don’t move out until late 20’s you have to take that into consideration. What I do find hard to understand though is why we encourage high immigration because of low birth rate but do not want to encourage people here to have children, it’s a crazy way of thinking!

what if you are in a relationship (with a earning partner) when your third child is born (after 2017) and then face being a single parent. With reduced income (or none because lots of non resident parents don't pay). Then you and your children are penalised because you can't claim enough in benefits (not that they're enough to cover expenses in the first place).

What if you're in an abusive or coercive relationship and have the third child but can't prove rape (for whatever reason).

What if you're a refugeee?

I don’t believe that child benefit should exist at all. The government should aid people in earning more realistic wages, not simply subsidising having children! I’m very glad the cap is two and wonder why anybody feels entitled enough to think the tax payers should pay for their kids?

People jump on posts like mine with the ‘so only the rich can have kids then huh?’ But it’s nothjng to do with being wealthy it’s about money management and prioritisation. You don’t neee to drive your baby around in a sports car but you do need to be able to put a roof over its head and feed/clothe it.

Benefits should ONLY be for those who have unexpectedly fallen on hard times, or those who are disabled.

The BIGGEST problem we fave as a society is entitlement! Nobody wants to be ‘poor’ or ‘struggling’ but unless you want to move into a communist structure (and if you do then that’s a whole other thread), then some people will always have to be poor/struggle.

It’s been that way for generations only when my parents/grandparents were younger they simply accepted it- without access to social media and technology being ‘poor’ wasn’t as much of a big deal- they just accepted what they did have and got on with it.

Now you see families with two cars, a 3 bed semi detached rental, 2 family iPads/iPhones and a yearly trip to Spain - complaining they can’t make ends meat without benenfits 🙄 Nobody wants to ‘struggle’ but everybody wants modern luxuries!

Every time I see ‘pay the living wage’ I die a little inside as I’m fed up of it being brandished around like it would solve all our problems 🤔 I can’t quige figure out if some people just don’t understand how inflation/ the markets work, or whether they simply want an excuse to blame the government for their own short comings.

If you work an unskilled minimum wage job... you’re going to struggle. You can still have kids but you’ll have to limit the number and expect to give up luxuries like holidays and iPhones!

The point is that the whole bloody system is broken! It’s too simplistic to say “if you can’t afford another child don’t have one.” The urge to reproduce is such a strong biological one, as is the want to provide for your family. It’s inbuilt into us. People in general don’t mind living frugally, things being tight, making sacrifices to survive. But as things currently stand a couple who are both working and are on minimum wage, by lots of PPs definitions, can’t really afford to have children at all. Do we really want a world where only the rich are allowed to reproduce?!