2 child limit, why is nothing done about it? Do you agree?

[Hopeforchildren]

Hey guys, so it has been a fee years since the 2 child limit on tax credits. I know a few families with 3 children and started this thread for them. It seems quite odd that nothing has been done about it while most families have more than 2 children and are on low income. I mean not just single parents and non working parents, it’s a common struggle for all this including full time working couples or lone parents. What are your views on this subject. Shouldn’t there be a stop to it since its unfair on the child and even the previous children that has to go without? Before anyone attacking, please bear in mind that some people don’t agree with abortion or feel strongly connected with the baby to terminate the pregnancy. Looking forward to hearing your views. Please stay kind.

Chop Graham’s bollocks off and take maintenance at source. Let him eat jacket fecking potato and drink water. At least he isn’t drink driving I suppose.

I don't know where you got the stat of most families have more than 2 children and are on a low income as i'm pretty sure most have 2 or less? Either way, have as many as you like if you're paying for them but don't expect the state to support your life choices. Sorry but I think it's a good rule and 2 is plenty. I don't think it should be changed.

I dont think there should be any extra benefits for the second child. We really need to put a stop to people thinking children are a right. And also people need to think about their families environmental impact.

When I was born (many moons ago) CB was only paid for one child. I was the second and my mother didn't get it for me until my sister turned 18, when it stopped for her and I was then eligible until I was 18.

Are you from the UK? In the distant past the old Family Allowance wasn't paid for the first child. DC 2, 3, 4 etc. all received a weekly allowance until DC1 left school (usually at 15 in the good old days). Then DC2 became the oldest so money was reduced.

@LittleTinselTown
the state can’t give out unlimited handouts to people

They can and they do, to MPs

Hopeforchildren hoping we'll write your copy for you? Or just bored?

It’s unfortunate for the DC, though, who didn’t ask to be the third or more born in a family.

I have 3 DC that we could well afford when happily married to my partner. We’d been together 12 years before DC3 was born. Then DC2 was DXed with ASD, then H found being a parent to a child with SN so inconvenient, he buggered off with an OW. I

struggled to work outside term time as getting child care for a child with SN is not easy. I now work 37 hours a week, term time only but it doesn’t pay well enough to avoid needing benefits. I am lucky that DC3 was born before the cut off date, but I do feel for those who might have been put into a similar position after the cut off.

Threads like this always bring out the frothing Victorians. "No children need birthday and Christmas presents, they are wants." Yeah because if you are unfortunate enough to be born into a poor family - or indeed one that has fallen on hard times, then no presents for you sonny, think yourself lucky you aren't up a chimney.

Scrooge is still alive and well and haunting us still. It's pretty sickening stuff, but enough people voted Tory that it must be a pretty common view of the poor. The people writing this are only one or two misfortunes away from being plunged into that kind of situation themselves - but hey don't worry, you know your kids don't deserve presents at Xmas anyway. Or I guess you could chuck your third child out onto the street?

Just want to remind everyone that tax credit and universal credit affects people that are working full time too but still are on low income because the government don’t pay the living wage. Maybe if living wage was actually paid people would be able to afford more children. On the environmental affect please take a look at countries that incourage Having more than 2 children. I don’t think a quiet fairly small island is going to make a massive impact... i pay taxes and don’t agree with the government using it much of the ridiculous things such as refurbishment of the Buckingham palace sending troops to countries we shouldn’t even be involved in or think about nhs funding for drug addicts that is their own personal choice too but still have to pay for it. I’d rather my money go on a child than the endless list i can provide.

I have three children and fully support any effort to get NRPs to pay for the children they have created. I don’t believe the state should be the first port of call to solve child poverty just because a relationship has broken down and the (usually) father is witholding cash to punish his ex. Nail them down and make them pay. Financial responsibility might stop them compulsively re-seeding in the wild and do everyone a favour.
(Happily married btw. Just really dislike men who shirk their responsibilities.)

You are probably just a reporter for the Daily Mail trying to rile people up and make a story out of it.

The Queen pays for her own renovations out of the millions upon millions of pounds that she brings into the country every year she has a pot set aside for things such as this.

Feckless parents who keep spawning children knowing that the state will pay for them and just so they don't have to go to work are another matter, they don't give back to the country in the same way as the Queen

This is really difficult as I do understand why it was brought in, but I don’t necessarily agree with it.

Yes ideally people wouldn’t have children they can’t afford, but unless you have savings to cover raising your child until 18 then you are at risk of not being able to support your child/ren financially at some point.

Yes, a very very small proportion of people have children for benefits, I know someone who had a baby so she could afford to move out of her parents house. But people like her are few and far between. Sadly people focus on those far too much, where as in reality most children are conceived within secure relationships.

The issue is also that a child shouldn’t suffer due to his/her parents choices. A childs future is determined in the first three years of life, why on earth would we want to put more children in poverty, but why would we do it during the most important developmental time for that child?

If good quality highly subsidised childcare was available from around one it would be different as more parents could then actually work without a large proportion of their wage going on childcare.

Children are the future, as a society we have a moral duty to ensure children have and equal chance to succeed, to do that we need to completely change how families are treated during the early years of childhood.

On the environmental affect please take a look at countries that incourage Having more than 2 children. I don’t think a quiet fairly small island is going to make a massive impact

Everything you mention is part of the problem, OP. Of course there are countries that have more of an impact on overpopulation, but we are in the situation we're in because so many people think that that their choices alone won't make any difference (and not just in relation to child bearing).

Rich or poor - we need to discourage everyone from producing multiple children one way or another. The wealthy could pay increased taxes for their 'extra' children, for instance, so that it isn't just down to the poorer amongst us to be responsible in their choices.

It’s interesting you think that I’m just a reporter, how sad.... some people actually care in country other than the scams that think it’s okay to make people live in poverty

I’ll get behind this as soon as my employers agree to pay me more once I have a third.

No?

I agree with the cap.

Punishing people because they are able to conceive is just another human rights violations but lets just stick to the children and the impact that will come with it in the next 10-15 years. Its not unforeseen, for sure we’re going to have many more children with mental health problems because they lived in poverty in a developed country.

Nobody is being punished.
If you can afford them have them.

If you can't use the easily accessible and free contraception.

For the most part, I agree with the policy. Also, it’s not the government not paying a living wage - it is companies.

It won't be living in poverty that will be the future problem, it will be no longer having a viable planet to live on.

My point was minimum wage is not a living wage as its supposed to be.

What @MerryChristmasUfilthyanimal and many, many others have said.

I agree with the cap (and I'm a big leftie whose fiancé grew up skint with lots of siblings).

I can't see how it would be responsible of the government to lift the cap when it's really smaller families that should be promoted.

If people want to have bigger families they should pay for them themselves or take precautions to avoid pregnancy in the first place (free contraception or permanent e.g. a man getting the snip).

The take it up with the employers.

How is it punishing people who are able to conceive?

Punishing people because they are able to conceive is just another human rights violations You’re getting ridiculous. No one is going to take away the children you can’t afford or sterilise you to stop you overbreeding.

Don’t feel entitled to handouts. There are people up and down the country working hard and long hours to pay all those taxes that support others. They won’t work longer or have own children going without so that you can breed just because you can.