Cap child tax credit after four children, says MP

[SardineQueen]

here

One of nadine's friends!

I'm not surprised to see this from a conservative MP, as ever I think this sort of thing is a terrible idea - children don't choose to be born and by restricting benefits in this way you are punishing the children for something you disapprove of the parents doing. And as I understand it the number of people with no work ever and loads of children is actually very low? So this sort of policy doesn't actually save much money at all. Can't remember where I saw that though.

I am sure there will be some who disagree. I thought that people who post here might be interested anyway.

What would you suggest instead?

disagree. If you are going to be relying on tax credits to fund baby 5 you can't afford it. I can't afford a third baby, that is life, why should I found someone else to have five or more! Use contraception!

Maisie what would I do instead about what?

I think it's a brilliant idea!

scarlett

It is too late to use contraception after the baby has been born and at the moment a lot of families who were working are losing their jobs.

Do none of you worry about the effect this will have on the children in these families?

About ensuring that people who are working to pay for their children don't end up paying for your large family?

What would you do instead Sardine?

Can people confirm why they think this is a brilliant idea? What problem is it that you see, that you think this will solve? Given that it will not actually save much money from the benefit bill?

I don't have a problem with my taxes going to pay for childrens living standards maisie.

This attitude could cause child poverty to rise - Not all babies are planned (remember most contraceptive is only 98% effective, so using the pill doesn't mean you wont have a baby!).

It's unreasonable to condemn the 5th child to a life of poverty and hardship.

I don't think there are that many people who would actually go through the effort of having children just to get tax credits,the sums really don't add up! However, I appreciate that perhaps people shouldn't plan children, expecting to be supported by the state - cutting benefits isn't the way to go about it though.

Oh well, in that case I'm happy for you to continue to fund adults who have chosen to have large families. Just count me out.

Personally we should we should probably look to helping people become less dependent on the welfare state, and taking responsibility for their actions rather than assuming the Govt (ie the taxpayer) will fund their lifestyle choices.

I just think it is wrong for people to have children they can not afford, and I am not at all happy that my tax would go to pay for them. If the living standards of a child are so poor that they are growing up in extreme poverty that a bit of tax credit is there only hope of not being neglected, why are they being allowed to remain there??

why is it the middle classes don't seem to have all these contraceptive failures that people living in poverty seem to???

Well said Scarlett

I can see why the idea has been proposed but I can't see it being carried through for benefits in their current £/child format precisely because the accusations that it would increase child poverty. However, I can see that when the Universal Benefit is brought in in 2013 or whenever, there will be caps on the maximum benefit income available to a family, whatever the size.

Middle classes DO have contraceptive failures, upper classes do too. How awful of you to say otherwise. The only way you can 100% guarantee not to get pregnant is to abstain, and that is a scientific fact that is not dependant on class.

Perhaps it's just that the Daily Mail doesn't make a big song and dance about it unless you are on benefits.

I understand that the middle classes have contraceptive failures, they just don't seem to have them repeatedly!!!

My foster son is one of five. His mother repeatedly having children which she isn't allowed to keep is costing tax payers at least £250000 a year, and that is just to pay for them all to be in foster care, never mind the added costs of the fact that she has NEVER worked so is therefore living off benefits, and the cost of all the social workers time and energy attempting to sort out her dysfunction. And she is just one of many. Is it any wonder, when the country is virtually bankrupt, and most are struggling, that people are saying enough is enough??

I know it happens to the middle classes - we had have a 4 year old contraception failure running about, which was swiftly followed by a vasectomy (which is free in this country). There is no way that we could have financially supported 5 children or more, so unless you are in a job which guarantees permanent employment or you have inherited a huge pot of money, then you should stick to your means - not expect the Govt to pay for your lifestyle choices.

The mothers faults are not the sons - why should the children not be supported?

Also, Vasectomys are still not 100% effective.

It's a total waste of time because there are so few families 5 and over that it'll save bugger all.

As i said, if the children are living in such levels of poverty that their parents are reliant on a fifth lot of tax credit, the child should not be there. Perhaps if parents realised that there was not an infinite amount of money they would be a bit more careful and perhaps like morningside said, look at a permanent form of contraception. While a vasectomy may not be 100% effective at least it takes the responsibility away from the parents, and there is also sterilisation.

Also, they will still be entitled to child benefit/ free school meals etc.

When the family allowance was first introduced, you got nothing for the first child. It began with the second and carried on for as many as you had.