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.

Yes, suppose I am veering off-topic.

Just hate to see lofty attitudes towards those on benefits when it could happen to any of us, especially in this climate, redundancies, businesses failing, something the meeeja seem to forget in their latest campaign.

(Off topic again) I think we all hope we've found a responsible partner, especially those of us who have given up paid employment to care for children full-time. It's still a massive gamble, one which often doesn't pay off, sadly. Being dependent on another person can unfortunately leave you just as vulnerable as being dependent on the state.

Oh, okay, so being of the opinion 'No additional tax credits after 4 kids' is lofty.

agree yourmother - one of the reasons i've always worked....that and the fact that my husband's job is contract based and therefore not very reliable. BUT you are off topic with this...because we are talking about people already on benefits who can't support themselves limiting their reproduction

Off topic again) I think we all hope we've found a responsible partner, especially those of us who have given up paid employment to care for children full-time. It's still a massive gamble, one which often doesn't pay off, sadly. Being dependent on another person can unfortunately leave you just as vulnerable as being dependent on the state.

That's just simply not true for most women I know.

If my DH left, not only do I have 50% share in considerable assets but he would pay for all of his children. I know this absolutely unless he has had a lobotomy in secret.
I would not be eligible for a penny of state benefits.

I know one divorcee who claims benefits. Apparently the couple of grandmoney she receives from her exh is "for the children" so she signs on AND gets housing benefit despite her exh owning (mortgaged) a property which he rents out.

That needs sorting out. I can't bring myself to spend too much time with her at the moment as she thinks it is a perfectly acceptable thing to do.

That's the new system though Alouisee.

Doesn't matter how much your ex gives you every month, you are still entitled to full single parent benefits.

Good ole Gordy!

As always these threads degenerate into a mix of bizarre personal anecodote (I've got 18 children all conceived in context of loving relationship but in view of my exceedingly rare medical conditions I repatedly became pregnant despite crossing my legs/insisting on 3 condoms at a time/standing on my head. Then my 'partner' turned into a gibbering idiot overnight and left!!') and self pitying v professional victim playing ('I'm only a frail downtrodden woman who has had such a raw deal in life I didn't recognise that my 'partner' who had no job, a drug habit and four different children by three different women was a fuckwit')

Pathetic.

:o Poor Moondog - as if :o

I can't think of anything good that Gordy did, oh except keep us out of the Godforsaken Euro.

Yunno, how difficult is it really to try to live by a few simple guidelines with regard to having children.

Like, wait until you are in a loving, secure relationship with a decent partner.

Wait until one or both of you is working.

Wait until you have a home .

Oh, and wait until you are no longer a child yourself .

Nobody can ever guarantee that they won't need help from the State, so the proposal implies to me that anyone having more than 4 children should be viewed as doing something worthy of disapproval.

I wonder what people would think of the next logical steps along the line: automatically removing excess children from their parents to be put up for adoption; and sterilising repeat offenders?

Rather than offer IVF to women who can't conceive naturally over the age of 37, these women could be given the excess children of the profligate. I don't see why the taxpayer should fund treatments for women who wanted to cheat their biological clocks, especially when there are lots of spare children out there.

There was a scheme in Canada where young girls were given a certain amount of social welfare if they remained childless and they lost it if they became pregnant. (I think it was Canada) Teenage unplanned pregnancies miraculously dropped.

This was copied and pasted from a thread the other day, the original poster was MollyDoggerson.

rabbit - sounds an excellent idea to me, although from a practical view it would never get approved. children being brought up by people who could support them both materially and mentally...who could argue with that?

assuming you are on benefits, couldn't support them and had them since you were on benefits then i would remove the youngest as it would have most chance of settling into a new life. obviously in our society this wouldn't be allowed, but would in reality probably produce a much better outcome for the child

lockets - think you need to think of the children and not the parents. people in a pre/post school club on tele last week said one of the reasons they did it was because a load of the children didn't get supplied breakfast at home before school. I cannot even begin to comprehend how someone could be such a bad parent as to not be able to afford a cheap loaf of bread to feed their children.

It's clearly Nuts McNuts to talk about removing children!

But, if you know from the off that more than four then no more benefits, not cuts, not forced abortions or child removals but no extra cash ( yunno, a bit like it is for those who work ) then everyone knows where they are and can make choices accordingly.

lockets - its you assuming they are 'filth' children not me. the club was aimed at children living in poverty, and i think having parents on benefits was part of requirement. i think all children start the same, its their upbringing that changes them. And before you start bleeting on, i don't think all parents on benefits are bad. But I do think having loads of extra children when you can't support them is wrong, in much the same way that I didn't have loads as i work and couldn't give any more enough attention.

No she hasn't Lockets and you know it.

Look at it this way; an employer doesn't just pay you more because you have another child. Why should the state?