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.

I imagine that they struggle with food and clothed, teens.

I'm not sure what you want me to say? I am no advocate for the CSA, I know little about them.

I'll give the a cleaning job so that their fifth child can have some healthy food, sardine.

I'm assuming they are eager to work.

So you want a system where someone judges whose children are worthy of support and whose are not?

I am guessing that the unworthy children would get an exemption and become worthy if they were eg disabled?

Cuts are being made everywhere, in the public sector, private sector and benefits. We all feel the pinch somehow.
Parents are responsible for their children. If you decide to have even 1 child, your living standard will most often go down (maternity leave etc.) for a while. Two kids, even more so. These are the choices you make in this life. I dream of 4 kids, but doubt we can afford more than 2. I know a lot of working parents who delay having the 2nd child because they wouldn't be able to afford childcare.
Accidents happen, and I doubt any sane parent would keep their 5th child hungry, just because they don't get tax credit from them. You don't have kids in order to get benefits. You make adjustments in your lifestyle to cover for the happy accident :)
This is why I think 4 kids is an OK limit for the tax credit.

If they work they won't have any more money mindthegapp as their benefits will be reduced accordingly.

There is also the knotty problem of who looks after the children while the work is done. That question is I'm sure one that will cause a major confloption for some of you.

"Parents are responsible for their children"

Do you disagree with the child protection agencies in the UK?

I'm not happy at all about paying for people who do nothing to support their children.
Not that I blame them one iota for taking all that is handed to them.In this country we reward inactivity, chaotic living, unstable homes, disfunctional activity, lack of efort and general fecklessness.

More fool us.
We then pay people to look busy trying to sort it all out (armies of social workers, 'outreach' workers and the like)

Little wonder we are the laughing stock of the world.

"I doubt any sane parent would keep their 5th child hungry, just because they don't get tax credit from them"

No they will have 4 children who are all hungry. As the food for 4 is divided 5 ways.

I am conflicted really. I would not and could not punish children or not very bright adults/adults with poor upbringing/adults with low self esteem.

However, we are a very small country and have limited resources. We do need to address the "well I get x amount for housing benefit, X for income support and X child tax credit, well it's not worth me working because I wouldn't be able to earn that".
Well those in that situation need to be able to earn £200 or £300 a week towards their expenses to contribute and the welfare system needs not to penalise them for that.
I am pissed and not articulating myself well, BTW.

We as a country, have a limited pot, we don't need to subsidise big familes, we don't need to expand the population of this small island, but I would rather eat my own tits than deprive or stigmatise the actual children of large or poor families.

We do need the parents of those children, or at least one of them, working towards contributing towards the benefits they may receive.

We are not flush, but ok and grateful to have decent jobs through which we are proud to pay a good amount of tax. For me, it is a good thing to pay tax and contribute to society, but we all need to do that, even if it is only partial.

They can wheel their buggy to my house while they are cleaning. I don't mind.

Still interested to hear whether people would stop all benefits for children who are 5th or subsequent, or just the ones mentioned in the article?

I agree with niceguy - and I'm a single mother on benefits. I'm not having any more children - I'm not supporting the ones I already have without intervention from the DWP, so I'm certainly not going to have any more¬!

moondog you have a very jaundiced view of our society.

Yes, because I spend most of my working life surveying the results of our present system.

Incidentally this part in the article tickled me:

"And she says that while she has never met "an out-of-work teenager who chooses pregnancy", the availability of benefits linked to the number of children "could be seen as an attractive incentive to a 16-year-old" with low earning potential."

They must exist because she's read about them in certain sections of the press.

balls my stars didn't work

anyway

The amount of tax evaded and left unpaid and not pursued is enormous
The number of families who are feckless immoral drunk and have hundreds of children is very low

Yet people seem to get so excited about the second bunch and how they must be punished for their sins.

As for all five children being hungry if the parent doesn't get another £50 a week - nonsense.

A single parent of 4 children (with one under 7) receives roughly £300 per week after rent and council tax is paid for them, and not taking into consideration any maintenance paid. All that NEEDS buying is food, water bill, gas/electric, and clothing. Trust me when I say it is easily doable.

Where did you get your figures from Sardine?
Can we have sources cited?

Sardine has figures???!!!???. /perks up in anticipation

My figures for hardly anyone having hundreds of children?

Really?

So what is the point of stopping anything after 4 children? I'm guessing it's not about saving a material amount of money?

Why 4 children? Why not 3?

Why not only single parent families? I mean they're the really feckless ones

Yet we don't bat an eyelid at the government selling the best boys of northern rock and keeping the toxic debt. Or the proposals to cut the taxes for the super rich, as if they need more handouts. Or the fact that rich pensioners get a winter fuel allowance - no means testing there.

However our children, the future, they can suffer. Because they come from "poor" families, as depicted by the DM, they're useless anyway.

Disgusting.