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.

She said if a parent could not support their child then they would be better off elsewhere.
What part of that are you not processing?

Alouiise-brilliantly and succinctly put.
'an employer doesn't just pay you more because you have another child. Why should the state?'

Well Lockets in the same post she acknoweldged the difficulties of that.
However it is truew that many many children are at the mercy of their biological parents who shouldn't be trusted with a hamster, yet alone a child and the powers that be stand back and allow it to happen and actually aid and abett.

So if we are against the state paying people to have children are we saying that child benefit should go for everyone ?

I wouldn't be adverse to that idea, twinkly. Providing the money was used to provide free school lunches to all children and free hot breakfasts to those on benefits. That way every child has one good, hot meal every day and the very poorest get two.

I know - child benefit should go to people the State wants to encourage to have children, not to people who need the money.

Good job The Evil Tories are taking it from The Evil Rich, then isn't it rabbit?

I left the thread to help my DD with her homework and cook my dc's dinner. Sorry about that. .

Now, I didn't think we were talking about what actually is happening, HarryHillatemygoldfish. I thought we were talking in hypotheticals...

Oh - I forgot. I'm on benefits, so I must be spending the money on drugs, alcohol or fags. Not on the ingredients for a home-cooked, filling dinner for my dc. .

While, yes, it IS unusual for someone to be in my position, where most contraception doesn't work due to the interactions with my other medication, I can reassure all of you that my dc were ALL conceived while either me, my ex-P, or my ex-H were working FT (sometimes both of us in that relationship were working FT at the same time), we just have had a lot of problems with keeping employment - Ex-H because he was too busy shagging his bit on the side instead of going to work, while I was at College and running the house with a 4yo with asd and a 4mo baby, Ex-P because he was made redundant 3 times in as many years - once both Ex-P AND I were made redundant within a week of each other, and we got no redundancy pay because we hadn't been in the jobs for long enough - I was 1 week short.

Yeah, I picked crappy men - I'm working on that, and now I am much more well versed in how to spot the warning signs of an abusive man. But it has been a long hard slog, with the help of WA. And is another part of the reason I am remaining single.

While, in principle, I agree with this rule, if it is applied from X date 2012, I still am very concerned about the fact that there WILL be dc who will suffer because this rule will NOT be enough to stop people from having more than 4 dc. And that ISN'T the dc's fault, and they shouldn't be left below the poverty line just because their parents are irresponsible. Even if, instead of money, you gave vouchers, I would rather that than leaving a whole family to be below the poverty line. Right now, I get £6.20 in Healthy start vouchers. I ENJOY spending them - it enables me to give my dc a wider variety of fruit and veg than I could afford without them, and I don't need them for formula milk as I am BF'ing 9mo DS3.

And as for the posters saying that long-term contraceptive implants should be fitted to any WOMAN on benefits that has 4 dc at the point she goes onto benefits - That way Eugenics lies.

I know no-one on benefits that wouldn't give their dc breakfast before school - our breakfast club at our school is for wrap-around care for those parents that work. I should know - my DC were attending it. And the breakfast there was NOT as filling or balanced as the breakfast I serve at home. Coco pops? My DC are used to either porridge, or muesli with pouring yoghurt, along with toast, a piece of fruit and fresh orange juice.

But, I forgot - I have 4 dc and I'm on benefits, so I couldn't possibly be trying to feed my dc a healthy diet, worrying about their education, or making sure that they have ambitions. Surely I let my dc roam feral? Erm, no. In fact, it is the dc of WORKING parents that I see roaming feral, not the dc with a SAHP, funnily enough.

Good post Huntycat.

Well done hunty

This thread is un-fucking-believable. Some posters on here are borderline fascists.

And where in the O'Wise Mumsnetter Book of Benefits has anyone actually given a valid answer to the "benefit problem"?

scarlettsmummy2. Right, so you're saying let's invent a system which condemns certain children to poverty, and then forcibly take them away from their parents because of the poverty.

And that helps society how exactly?

borderline, fannybanjo?

no- i am not saying that, I am saying that if parents are unable to support themselves or cope on the benefits that they are currently being given, they certainly should not be having more children. (i am not talking about people who fall on hard times and need a bit of help to get back on their feet)

With regards to removing children- I think any child who is living in EXTREME poverty because their parents are unable to manage financially despite having their rent paid/ council tax paid/ tax credits/ income support/ child benefit and whatever else they get, and the child is still going hungry and they are not sufficiently clothed- THEN the child should be removed. The benefits system in the UK is notoriously generous, and parents just need to put strategies in place to manage what they are given- the whole point of benefits is to help people until they can support themselves and is not there to provide for the same level of lifestyle as those who work full time. My foster sons family always seem to find money for drink/ fags/ and fancy mobile phones, so they should be able to find money for food if they really want to- but the drink and fags always come first. That is the reality. If parents don't use their benefit hand out to support their children, they are neglecting them and the child should be taken into foster care. END OF. The childs needs must come first, but the solution is not to just fling more and more money at parents who will always put something else first regardless of how much you give them.

I work for a housing association and the housing team are absolutely dreading the new direct payment system to tenants coming in to place, as they know many tenants who are quite happy to never work and are completely dependant on the state to support them will most likely not pay their rent as they won't see it as a priority and they know the council will just have to re house them if evicted.

Yes I think I was being kind threefeet. I actually would call it being blinkered by their own self importance. Kind of Hyacinth Bucket pretending to be Margaret Thatcher. But hey, this thread given me and DH the best laughs in a longgg time. Nowt better than armchair politicians on MN. It's like the Daily Mail but without a like button.

scarlettsmummy what makes you think only the poor neglect their children or spend their money on fags and booze? Is there a Mumsnet Book on that I'm unaware of or did you read it in The Mail?

Interesting approach fannybanjo!

Perhaps you're right, I should try to laugh at the kind of tripe that right wing idiots come out with here rather than embarking on the thankless task of trying to explain to them quite how naive, ill informed and heartless they are.

Can't help it though, they make me mad! I keep writing sweary rants then deleting before posting them!

And also, scarlettsmummy - Do you think that ALL poor people neglect their DC? Because that is an enormous sweeping generalisation. Just like me saying that anyone who earns £40K pa is very rich, and should not moan about losing their child benefit, because how can they possibly need child benefit...THAT would ALSO be a sweeping generalisation. Someone living in Central London, trying to rent a family house, with a SAHP and one earner on £40K, might find it VERY tight without their Child benefit. Does that mean they are spending all THEIR money on fags drink and drugs?

Assume makes an ass out of u and me...

Threefeethighandrising - I spend half my time on MN composing sweary, ranty posts then translating them into a more readable, less Anglo-Saxon form of English...

fannybanjo- I suggest you phone social services and ask them how many cases of well off parents not feeding their children they are currently dealing with.

Of course, people from all backgrounds can neglect or physically or sexually abuse their children, and of course they should also be removed, but generally speaking it it the poor and uneducated who tend to neglect their children (and most of the time it is unintentional) by not meeting their basic needs of food and clothing. The well off tend to abuse in other, more intentional and deliberate ways. I know my foster sons family did not think they were neglecting him- but they were by choosing to spend the money they were given on their own needs- not his. They weren't physically or mentally abusing him.