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.

Panda - I said and additional form of contraception - so, if you have a vasectomy and use additional forms of contraception properly I'm guessing your risk falls to almost zero.

If you can't afford a large family then you stop at, what, 1 or 2? To then go on and have 5 or more children after a vasectomy and additional contraception I think is nigh on impossible.

I have five children.

Apart from now, when we are privately educating them all, I can honestly say that my fifth child cost almost nothing.

The food she consumed was negligible - within the bounds of what we threw away or overate.

Her clothes were already owned.

We didn't even need handouts from charities.

Even now, were she in state school, I think she would cost us very little. Even if she needed new school uniform, that would cost less than £50 a year.

I don't see how a fifth child means automatic government handouts.

Government handouts are a safety net (basic food, clothing and shelter) - not for luxuries. If you want luxuries, get a job.

Peachy - my comment about cigarettes/drugs was most definitely NOT aimed at you. I had in mind more the Shannon Matthews type of family.

As you had your kids whilst earning a good wage, clearly you were not incentivised by the wage. In the case of Shannon Matthews' mum, with the 7 kids by different fathers, that was rather less clear.

sorry - should have read 'incentivised by the benefits'.

Out of interest, peachy, would you object to vouchers? As I said, I have used them myself and welcomed the extra milk.

God I hate benefit scum, oh apart from my mate Dave, he's alright he is.

As I said before, I don't think anybody can really judge another family, you don't know their financial circumstances, and you can't know if they have fallen on hard times - which it seems would make them deserving in your eyes.

After all, the government believes these families are entitled to financial support, otherwise they wouldn't be given any!

I would object to vouchers if I was a claimant. I was on income support for five months once (homeless with a two year old) and believe that as a mature adult I had an absolute right to decide where I spent the £75/week I received. I shopped in street markets and charity shops. You think they would accept vouchers FFS? Giving people vouchers is just a way of stigmatising them, which is probably why some people think they're a good idea. Why not make them wear a big fabric 'S' (for scrounger, obviously) on their clothing too?

How about if you could opt for vouchers or cash?

I think I would find vouchers very useful (and they don't have to say 'BENEFIT' they could be normal gift certificates) as it would help me to budget.

woolly- some people can manage their own money, however many can not. what about children living with addicts??? do you think their parents are going to prioritise their next hit or nappies?? that is the sad reality.

I agree with niceguy.

I have 4 children and I really do think that there should be a decreasing amount for additional children from 3/4 onwards for tax credits and income support. There are economies of savings such as heating and lighting, you don't need more bedrooms they just share.

I think the level of income support for a single parent with one child is just too little whereas if you have 3 or 4 or more children it's really possible to have an okay standard of living.

Doesn't matter what you do there will be parents who do not prioritise their children over alcohol/drugs/themselves

Been out all afternoon.

I see that the proposal according to MN is somewhat more severe than the MP has proposed.

So you have 5 kids, you lose your job. The state says sorry you shouldn't have had 5 kids we will only pay you enough to feed/support 4. Then the state says - look your children are living in poverty we will take some away. And that is the right answer even though taking them away is a. 10x more expensive and b. tends to produce people with very poor life outcomes.

Do any of you need a job? I think Dave would appreciate some of your talent on his policy team.

The 'reality' is that the majority of claimants are NOT addicts. Most are perfectly normal people who can manage their own lives and money. Why do you assume 'many' cannot manage their money? What evidence do you have for this?

I know loads of people with more than 4 children and none of them are on benefits

They are all very religious.

But I guess if any of them lost their jobs then somehow they would immediately change from being a devout and upstanding member of the community, to someone who shouldn't have had that many children, prioritises alcohol and drugs over their children and is probably a teenager. Riiiight.

What is the marginal cost of a fifth child?

Would you like your salary paid in vouchers, scarlett, because some wage earners spend their money on alcohol and consumer goods while their kids go without? Sorry, but the vouchers suggestion has seriously pissed me off, as you can see!
:)

But nobodies sole income is made up of tax credits, is it? So i woudn't mind having vouchers sent to me, as long as I also had some cash income.

Young children are cheap (with the exception of childcare) they were hand me downs, washable nappies, don't eat much, you have the equipment it's as they are later primary areas it gets tougher.

If I had still had 4 children needing childcare I think I worked out that a nanny was suddenly a viable option as being the cheapest!

I agree with Niceguy as well.

As for losing your job after you've had kids, surely anyone with half a brain makes sure they have enough savings to keep them afloat for a year or so before they go over, say two children?

So you keep afloat for a year, there is a recession and you can't get another job, and so someone comes and takes some of your children. That seems fair enough, yes.