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 think it is utterly ridiculus that people who are as well paid as myself and my dh receive child benefit and welcome its cessation to people like us.

But Moondog, you always had the option to opt out. Why didn't you take it?

The whole "Are only the rich allowed to have large families?" is a stupid argument. Utterly stupid.

The real question is where is our government money best spent? And in current times (rightly or wrongly) there's a real apathy towards those families which have 5+ kids, demand the council put them up in a large house and take home £40k+ (All tax free) in benefits. Now those numbers are mercifully small but it rightly gets on many people's nerves.

No-one is saying you can't have a large family. Even now when the planet is vastly overpopulated, only one government in the world has a child policy. Even that's only in certain areas and it's not a government personally I'd like to live under.

The point I'm trying to make is that who says the government must pay for your decision to have a child? Surely we should support ourselves and our families first and foremost?

Yes, I accept that people fall on hard times. And rightly, the government should do what it can to help in those situations. But I also have a responsibility to minimise my impact on others too. So for example if I lost my job (and that's looking a definite possibility at the moment) then what I'm arguing is that I'd enter the system and get whatever benefits I am entitled to. My responsibility is then not to go on and have another child and my goal is to get myself back into work ASAP.

Now shit happens and yes my partner could get pregnant. Well that's hardly the government's fault is it? Why should I now expect more money? Now ok...maybe you can say well it's hard isn't it and the government should help out more. Well ok....mistakes happen. But what about those small minority who then have another....and another....and another?

Where are their responsibilities? They're quick to claim their entitlements but slow to live up to their responsibilities.

Like I said, those numbers are thankfully small but it doesn't mean it's right.

WI, you jump to conclusions somewhat.
I never told you what I do with it.

moondog - not clear why the fact that you personally are so rich you don't need your child benefit means that everyone else who earns over 40K doesn't need their child benefit either.

Please share with us precisely what you earn, how many children you have and how much child benefit you receive - we can then analyse the figures to see whether we too are really just ridiculous spendthrifts who can learn from your fabulous economies - or whether you actually earn waaaay more than us and therefore don't have a ruddy clue what our experience is like.

Ta.

Can I also just add, re my previous point about vouchers, that I would be 100% happy to receive my child benefit in vouchers. I think if everyone received them in that way, we could be sure the money was being spent on the kids, and there would be no stigma attached to them at all, as everyone would have them.

Good point B&B, that's not bad at all with the universality thing with CB. What we don't want though is it going any further with income support etc so no stigma.

No.
I shan't.

moondog - So we'll just assume that your original point that those over 40K didn't actually need the CB was based on no real experience whatsoever, and you were making the whole thing up. There''s a word for people like you but mumsnet policy won't allow me to use it. It begins with a 't'.

OH Go ahead, I don't mind at al!

treasure?

I think there is a certain arrogance and lsvk of consistency in saying that the state is short of money and therefore the very poorest should get less. But also saying thatch have so much money that I don't need my child benefit but I claim it anyway and then donate it too a cause that I deem worthy.

If you are so concerned about a lack of money in the state pot that you want to take children from their homes ( I know moondog does not suggest this but others have with similar views) or have a system of state sponsored sterilisation you should at least leave your child benefit in the system.

May I point out that while you are busily trying to shred moondog (good luck there, she's made of bloody teflon!), nobody has responded to the points I've made. And I DO know how it feels, because it is my life.

This thread is actually what scares me about the UK. IF our politicians have the mindset of some of the posters on here, the poor and smaller minorities in this Country don't stand a chance. Bigoted views with actually no substance behind them. I'll say if again, I hope moondog and niceguy (has to be the most satirical MN name in history) walked a mile in the shoes of some intelligent, hard working people in Britain who earn less than £20,000 a year but have to have help to feed the kids they "shouldn't" have dared have, then they might get the fuck off their elitist soapboxes and have some empathy.

Colditz I do think something needs to be done to discourage people from having far more children that have far more children than they can support or care for.

I don't know how to do it. Even a total lefty like me has considered the idea of child benefit for up to two children only. But I hate the idea of children being forced into poverty. I have worked with some of the most deprived children in the country and it was soul destroying and I would hate to see those children with even less.

Part of the answer must lie in education, as a teacher I see it as partly our failing that there are women out there who see their sense if purpose to be linked to having a succession of children by a succession of useless men.

Fanny, I'm one of the people niceguy is talking about, and I agree with him.

Why should someone who is already living on state benefits have more children? It's not in the interests of anyone to do so, so why do it? Why allow it? Why pay for it? For as long as my situation continues as it is, I will be effectively sterile, because I do not have the right to have as many babies as I want then turn up at the Dss demanding more money to fund that child's lifestyle - well, actually, I do have that right. But I don't believe I should.

I completely agree that benefits should be capped on the claim date.

I have lived in soul destroying poverty as an adult and have also had a period in which we were not necessarily poor but money was tight. It never seriously occurred to us to have more children and we desperately wanted them.

colditz because you are not God. It can't be done and there are piss takers BUT there are bigger piss takers in the Banks, the large Corporations etc. Wolves in Sheeps clothing. Don't slag the lower classes because it's not all what is wrong with this Country and you all know that.

I am the lower classes.

Surely I may comment on my own damn situation?

To be honest, I get pretty sick of middle class hippies telling me what I want, and what I need, and what is good for me, and what is good for my children. It's not very empowering, is it? To have a whole section of society decide I am too stupid to possibly know what I am talking about when I talk about the situation I am in? I'm not stupid, I'm just poor and working class, and what is good for my children is me not having any more babies.

I think the point about bankers etc is a red herring. We're talking about people's responsibility to be self sufficient so far as that is possible, and it is certainly possible to avoid pregnancy when you are already struggling to care for the children you have.

We're not talking Third World countries here, contraception is free to all in the UK.

Large corporations make massive contributions to the economy in terms of employment and tax income. It is naive and disingenuous to pretend that they are the enemy of the people .

Brilliant post by niceguy and one with which I agree 100%!

'If you are so concerned about a lack of money in the state pot that you want to take children from their homes '
Oh for God's sake, who is suggesting this?

The issue is simply one of limited resources and how best to ensure all people have a fair share of them.
Additionally for us not to reward irresponsible living habits by saying 'There. there, the poor kiddies will only suffer so here, have some more cash' (the spending of which, incidentally, is not monitored)

Do whatever you like.
Have 12 kids.
Eat B&H for breakfast.
Spend your life playing computer games

Just don't ask me to pay for your indulgences.

'I get pretty sick of middle class hippies telling me what I want, and what I need, and what is good for me, and what is good for my children.'

Well said. That's why I didn't vote for Tony Blair.