No tax credits for the third child. Does that mean some women will never be able to work?

[HowFurloughCanYouGo]

I just wondered if someone could explain it to me. I realise I'm being a bit thick.

Imagine someone who is still on tax credits, not UC. They have 5 children, 3 of which were born after the 3rd child cut off date for tax credits.

Single mum and she wants to go to work for the first time since the first child was born (this is a completely fictional person by the way).
If they don't have tax credits for the third fourth and fifth child, does that mean she wouldn't be able to work? Because she wouldn't have money for childcare?

How does that work?

Besides, unless babies or immigrants are paying more in tax than they take out in the form of benefits, education costs, healthcare, housing costs etc, they will be an added burden.

Well the good news is that the immigrants most likely are, and the babies will most likely be doing so when you are retired.

have lots of children.
in fact with this lock down make loads and loads of children and then claim on universal credit. Have as many children as you want!!

you will definitely be supported financially in the united kingdom

@sotiredwe I don't believe in using government benefits to calculate affordability because government schemes can be taken away. Hence I calculate full childcare.

I also need to stay in my neighborhood as I am Jewish (I converted) and need access to synagogues and Jewish schools. Jewish neighborhoods are expensive. Also from Singapore so I am ethnically Chinese and I do not look forward to shouldering the blame for coronavirus in a less multicultural neighborhood. In kinder times, pubs have refused to serve me in rural parts

perhaps that was true before I was born but with long council house waiting lists, lower birth rates & average age of mothers at 28/29 I don't agree it is now.

Hmm I'm 27, live in a very deprived area and personally know quite a lot of people who did this (and only stopped when the new rule came in).

Granted it's definitely not as bad as when I was in high school... practically everyone then had a dad with a bad back, or a mum with depression, or a big sister whose boyfriend didn't technically live with her, or a younger sibling who was being forced to the doctors because they're definitely ASD or ADHD or asthmatic hayfever-

I do think it's a very mumsnet / middle class thing to not believe people do this.

And it's strange because mostly anyone who points it out gets accused of being jealous or bitter or making it up.

I'm definitely none of those things, and personally always felt sorry for them. They seem happy with their lives - many of them in secure tenancies, proper houses nicely decorated with gardens, children always well dressed. But most don't drive, or have holidays abroad, or just the "normality" that is going out to work every day and being more than a mum. I have a few friends in this situation and honestly wonder how they will ever find work when they're kids grow up.

But yeah, I do think it's a little naive / blinkered (or at least denotes the type of life you live / social class you were born into) to think that this doesn't happen.

www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2020/05/04/half-adults-now-paid-state/

I am not sure I would be begrudging people this tiny amount of child benefit.the furlough scheme now costs as much as the NHS. Not saying that the furlough scheme isn't right but the government is literally paying 25% of workers to sit at home.also according to polls, British people want lockdown to continue so these people would continue sitting at home having a holiday.

It shows that the past austerity was a political decision

But yeah, I do think it's a little naive / blinkered (or at least denotes the type of life you live / social class you were born into) to think that this doesn't happen.

I didn't say it doesn't happen. I said huge swathes of the population are not deciding to work & just have lots of children. For those that are its a tiny part of the welfare bill, which I posted details of upthread. If you would like to provide alternative statistics then pls go ahead...

@Desiringonlychild and the cost of a nanny which wouldn't be 3k a month?

Oh, this is me but with one less kid

You get your arse back to work for 16 hrs, beg steal and borrow childcare (I paid for it and had one friend I could rely on for sick days)

They get older and go to school and then you increase your hours.

According to the nanny tax calculator, assuming a hourly wage of £10, NI and pensions, total cost is 39,087. It's about the same. Tbh why I want an only child doesn't really have to do with whether I can afford it. But I do know it's a big additional cost. Women who really want it do what it takes to earn the extra amount. I am 27, maybe it's a lot easier to afford such things when you are 37. I wouldn't like to be pregnant at 37.

This will just turn into a condemnation of those who have large families and find themselves in hard times. Obviously things like being widowed or being made redundant never happen to nice middle class mumsnet posters. Everyone who needs tax credit support and has more than two children is automatically a feckless old slapper.

Of course being widowed or made redundant happens......which is why it’s foolish to have five children unless you are financially secure even if the worst does happen

*bold fail!

@Bubblebu you sound entirely unhinged. What on Earth are you rambling about?!

Tax credits will disappear when your children are no longer in education, meaning yes, you will definitely have to work again at some point in your life. Claiming ‘dole’ is no longer a lifestyle choice - you present yourself for jobseekers, and will be expected to actually look for a job.

Having five children sounds hellish to me...no amount of money would tempt me.

But yes, in previous decades, having a baby and getting kicked out by your mum was the quickest way to getting yourself a flat. Loads of girls did this.

It's much harder now.

What about having children that you can well afford and then not so much because your high-earning husband drops dead?

Thats why it is important to take out life insurance policies on both parents!

What about having children that you can well afford and then not so much because your high-earning husband drops dead

In this vanishingly rare situation, I'd imagine the high earning husband would have put in place financial provision for his family.

Actually my impression is that the people who have 5 or more kids tend to be from religious backgrounds. And people from more religious backgrounds tend to have more support networks. My SIL who is orthodox jewish used to babysit other people's little kids for free. Not because she was forced to but the community believes every child is a gift and should be treated as such. So everyone tries to help out. Of course if you are secular, you have no support other than family and therefore you have to self- fund so obviously it all gets very expensive even for 1 child. If i read the guardian articles about families in food poverty, most seem to have 1-2 children. Mainly families with 2 children. So its not the number of children but those people just can't feed themselves generally. maybe they would not need help with 0 or 1 child but its definitely not because they are having excessive number of children

Desiringonlychild - Many orthodox Jews in Stamford Hill have been affected by the benefit cap or the two child cap because a lot of the time neither parent works or one parent (often the wife) works but they also have lots of children and kosher food is expensive (amongst everything else!). Because there are less council homes a lot of them are now moving to Canvey Island where costs are cheaper as they no longer get extra housing supplementation for each new child and obviously boys and girls are not supposed to share rooms.

@planetofthecats The problem with the Haredi Jews is not just that they have 7-8 children.In the USA, the Orthodox Jews have to pay private school fees for each child (as Jewish school is not funded) and they still have 7-8 children. In fact in the uk, a few super religious jewish schools (esp the ones that don't teach the national curriculum) dont qualify for government funding so they are private. Even for the state run schools, you still have to pay for kodesh or religious education so i think its £1500 per child (though its voluntary). Anyway, people look down on you in that community if you dont have many children. If you want to use birth control, you have to get approval from a rabbi (heter), though i think its a lot easier these days because you just need to cite emotional stress and potential marital strife and you would usually get it. But people would still talk.

Its the complete lack of secular education, many can't speak English so they can't get proper jobs. My husband went to a haredi primary school in Stamford Hill, but a regular Jewish secondary school so that enabled him to get a masters degree in law. The Jews in Hendon/Finchley (where I live) are a lot more in sync with the modern world- kids go to university and the regular jewish schools, Hasmonean, JFS, Jcoss are better than most state schools in terms of academics. But they still have 3-4 children. They own their own houses. They generally have a lower standard of living than a non religious person on the same income and a lot of financial help from parents.You can get free clothes and interest free loans (for all kinds of situations) from a gemach. There are men who go door to door soliciting funds for weddings (though I see less of that nowadays since the rabbinate started making rules on how fancy weddings can be) and people actually give money. But my point is that not everyone has the same costs. I am not an orthodox jew so I can't go to a gemach to get a free wedding dress like my mother in law did. Reform and liberal synagogues tend to spend more time fund raising for asylum seekers and local food banks (which I agree with) so I don't expect any help even if I needed it. But my point is that we can't assume that everyone has the same level of support, some people's lives and circumstances are just more suited to having more children and we shouldn't be jealous.

But my point is that we can't assume that everyone has the same level of support, some people's lives and circumstances are just more suited to having more children and we shouldn't be jealous.

Why assume jealousy?

Perhaps people just don't want to pay more tax to support other peoples lifestyle or religious choices. If people want to have lots of kids there is nothing stopping them, no one-child rule like there was in China, they just have to earn the money themselves. It's nobody's business what people do with their hard earned money but it is their business when they expect a chunk of another person's income (via tax).

@planetofthecats what if I said that I don't want to pay more tax to support the people who are furloughed.or JSA. It's not my fault that people don't save up a year of expenses or 20% of their salary.

I don't say that though because I believe in the welfare state.

Just because you believe in the welfare state doesn't mean you cant discuss, challenge or change what it includes.

@Porcupineinwaiting You can do that, but there is a difference between that and value judgments on someone's personal life. I mean, poverty is very closely linked with single parent families. If you really wanted to reduce that, a really easy policy would be no council flats, child tax credits or child benefits for single unmarried mothers (unless they can show proof of divorce). People would think twice about having children with men who they aren't married to, if they dont have money. Poor children born within wedlock tend to be better off, and if there is divorce, at least there is protection for the woman via the divorce courts i.e. child maintenance. No child tax credit for all children born out of wedlock. In a way, this makes way more sense than setting an arbitrary number of children a poor mum is allowed to have. If you are claiming tax credits in the first place, you clearly are struggling to support yourself, let alone a few kids in the equation. But can you imagine the uproar if this was suggested.

OMG, if nannies are on 40k, my dh owes me a fortune.
That's more than twice our household income

How is being furloughed anything to do with the welfare state. These people have jobs, are employed still. The redundant went to UC, welfare state, completely different.
Any idiot can see that.

OMG, if nannies are on 40k, my dh owes me a fortune

They are your step children and you care for them because you have to?