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.

And in all honesty, how many people in the UK with a mortgage etc have a years salary saved up?

Many people (and a number growing all the time) are living hand to mouth at the moment as it is.

Also top marks for whoever used the word "breeding" upthread. Always a highpoint when that one comes out

Many on this thread think so, lockets.

I am always amazed at the amount of people who would cheerfully punish children because they think their parents are immoral.

We haven't really moved much past the victorian POV, it would seem.

Lockets, yes, tbh I think before you have any children you should make sure that you're financially stable. Not necessarily with a year's expenses in the bank, but some degree of a cushion.

I'm not suggesting, btw, that anyone should have their children taken away, of course not. Just that before taking the decision to bring a child or children into the world, that you are sure that they're not going to suffer real poverty. Not talking about hand me downs or not going to every after school activity under the sun, but real, crippling poverty.

But you support the proposal, mumblechum?

Which would put children into real, actual poverty.

Incidentally - do people want all benefits for children after the 4th stopped? Or just the child tax / working tax / child benefit?

God - its going to take us 5-10 years to save up a years salary.

I should just give up a DD now, or maybe i should raise her and breed
me/her to bring in some cash?

Sardine, how much does it cost to bring up a fifth child?

I have no idea mindthegapp. Why do you ask?

It probably depends on a lot of different factors. eg if they have allergies or a disability, it will be more expensive than if they don't. If you have to buy a bed and pushchair as the old one has conked out, that's going to be more expensive than if you have spares.

etc etc

I would imagine that the benefits people have worked out the minimum cost and this is what is provided at the moment. As the benefits are set at the minimum level for a reasonable standard of living (roof, clothing etc)

I have five children
I certainly don't have a years salary saved up (well of my dh's as I am a sahm)

we must only be talking about a very few families here

doesn't ctc stop after you earn £40 000 ?

My husband earns considerably less than this amount, almost half, but although I receive ctc if I were to lose the amount paid for my fifth child it wouldn't bother me hugely.

It would however be punishing the poor far more than the rich, and are we only saying that the rich can have a large family?

I do kind of agree with an earlier poster who said that benefit should be capped to the number of children you have when you first claim it, but then you could extend that to saying that you shouldn't have a child if you don't have room, or a big enough car......

Why do I ask? Because you are asking the taxpayer to pay over the odds for what is actually a trivial expense.

If there are disabilities to deal with, this should come out of a disability fund rather than a social fund.

I also wonder, given that very few families are in this situation, and the saving to the benefits bill is very small, why do people want to see this?

Is it simply to make people (children) struggle to punish them for leading a lifestyle some view as immoral?

What of the fact that many of these families are not immoral at all, and are simply unfortunate?

It's a trivial expense for the taxpayer.

It's not trivial for individual families.

Surely that is not hard to understand?

Mindthegapp why are you happy to see a non-disabled child go hungry, but not a disabled one?

Caz, it doesn't affect higher rate tax payers at all. There is no need to bring them into the picture and make poorer families seem even worse off.

Or do you mean you think the taxpayer should pay for eg special shoes, glasses, wheelchair, but you would not want to see the taxpayer paying for food or standard clothing?

That doesn't make sense to me.

You have no clue about the finances of a large family, obviously, sardine.

Really, a fifth child costs almost nothing. If the fourth child has a full belly then so will the fifth.

There's always the option of getting a job. If someone is really struggling to put food on the table, I will happily offer them a cleaning job.

So you think that when people are already living on the breadline, if you add another person in, they will all still get the same amount to eat?

Riiight.

Bread, milk, cheese, eggs.

More. Needed.

Obviously. Otherwise why do 3, 4 or 5 people get more than one person? Surely all any family needs, whatever the size, is the amount of money for one person.

Seriously, Lockets?

Unless you have four girls followed by one son, then surely you will be using hand-me-down clothes and toys? If you do, the your fourth girl will benefit from all the hand-me-downs.

My fifth child is nine, and she has probably had a sum total of £200 spent on new clothes for her - everything she has is used. At some point she will get new things but she will not be the fifth dependent child - the elder three will be off my hands.