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.

Of course its inhumane to dictate how many children a person can have,but that doesnt mean people should have children they cant afford to and then expect the state to pay for them.
Many working parents have lots of children and budget and plan accordingly for them,the only extra money they will get is child benefit.

Most of those children, statistically, will never be taxpaying adults. They will follow their parents example.

Where are the 'statistics' to support this statement?

If your definition of a fascist is someone who doesn't think parents should produce numerous children without requiring state assistance then yes, hands up, I'm a fascist.

It's the Daily Mail so better not read it Fanny, bad for your BP

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-541598/Meet-families-ones-worked-THREE-generations--dont-care.html

Yes, you're all right. Is that what you want to hear? Good for you trying to sort out the Country's benefit problem. In fact, I'm going to email Downing Street a link to this thread so Davey Boy can see what the answer is.

Right, now thats sorted, what can you fix next...?

I know! Let's have a 1 child per family rule like China!!!

Strawman, fanny, hysterical nonsense. Have a lie down, dear.

Ah I know who you are now. Michael Winner.

So fanny do you realy think its ok to just have loads of children regardless as to whether you can provide for them?And that the state should just keep doling out housing and money for them? How odd.

Silly fanny.

I'm Dave.

I think you only need to look at the long term studies that were compiled about Merthyr Tydfill to see that 4 generations of long term unemployment was prevalent.

I'm no statistician but a quick google makes it very clear.

*was/were

Fanny, do you work? Do you pay tax?

This is yet another policy proposal straight from the West Wing. I am beginning to think that modern governments of both parties all got a box set.

So, as CJ suggested, really how many families does this factor and what would be the cost saving.

For my own part, I think there is something to be said for responsible parenting. The policy isn't saying you can't have >5 kids, simply that you won't get support for them.

I think that this is a really interesting problem in a free society with a welfare state. How can it possibly be fair that people not receiving anything from the state rationally decide on the size of their family according to what they can afford, yet those living on the state can have any number of children without any personal sacrifice. I am, by most peoples standards, "rich" yet money would definitely come into our decision as to whether to have a third child.

On the other hand, it is clearly unfair to penalise a child for their parents' fecklessness. So, what is the solution. I think that we have to agree on an amount of children the state is prepared to subsidise (2 or 3) and, if people have more children than that, all the money for their children would be managed by a guardian appointed by the state. So, the parents would actually lose the freedom as to how to spend the money but the children would, if anything, gain as the money would definitely be spent on food, children's clothes etc and not fags and booze. In addition, housing size should be dictated by need, not desire. There is no reason that 2 children should not share a bedroom.

I think that most here will think that I am a rabid DM reader. However, I really do think that 70% + of the population is aghast when they learn what is available from the state vs what hard working people have to pay for.

Hmm it's Tax Credits we are discussing - not benefits per se. Tax credits are provided for families who work for a low income. So YOU want to take money off families who work just because they have 5 children? Shame on you. This isn't about the minority of lazy bastards who produce kids like I have cups of tea. They're always going to be there. They don't register on my radar. However a large portion of hard working couples need help. FACT. Like I've said, educate yourself about the real world. You need to.

Arghhhhhhh it's not about parents fecklessness!!!!! It's about tax credits!!

What is the difference.

If you cannot afford the children (beyond a certain number), don't have them. Tax credits and benefits are the same spectrum.

Fanny.

Love it. "Just because they have 5 children". As if 5 is perfectly average and normal.

For every tax credit received someone else has to make up the tax. So the tax rate for everyone else goes up. It is a zero sum game. So, you have 5 children and penalise everyone with less. I don't think that is fair.

Yes I do work, my husband runs two businesses. We pay tax, VAT and NI. I even have an Accountant. Lucky me. I've also had to claw my way back from ruin. Luckily for me, we only had 3 children. All of which were born when we were very wealthy. However after both DH and I were nearly facing bankruptcy and 17 years of paying my taxes, we needed to
claim tax credits to feed my children. I
am a hard working, non smoking, tee total mother of 3 who runs half marathons in my spare time. Not your typical sponging bastard.

So if I HAD have had 5 children, that makes me feckless how? Remember we're not talking Jeremy Kyle bigoted views here, this is real life.

Christ, who can afford 5 kids? We're not exactly on the breadline but going from 2 to 3 children even would be a huge expense. If you care at all about their quality of life.

Fanny,

You don't sound like a sponger at all. And, for you, the credits are probably just claiming back money you have already paid to the exchequer many times over.

That does not mean that spongers don't exist and that the state has to sponsor people having 5 children who cannot afford them, unconditionally. I only proposed that the state manage the children's money beyond a certain number of children.

Fanny what is the difference? You shouldnt have a massive brood of children unless you can afford it end of story.Its unfair on the children.

And dont forget you can still be pretty poor even if you dont get tax credits,you may get enough money to not qualify for tax credits but if you have a big mortgage or other debts then you can still be poor.In fact many people who get tax credits also get hb,free prescriptions and dental treatment,childcare help and maintainance which isn't included in their income for tax credits assessment purposes so could actually be better off than those not entitled.