How likely are they to do this?

[AngelsInWinter]

Politicians saying that they will maybe limit child tax credits and child benefit to three children as of the next election (may 2015).

Really worried about it.. Will it happen? I don't even know who is in power, or who would need to win the election to implement this

They're* babies not their

Yes, OP, I was broody for a long time. But we couldn't afford another child. Simple.

How did you get over it? Genuine question. I've got good qualifications etc but have no interest in a high flying career. Just want a family.

Angels, people working and not getting tax credits have to make the choice, have another child and possibly make sacrifices in their standard of living to pay for said child, or accept that they can't afford the child. Why should people on tax credits have the option of having a child, banking on the state to help support it? Particularly when it is a 3rd/4th child.

The welfare system should be a safety net, not a planned source of income.

I honestly didn't think that tax credits were a safety net, but to top up low wages, which are the government's fault.

But you have a family. You have three children. You've replicated yourself, your DH, and you have a spare (as they say in royal circles). Anything - anyone - else is fine, if you can afford it.

And actually, I think on that, whoever gets in to power in the next election will be the same on this. Money is limited, and there is a hierarchy who will get the cash. I don't think it will be for multiple children.

You said you're planning to go back to work, calculate the cost of childcare, i work part time, i have 2 ds aged 6 an 7 months. I earn £121 per week, childcare costs me £188. I get help with tax credits, after paying all bills, i get left with under £10 in my pocket.

Childcare is expensive, finding a job that fits around school is hard. For 4 children with my childcare rates it would cost £376. Childcare is already capped at ( i think ) £300 per week with taxcredits

They are a safety net Angels, to help people making work a viable choice. If you had stopped at two children and were now back at work you may not need for as longer, for example. That's why people get angry about the system - it's very very broken sadly .

Sorry, should have proof read that first sentence!

I think childcare will be fine when they're at school, the oldest would be at secondary school so could walk home etc.

It's now it would be crippling.

The only people I know with three or more children earn mega bucks (the Children As Status Symbols syndrome) or are on benefits. Most of my friends - including us - have stopped at two because that's what we can sensibly afford.

I know lots of families on minimal or ordinary incomes with 4+ of kids (and none live in council houses as far as I know). But they don't have expensive tastes, either.

I can't agree that it's govt. fault if minimal wage is not a living wage; they don't really have that much control over the economy.

Lljkk I think you're describing me there! We are VERY happy with a small car, no exotic holidays, not having expensive hobbies etc etc.

I thought govt set minimum wage?

yeah they set it, but they can't set it too high or it will restrict employment or employers will just stretch the rules even more to keep their costs down, they set it in response to prevailing market conditions. Most people are paid more than minimum wage, too, because of market conditions.

Plenty of people do piece-work as things are (£1 for every bushel of apples you pick or whatever instead of an hourly rate). There would only be more of that kind of thing if minimum wage is set to a bad level.

It's people like me who can afford to work for minimum wage who probably keep the minimum wage down.

If you cannot afford another child without subsidy (i.e. tax credit) then you cannot afford it. Please tell me why your genetic material is so much more important to replicate than anyone else's?

There are lots of people who would love to have more children but they cannot afford it, so they don't.

I'm sure they could? But they probably have things we don't eg an expensive mortgage, two cars, holidays etc

We haven't had a holiday for 6 years, 1 car, small mortgage.

We definitely cannot afford any more children though.

:(

No employer would pay an employee a few hundred pounds a month more for every child they decide to have so why should the taxpayer be expected to fund another few hundred pounds in tax credits for every new child born?

And tbh, I feel more sorry for people that cannot get finding for IVF to have their 1 and only child, than I do for people that are lucky enough to already have 3, sorry. My colleague would be a fantastic mother, but lives in the wrong postcode. There's no way her and her DH could afford any more treatment (they paid for one, but neither are on a high salary). That one didn't work, so they remain childless

I don't know, like I said I didn't decide these rules.

All I asked was how likely this was to be put into action in may 2015. Thanks.

HanSolo, I really hate situations like your friends'. It's very unfair. I've been extremely lucky to be able to have my three children and never take my fertility for granted.

It's not the government's fault that you're on a low income. You have to cut your cloth according to your means and determine your own priorities. Shit can happen to anyone and that's when society steps into help. But to rely on the state as an ongoing way to finance your personal lifestyle choices is really setting yourself up for disappointment.

No, it's not the government's fault. But I've never owned a credit card, or had a mortgage. Never taken out a loan, or in fact used any kind of credit. Would that be the same? It's still expecting others to foot the bill right?

Yes Angels, it is. Credit cards and mortgages just defer payment - plus interest - by the person responsible, they don't pass the cost on to anyone else (except in exceptional circumstances such as bankruptcy, in which case the lender, not the taxpayer, suffers the loss?.