Guest post: "The government must support families as they are, not as they wish they would be"

[MumsnetGuestPosts]

What are children for? In the current climate, you could be forgiven for thinking that they're biological timebombs, little leeches designed to suck not just milk but wealth. On a domestic level, that's probably true (the old chestnut about new parents arranging to have their salary paid directly to Mothercare has a painful basis in reality), but the general consensus seems to be that it applies on a national level too.

Babies are, apparently, lifestyle choices, you see. Just as you wouldn't expect the HardWorkingTaxPayer© (henceforth HWTP) to pay for your conservatory or your cruise, it's unreasonable to expect them to contribute to the upkeep of little Conor or Chloe. You can't afford children? Don't have them!

The government, generally, agrees. In today's budget George Osborne announced that child tax credits will be limited to two children. Trailed in most newspapers this morning, it seems that there is a lot of public support for this measure. Unsurprisingly, perhaps, since it's hard to open a newspaper, listen to a radio or TV debate or browse through Facebook without being confronted by one of these bloated (in all senses of the word) families, living it up on money scrounged from the HWTP. They're everywhere. Except, surprisingly, in the statistics.

I count myself lucky beyond measure in my children, but three is absolutely my limit. I have finances and family on my side, but it would take considerably more than a few extra pounds a week to reconcile me to an unexpected addition - and I think that I'm probably the norm. The vast majority of us have the family we can manage, financially and otherwise, based on our circumstances when we have them and how we reasonably foresee them to be in the future.

I'll be honest: in choosing to have babies, I wanted to raise a family with the man I love, rather than conscientiously doing my bit for the common good. My dewy-eyed pregnancy fantasies didn't include the day my offspring would get their National Insurance number through the post. Procreating is an essentially selfish act, but not in the same way as, say, having an extension built.

The problem with the two child limit is that it gives an official stamp of approval to this idea that children are an indulgence. I'm sure that those in authority would love to preside over a nation of conscientiously contracepting couples, who make a couple of dates in their (married) lives to dutifully doff the johnnies with a murmured "lie back, darling, and think of the Exchequer". But life, and sex, and babies, don't work that way.

Children can't only be acceptable when slotted into a life plan between the starter home and the pension. No method of birth control is 100% certain, and not every woman has that degree of choice over her pregnancies. Multiple births, bereavements, redundancies, relationship breakdowns: no matter how carefully life is planned, sometimes the unexpected happens.

Even if we choose to ignore all the external factors which contribute to parents labelled as "feckless", their children remain vulnerable. There is nothing abstract about hardship, nothing theoretical about struggling to keep your children warm and forgoing meals so that they can eat.

Does supporting families cost a lot? Yes, but not as much as other, unchallenged, areas of public spending. Do some people cheat the system and avoid work in order to live on benefits? Yes, but nowhere near as many as people think, and unless you are on the fiddle the sums involved don't make it a particularly attractive proposition. Recasting our entire social security structure in order to shake them out smacks somewhat of closing down Tesco because kids have been pinching KitKats from the bottom shelves.

Of course it is important to encourage people to take responsibility for their own circumstances and to ensure that public funds are used appropriately. The danger of turning that aim into policy, though, is that it takes no account of the realities of life for many people. We live in a time of soaring housing costs, insecure employment and the resultant toll on health and emotional resilience which put tremendous pressure on parents.

There are undoubtedly difficult questions about public finances, but the answer should never include withdrawing crucial funds from families without the means to support themselves adequately. The government must support families as they are, not as they wish them to be. Is the alternative a price we can afford?

Well you know what, if i have to work out if I can afford to pay for a second child (which I can't) then anyone else should have to. Just because we want it doesn't mean we have to have it, and for far too long people have relied on the fallback of credits and benefits.

And mumsnet will talk for ever about people who fell on a penis or vagina and got themselves or someone else pregnant, or other scenarios which of course happen but just aren't the majority, but fail to acknowledge the absolutely shocking number of people who feel they don't have to reign in the amount of children they have. I've seen this as an individual (from where I live) and as a healthcare professional. The 'its okay we will manage' attitude is admirable if it wasn't taking money from a figurative pot that isn't bottomless.

Well I don't have any children and won't be having any but as far as I'm concerned I have a responsibility as part of our society to ensure children aren't growing up in poverty. Preventing that is exactly the sort of thing my taxes should be spent on.

I hope history views this govt and its cheerleaders with as much contempt as they currently view the poor.

i think the government has done great in convincing the hardworking tax payer that people receiving tax credits are some kind of benefit scroungers who spend the day watching skype with a fag in one hand and a can of beer in the other, to the point of thinking that each child was acquired after a night of irresponsible drinking.

The reality is very different, people get tax credits because their income (yes, that means these people work) is low, not because they have been wreckless in their spending habits. And because even working very long hours there's no way they can afford to pay for childcare and accommodation at the same time.

It is easy to say that you are a responsible person by discussing carefully with your spouse/partner how many children you could afford to bring into this world, and I can assure you people receiving tax credits did pretty much the same, but some times life happens: your spouse dies, a marriage breaks down, a job is lost, you suddenly become a carer or disabled, endup with a multiple pregnancy or, as it is the case in the vast majority of cases, no matter how hard you try, you can't get a better paid job.

And that's what tax credits are for, to help the people who find themselves in financial difficulties because their income is not enough, after life (or shit) happened. It does really makes no sense to think that people who are already struggling to make ends meet, are sitting in their homes thinking that bringin another child into the world will make them a few pounds "richer" each week.

My concern is that this policy will have a much greater impact on women than men. How is it workable when men aren't necessarily named on the birth certificate and in too many cases aren't paying child support. How will these men be captured under this policy or is it just women who are meant to have two children and men able to have as many as they like? What about blended families where 2 new partners take responsibility for 2 children each from former relationships? Will it depend on residence or genetics (apologies, a bit clumsily phrased). This policy seems complicated and unrealistic. I think it will punish parents who take responsibility for their children and give another reason for not being playing an active part in your children's life.

I'd like to see a realistic policy that ensures both parents have equal responsibility for paying and being part of their children's lives (except in cases of abuse, which still shouldn't mean you can opt out of paying, there should be a way to pay into an anonymous account in these cases).

Lone parent with 4 DC here

not everyone chooses to have their children...sometimes circumstances dictate...
I didn't want to be a LP .......

I have just done all the calculations.
i work flexibly full time self employed. I earn 12000pa
I will be £1540 worse off plus possibility of £1000 further depending on local decisions

I would have to earn £45000 pa to break even but if I earned £48000 I would be better off.

how is this fair?
If we are "all in this together" then surely the well off and the less well off should both be paying the price.

i have no extra hours in my week to work

Headinabook? Head up your arse more like...

Everyone is entitled to have as many children as they want a I have absolutely no issue with people having children however if you want more children you need to be responsible for them and pay for them. The population is already growing at an astounding rate - how many more people can the country support.

Armsandtheman having read a lot of posts here over the last few years the only reason I have found for a mans name not to be on a BC is so the woman can deny him his rights as a parent. Maybe it should be made law for men to be named on BCs?

Is it by 'lifting children out of poverty' that we give the green light to fathers to be absent and not contribute?

Single mum being interviewed has a very hard and exhausting life but I always want to yell at the radio 'where's the fing father' -the fact that he doesn't even warrant a mention by the mother or the interviewer reduces may empathy for the mother.

Instead of acting like he doesn't exist if it was pointed out constantly that he has cleared off and is not supporting his DCs it might encourage us to encourage MPs to make changes to make him contribute. If 'everyone' is happy to pretend he doesn't exist nothing will change - the tax payer will continue to step in.

Perhaps he did a bunk with another woman and has set up home and a new family elsewhere?.

perhaps he was a violent abuser and is in prison?

Perhaps he tragically died young?

Sometimes we don;t talk about the DF of our children because we want to spare our children the pain of our circumstances being "out there" on the media.

We can't put a father on the BC if he is not married to the mother and not present at the registration of the birth so absence on the BC means nothing (a serving father overseas with armed forces would not be on the BC of his newborn if not married to the mother)

Not being on the BC has no effect on parental responsibility. Courts can grant (and do) parental responsibility quickly and easily. if there is dispute a simple DNA test sorts that out.

I think what they're trying to do is get people who can't afford to work to be forced onto benefits (capped) for a bit if their job doesn't pay. Then employers will be forced to offer higher wages to re recruit.

Mrstodds - would taking a lodger help? Those housing costs sound horrific so you have my sympathy

Before all this Budget nonsense I never realised that if people on TC had another child, they got more money (other than child benefit).

I think it is appalling that raising children has become cast as a selfish lifestyle choice, by this government ably assisted by a rabidly hostile nasty media. The children of today are the tax payers, wealth generators, carers and rule makers of tomorrow. Pensions (state pensions which appear to be untouchable by any cuts) are not paid for by the taxes the pensioner paid, they are paid for out of current taxation. As life spans get longer and families and the national birthrate drops (which it is doing), there are fewer tax payers paying for more pensioners. This is reaching crisis point in some western societies such as Germany, which are really trying to boost their birth rate to solve this problem. So, if we adults want a thriving economy when we are retired, which can afford to pay our pensions and care we actually need a crop of children growing up now ( or else we will need more migrant workers). Cutting support for every aspect of children's and young people's lives and education is so shortsighted and will come back to bite us.

that's the problem Somewhere, people have strong opinions but not much information about what tax credits are (or the amount of money they provide). Same goes for other benefits: I was a single mother in jobseekers allowance for a few months, I was given the princely sum of £24 a week and no tax credits at all (I know now I should have got them but nobody at the job centre mentioned about them). I was grateful though... It allowed me to keep the cupboards well stocked with staple food. It is a bit funny, but I remember looking at that food thinking "we are ok, we are going to be alright"

We still seem to be missing the point?! We continue to tie the crucial pre school attatchment years in with working life and working policy. The approach needs a complete overhaul. We need to address post natal recovery, attachment needs and wider society attitudes to pregnancy, birth and those all important pre school years. You can argue that the economy can't suppport this, you can argue over the 'correct' amount of children to have, you can shame each other for who works/who doesn't. I would argue that the influences of the working world should not impact on those precious formative years, that mothers are truly allowed to be mothers (and those who are primary caregivers-dads in some cases too) and babies are truly allowed to be nurtured and experience 'proper' attachment. Our childcare system falls miserably short of the mark and even if it didn't, baby's and children need attachment to avoid problems in later life. Concentrate on these pre school years, foster attachment (to the primary care giver), allow proper flexible working policy not just based on 'business need' give career breaks up until school age and place 'real importance' on the baby, the child, our future 'workforce' and then we might see the softer skills our employers complain about our workforce lacking, then we might see skills in our workforce fostered at home as opposed to looking abroad, then we might see multi talented, multi tasking women (and the smaller number off care giving men) returning to the workforce more focused, more determined and more confident that they have contributed to shaping the workforce coming behind them in a way no care system, no childminder, no other could have. Idealistic I suppose, perhaps we should return to parent bashing through the media and lap it all up, while the bankers conga their way to their next bonus and our children languish in inadequate childcare. I work, I've used childcare, I've been 'forced' into working full time after my first child as the company wouldn't agree my flexible working request despite having no 'reasonable business need' other than a bog standard 'business response'I was also breastfeeding and having to commute 5 days a week, still response of 'tough' I had a hard fight to eventually get a move through competitive interview. When I had my 2nd child I again faced huge stress in trying to reduce my working hours. There is no doubt I'd have been better off both financially and emotionally to just 'throw in the towel' but I'd worked bloody hard, to complete a degree and then also a Post-Graduate and not only that, I wanted to work in the future, but just not right now! My priorities had changed, I had utter dependants, I had to address that! I breastfed, I was the main source of comfort never mind nourishment. My priorities hadn't changed forever, that balancing act would come, they had just changed for now. I'd ask any company, who do you want working for you? An honest, reliable individual who tells the truth about their capabilities, who doesn't pretend to deliver all things to all people, or someone who talks a good game. You could have the right person in your company for 20 years with a few years out or the wrong person for the entire 20 years. This is where the government needs to recognise that social reform in this area is needed not more and more inadequate childcare places from a younger and younger age. Focus on the early years, forget 'forcing' mothers back to work, allow for ' proper' 'paid' maternity breaks and place value back in the home, perhaps then we can truly educate and re educate those in the value of a career and the value of work and truly start to tackle wider societal issues not just those in the workplace.

What happened to supporting your own family?!
I understand that a lot of people work & struggle to make ends meet, I think the emphasis should be on providing cheaper childcare for children so both parents are able to work, & asking companies to understand that people have children they need to arrange their hours around.
We get no tax credits, we struggle but we would rather work all the hours under the sun than rely on other people. Children were our choice & it is our job to provide for them. If we couldn't afford them we wouldn't have had them. Why should we pay over £600 a week tax to give to someone who should be working those extra hours to provide for themselves!

So what about all the stay at home parents who work looking after the home and their children? 24/7 with no breaks, no 'days off' and no actual pay, yet are classed as 'unemployed' and not worth anything? I'm not talking about the ones who would rather be in work but can't due to childcare issues, or who can't find any work at all (because guess what, in some areas jobs are really hard to find) - and I'm not talking about the people who can't be bothered and the extreme minority who apparently have children just to 'make money'. I'm talking about the ones who actually want to be at home and bringing up their own children, not relying on other people to do THAT job? I'm not sure about anyone else but we both worked full time and then when we decided to start a family, the best choice was for DH to work and me to stay at home. Whatever happened to raising your own family? Bringing children into the world to become decent human beings and not palm them off constantly to childminders, nannies or nurseries because you need to get your life back and buy all the things (or because the government tells you so?) because of greedy landlords, mortgage and energy providers charging extortionate rates, greedy supermarkets charging way over value for poor produce and junk food. We are on a low income and I couldn't tell you the last time we bought new clothes or had a big day out somewhere fancy, we don't even own a car or a television and I only have a crockpot to cook with - but we have a roof over our heads and 3 meals a day and our children get plenty of love and attention (imagine that! and just like most other larger families - no our children are not wandering aimlessly around the streets causing trouble either).
Tax credits do help - yes I agree that they should be to top up earnings from a wage (mum or dad) and not given for nothing - I agree that in two parent families, one parent should be out earning a wage. I'm honestly not sure how it should work for single parent families. But maybe the government should stop encouraging extra funding for childcare and forcing parents back into work and instead help encourage more parents to stay home and bring up their OWN children - this is what the tax credits should be there for. They could also go a long way in helping genuinely unemployed people back into work, raise the minimum wage properly so people can afford to live and provide for themselves.
Maybe the government and the media need to stop tarring everyone with the same brush, making the public believe that they know everyone's life circumstances just because they have X amount of children.
Supporting your family doesn't just come through finances. What is the point in having children if the minute they are old enough, they are spending hours every day away from their parents being brought up by strangers?

The government needs to help stop the constant rising of these ridiculously over priced living costs, the budget should have been more focused on that sort of thing - that is what people should feel most angry about.

I'm a SAHP and not defined as "unemployed" by anyone. But that is because our family income pays for the privilege of me being able to be at home and I do not claim benefits to enable me to do so.

I'm not willing to ask anyone else to work to enable me to make the choice not to.

I didn't ask anyone else to do that either SomewhereIBelong. My DH works full time and is happy to do so, I am happy to stay at home and raise our family, that is what we decided as best for our family. I also do some volunteer work in our community and encourage our children to aswell. But when people ask what I do for a living - 'Oh you don't have a job, just a mum' is their response. Sorry but 'just being a mum, just being a dad, just being a parent' is what makes the world keep going - without it we wouldn't even be here. Parenting, like it or not is the hardest, most rewarding and downright most important job anyone could ever do. One day my children are going to be in the workforce paying into the pot, in whatever occupation they are led to. They will be raising a family and hopefully have the freedom of choice to do as right for them, their spouse and children, not as the government dictates they should. So my point was - Supporting your family is not all about finances, its about being there and physically, emotionally supporting them. instead of bigging up the 'free childcare' thing (which BTW is paid for by taxes your DP and mine pay - despite the fact we don't use it) if its a monetary 'reward' the government wants to offer, why shouldn't SAHP who are on a low income be allowed to claim tax credits? Without being labelled scroungers, spongers, a drain on society and lazy no-good layabouts? - which for most SAHP is completely untrue. Why shouldn't the government help to support families as they are, not as they want them to be as the OP said.

'& asking companies to understand that people have children they need to arrange their hours around. '

Haahaaahaa! They are a business, not a charity, if they are not compelled to do something they do not do it.

'Why should we pay over £600 a week tax to give to someone who should be working those extra hours to provide for themselves!'

I'm eternally amazed by the number of people who truly believe their taxes go to line the pockets of the working poor.

Have you ever been to a country with poor infrastructure? They suck, I can promise you, but taxes are low.

What a job this government has done, convincing so many their taxes are keeping the poor in fags and booze rather than the reality of its going to keep the rich getting richer.

People who work "parent" too. I don't see parenting as any kind of job, just something you do, just part of life. You can choose to be present for the whole time or not... but it is a choice that not everyone has.

Also, forgotten sometimes in these discussions - the SAHP is not the only parent. MY DH is as much of a parent as I am despite working 9 hours a day.

The government do not "want to offer a monetary reward" - they want people back to work to pay taxes to support the economy. They want SAHP to get back into the workforce, to pay tax to cover their education costs, their child's education costs, their health needs, their defence, their transport links, their everything. SAHP use all this stuff, but do not personally contribute a lot financially to its continuance.

Not working means not paying a lot of tax. ( Yes, I know we all pay stealth taxes - VAT etc)

"I'm a SAHP and not defined as "unemployed" by anyone. But that is because our family income pays for the privilege of me being able to be at home and I do not claim benefits to enable me to do so."

Well, actually, you are wrong on that, you are unemployed, and are likely to experience exactly the same problems to find a job as people who have spent years on the dole, if you ever decide to go back to work, no matter how educated you are. Lack of recent relevant work experience is a huge stumbling block.

The government wants to make us think that benefits/tax credits is a way of life for the poor, in fact it is just a safety net that is in place to help you cope when things go wrong, for the poor and the more able.

I can tell you that the socially berated single mother on benefits/tax credits is far more likely to be a divorced woman who took some time off as a sahm, than a careless teenager looking for a free meal ticket.

if you ever decide to go back to work, no matter how educated you are. Lack of recent relevant work experience is a huge stumbling block

Yeah, people say that and I guess it may be a stumbling block if you are looking for "a career" - but it really is not if you are just looking for "a job" - every so often I get part time work to pay for trips abroad - Florida etc is slightly beyond our general budget, but 4-5 months work pays for it - have always been employed when I want to be. It helps to not have young kids - they are teens now, and to be an educated, healthy, smiley, mucker-in who is prepared to work whatever hours are needed in a job where training is not required.

Yes, but you can't really keep a roof over your head and your family's earning the minimum salary, that's why tax credits exist.