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.

You know children don't stay babies their whole lives, yes?

That they consume a fair bit of food? That they need to if they are going to grow properly?

Or do you think that people on benefits should be subsisting on thin gruel for breakfast, lunch and tea?

FOOD mindthegapp you have to feed them.

Tell us how much that adds up to, Sardine and how much you think the government hand out should be.

Mindthegapp you are asking strange questions that obviously I won't know the answers to. Meanwhile not answering mine

Like

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

so what you are actually saying sardine is that no one should have 5 dc?

yes lockets, but we are talking small amounts..... a couple of extra potatoes, another handful of pasta, 2 more rounds of bread.....

The taxpayer shouldn't be funding hobbies. A safety net means basic food, clothing and shelter. If they want hobbies, they can get a job.

And shoes can actually be handed down. My second son and third girl have always had hand-me-down shoes. I am not fooled by the Clarks propaganda.

Is it because disabled children are somehow rendered "worthy" by dint of having a disability, while non-disabled children deserve to go hungry as they are immoral/unworthy in some way?

You understand that benefit levels are currently set at the minimum level required for a basic standard of living? And thus cutting them will obviously take people below a basic standard of living?

caz where did you get that from?

as do the 1st, 2nd,3rd, 4th and 5th.......

why draw the line at 5?

But she has no idea how much.

mindthegapp you think children should work in order to have the money for an occasional treat?

And you still never answered my questions about disability.

caz I don't care how many children people have, I just don't believe that the government should draw a line after which they will not support those children if the parents for whatever reason are out of work.

The proposals linked in the OP have a tory MP saying that there should be no benefits for any children after the 4th.

Their parents should provide for them.

sorry sardine......not sure, off to read whole thread better

I did answer about disability. I think it irrelevant to this thread. End of.

If someone has 8 children and for whatever reason can't support them (disability, redundancy, whatever) I think the government should provide enough money to the family to feed and clothe those children, have a roof over their head and be able to take part in mainstream british society.

I do not think that all 8 should have to survive on enough money to provide a basic standard of living for 4.

I think it's a great idea.