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.

I suppose it's out of the question to think you could aim your fire at Vodafone, Philip Green, Barclays Bank to get them to pay some tax? Or get NRP's to cooperate with the CSA? No? Thought not. Easier to pick on CTC.

Barclays Bank et al pay all the tax payable in the UK. They also pay a lot of tax in other countries. There seems to be some misconception that if a company earns say £5bn per year, that x% tax must be paid to the UK, but that isn't right, some of it's paid to the UK, the rest is paid to the other countries in the world in which they operate.

They paid 1% in 2010. Is this reasonable? Really?

so do people who bring up children & have NMW jobs, so do thekids when they grow up

1% what, Julia? Corporation tax? VAT? Income Tax? Capital Gains Tax? Stamp Duty? NI Employers contributions?

As well as employing thousands of people who also contribute to the economy.

I don't like successful businesses being painted as some sort of pantomime baddy. My dh is a VP of one of the most profitable companies in the world and as well as paying billions in tax every year (not all in the UK), they pay the salaries of over 100,000 people in over 100 countries. If companies like that ceased to exist we'd all be in a far bigger mess.

Oh, and they donate millions of pounds worth of HIV and anti malarial drugs all over the world with no fanfare.

I have much more sympathy with people who make that sort of contribution to the economy than for those who carry on having children after it is clear that they are going to struggle to keep those children without either putting the whole family into poverty or, as is the case in the UK, being baled out by the government.

Corporation tax, I think. Surely it can't be all of it, can it? Hope not. And these 'other countries'. Jersey? Cayman Islands? Speaking of being bailed out, let's have a quick look at Northern Rock shall we? How much did they get from the govt? And how much did we get back from Richard Branson? And what's the shortfall? Slightly more than all the CTC and benefits paid to all families with 4+ kids I think. Not comparable really.

Wot mumblechum said. With bells on.

Why do people bring up evil bankers and corporations on these threads. It's bewildering,

These are two separate issues and not either/or.

Oh, and BB - spiritual poverty is much more of an issue than financial poverty. If we crack the former, the latter ceases to exist.

Other countries like, USA, India, China, Brazil, Russia, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, all the European countries, Argentina, etc etc etc.

I agree that the banks messed up big time and that the govt should try everything possible to recoup all of the taxpayers bailout money. I don't make any apologies for banks.

But there are many, many huge international companies which make a massive contribution to the UK economy which are not banks!

And the other big reason we got in this mess is because labour effectively bought votes by giving every Tom Dick and Harry (tho' not my family unfortunately), Tax Credits, Child Trust Funds, Maternity lump sums, free food vouchers in pregnancy etc, absolutely shedloads of money, not all of which was actually needed by the recipients. It was just like Thatcher buying votes with the council house sell off imo.

And I'm a lifelong labour voter by the way.

I agree mumble , tax credits were IMO a costly bribe for votes. The labour government made huge swathes of the country feel dependent on the state and then at election time warned us the nasty Tories would remove it all.

CinnabarRed started a thread a little while ago, which aimed to dispel some of the glib nonsenses about tax. It was very interesting and well-informed. I'll see if I can find it. I'll link it here if I do.

Here's CinnabarRed's tax thread, there's loads of interesting information there, including on the taxation of multinationals.

Can I just ask how anyone working full-time on NMW is supposed to be able to afford children without help from tax credits? Can anyone else remember when the NMW was being introduced and there were cries of it being unaffordable for businesses?

If there were no tax credits how high would wages have to be in order for ordinary working families to simply provide the basics for themselves?

We rely on tax credits (both working and child) plus LHA because we rent privately. We have a small 2 bed house (2 adults DS & DD) and due to the changes being made to both tax credits and LHA rates we are being forced to move to a cheaper area.

I was hoping to go back to work when my daughter starts pre-school but we will no longer have any family support nearby. DH can transfer his job to a different area but the hours are variable so it is not possible for me to get work around his job.

Not sure how we are going to cope and now I learn that from this thread and others like it that I probably should have aborted my child and been sterilised.

Why 8wildeyed*, do you have more than four children?

Well, it's pretty clear that the idea behind this policy isn't to save money, as there are relatively few families with so many children and there has been a declining birthrate in the UK for years.

I suspect it's an attempt both to pull the wool over the eyes of the public that it's "cost-saving" while playing to the puritan/eugenic gallery (many children = too much sex + inferior breeding stock) and making the sanctimonious parents of their perfect 2.4 children (including some here it seems) nearly wet themselves in delight at putting the boot in to those they see as inferior.

Well, not me!

I've got five!

Agree with KRITIQ. I don't think it is really about saving money as the number of families and sums are relatively small. Also we neeed more young people in order to support our ageing population.

My guess is it is just another part of the education process that the elite wish to deliver in order to reduce population size of those they consider unworthy. You know thw type, those people just brimming over with empathy, the ones who want to "save the planet".
Now they say it is 5 children, then it will be 4, then 3 etc.

www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1133682/MELANIE-PHILLIPS-Why-Green-zealots-think-dictate-children-allowed-have.html

Melanie Phillips is spot on and understands the motivations of those who want to educate you to think of children as a "burden".

"The blessings of a large family and the contribution this makes to prosperity and progress don't figure at all. Instead, children are to be measured solely by their burdensome impact on the planet.

What kind of sinister and dehumanised mindset is this? It is no coincidence that the country which comes nearest to Jonathon's ideal society is Communist China, which imposed a murderously cruel policy of restricting families to one child apiece. For the desire to reduce the number of children that parents produce is innately totalitarian."

I think Melanie Phillips is slightly OTT there.

I have no problem with people having as many children as they see fit and feel they want and can cope with.

I do, though, have issues with people who don't take responsibility for their fertility or the children they produce. Every child is a choice in the UK.
If you earn very little and need a major financial contribution from the tax payer, then part of that responsibility is to restrict your family size to reasonable level.
After all, all those who don't rely on benefits have to do so.

Most people do restrict the size of their families, most people take these decisions. It is only relatively few families that have 5 or more children. But great for them, because those young children will one day contribute to provide for our elderly.

Our birth rate has been declining. We need more people to provide for our ageing population. Why do the elite want to educate the public to the opposite? Because they don't care about our ageing population, they want to restrict them and cut their pensions and benefits.

They are educating you about scroungers and the poor and poor people with large families because they want you to think that it is "unfair" that these people receive public resources. But that is only the beginning. You won't be immune to it. As people have said you may fall on hard times and need public resources one day. When you are old you will definitely need them, but they intend to cut them for you.

They will wheel out greens on your TV to explain to you that ach human has a "human footprint" which increases the "carbon footprint" and they will tell you that this harms the "planet", and they will educate you to think it is "unfair" that your "human footprint" is using up teh planet's resources, just as large families use up public resources. You may be middle class and not need public resources, but they won't let you off because iof that, because your "human footprint" will be "unfair" to them. So they will start to tax you and penalise you for exceeding your "human footprint" and for having a large family.

They are educating you one brick at a time.

They have been flipping hiomes on expenses for years. I'd rather that money went to families in need with 5 or more children.

They call it a "dependency" culture. But they created it. They took the jobs away. They created austerity and globalisation and let companies offshore their work to where labour is cheaper. Why? Because they don't care about the population, just as they don't care about the elderly or about children receiving no child benefit. But of course ther eis one thing they "care" about, that's "saving the planet", only you may not be part of it.