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.

Moondog - please enlighten me as to the simple question....? Oh yes, cap tax Credits for more than 4 children. Brilliant idea.

fanny sorry ive been out today but just read your reply to me.
That's a huge assumption that im a biggoted daily mail reader. I can assure you i am far from that.I too had to claim tax credits when my marriage broke down and was very gratefull for the help.
However,during that period i would not have decided to increase my family,thus expecting the state to help me further.

I recently had my 5th baby with my 2nd husband. This was a decision we made whilst taking into account our financial circumstances and allowing for a decreas in income due to mat leave and me going part time to care for the baby.

We have had to manage on less money with an additional child so im sure its reasonable for people on tax credits to exist on the same money.

Nobody is saying that people cannot have as many chidren as they like,merely that after a certain number they will not recieve any extra money.

If you believe its ok then thats fine but just because i disagree doesnt mean im a nasty person. I just have an opinion that differs from your own.

'Nobody is saying that people cannot have as many chidren as they like,merely that after a certain number they will not recieve any extra money.'

EXACTLY!

Ledkr - if you and your partner suffered redundancy within weeks of each other - would you cope with all your outgoings for 5 dc on the money for 4 - or would you struggle to meet all your finacial commitments? For how LONG could you cope if you and or your partner struggled to find new employment?

ledkr apologies, I didn't mean to insult you personally, it just raises my goat when people come on MN with attitudes about claiming benefits. It's great that you stopped at 4, likewise, I did the same, we stopped at 3. I often say to DH I would have loved to try for a boy but we just can't afford it. I'm just fed up of hearing far right wing views from posters who actually have no idea how hard it is to live that way.

Yes, because everyone who thinks there should be no additional tax credits for over 4 children is a right-wing extremist with NO idea. Right.

"raises my goat" - Jesus where did that come from...? Damn iPhone.

eminem so you are left wing then? Or even a Socialist perhaps?

I am walking away from this thread now because it is like wading in sand. I'll agree to disagree. Thanks folks.

Neither.

Fanny,

Where do you think the "welfare state's" money comes from? It is taxes and, predominantly, taxes on individuals, not large anonymous corporates. A total of 62% comes from income tax, national insurance and VAT combined. So, the welfare state helping someone is at a cost to someone else. There is no way you can duck this.

Of course, as a compassionate society, it is right that we provide a safety net and also right that we help families with children. However, all the above is up to a point. For most of the people on this thread, 4 children seems to be more than enough. How can you see it as fair that some people with decent incomes stop at two children when they ideally would like more, because they make the responsible decision that they cannot afford it yet, some on far lower incomes, think it is reasonable to be subsidised to have 4+. Of course there are hard luck stories and each one should be judged on its merit. On the other hand, losing some control over the use of the additional subsidy seems a fair price to pay for being given it. That is not fascism but realism. The idea of not taking any responsibility for one's life choices but expecting someone else to pay for them is just something the remainder of us are not willing to accept any more. That is the reason in recent surveys that 70%+ of people would like far more testing and control of where benefits (and tax credits) are going.

Actually Fanny I take it all back. You are right of course, these extra children are a burden on the state. Something must be done!

But this is not a new problem. A fantastic solution was suggested as far back as the 18th century - amazingly relevant to our own times I think.

This idea would be a brilliant for preventing the children of poor people
from being a burden to their parents or country, and for making them beneficial to the public.

It would make a great new Conservative policy - what do you think? Have a read, it is but a modest proposal.

I invoke the strawman.

Seconded.

It's satire. Surely someone's heard of Jonathan Swift?!

I was being genuine though when I said I thought it was relevant to today.
I keep being reminded of it when I come across people like fanny.

I have, I did my diss on 18th C Lit.

I have - it says so at the bottom of the paper.

Alouise

HarryHill I did it for English lit too.

I'm not trying to score English lit points though, I was trying to make a serious point.

For some reason I feel compelled to try to make tories think about what they're saying! But I'm not sure it ever gets us anywhere.

hunty Thanks for the hypothesis.
If my dh and i both were made redundant or lost our incomes in any other way i would use any benefits we were entitled to as wisely as possible.
If we only had entitlement to 4 allowances for the dc then i actually would have to manage in the same way as we have now gone from 2 full time wages to only one.By tightening our belts and downsizing our life styles.

What i wouldnt do during this period of hardship is have another baby

I believe that is the point.

ledkr, that's not quite the point.

"What i wouldn't do during this period of hardship is have another baby"

I agree. Deciding to have a baby after loosing your job and in a position of serious hardship is not the best idea.

But come on, use your imagination a little! Can't you think of ways that people end up on benefits with 4 kids, other than having more kids while already on benefits.

Off the top of my head, what about:

people who had 4 kids while in well paid, apparently secure jobs and then:

 - lost the jobs through redundancy
 - lost an income because one of the couple dies, forcing the other to quit their job as can no longer afford childcare
 - had to quit their job because of becoming a carer for elderly and unwell family members. or disabled children, for example.

How can you justify adding further hardships to people in these positions?

Or how about those on benefits who got pregnant by accident. No form of contraception is 100% effective after all. Or how about my friend who got pregnant 5 years after being told she was 100% definitely, sterile (after cancer treatment)? Surely you are not so inhumane to suggest that they should be forced to have abortions? (Or sterilisation even?!) Why should they and their suffer in this position?

And what if the parents have created children while living in poverty? Who does it help exactly to push those children further into poverty? As it's the children who will suffer most here. And society as a whole if we push more people onto poverty, can't you see that?!

threefeet

Read. The. Thread.

I'll repeat ( again).

Those with four or five children who lose jobs will be okay. Because those children are already in existance.

Those with four or five children who lose a partner will be okay. Because those children are already in existance.

Are you being deliberately obtuse talking of forced abortions?

I actually think that you can't possibly have read any posts at all because you arguing things that will never happen.
What part of all children already here are protected, there will simply not be extra money for children as yet unconceived are you not understanding?

Threefeet, I don't see what is so offensive about Ledkr's statement.

In this country benefits are believe it or not incredibly generous. Try living in other countries where there are no child tax credits, no housing benefits and jobseekers is only paid for a defined period of time.

We all have to live within our means and not expect the state to continually pay for something we decided to do. Yes accidents can happen but that's not the state/taxpayers fault is it? Why should they foot the bill?

Back when I had my first child, my OH & I were so poor we had to live with my parents, we couldn't afford to run a car let alone our own place and we could barely afford to shop at Aldi (before it was trendy). Everything and I mean EVERYTHING was 2nd hand for my daughter. Cot, mattress, pram, car seat, clothes. So do I count as someone with no clue as to how to tighten my belt if I also think people need to live within their means?

Threefeet,

I don't think anyone has suggested penalising the children. The question is how to penalise the parents whilst still making sure the children are OK. I feel that losing control over the money for all the children would be at least something of a deterrent. Maybe give the total subsidy in food, children's clothing allowance etc tokens.

The problem is that there is no good solution. The reality of all welfare/relative tax rate debates is that it is a tradeoff between how much one supports the less fortunate versus how much those who work hard and do well get taxed. In addition, it is how one targets that support. The reality is that you have to preserve enough of an incentive for those who work and make good personal decisions versus those who get the support.

New Labour very successsfully perpetrated a myth that the Tories were the "nasty" party, based on the fact that they believed in smaller government and lower taxes. So we swung from a total tax take of the mid to low 30s to the low to mid 40s. At that point, those who do pay tax tend to revolt and say "enough". That is now happening. The debate gets tiresome when it is simplistically polarised as the right thinking all welfare recipients are scroungers versus the left feeling that everyone should be entitled to "state" support without any testing and regardless of the poor decisions that they make. The reality has to lie somewhere in between.