IDS latest women-bashing plans

[Bumpstart]

Hello.

I have been thinking about this benefit cap of 2 kids.

I have a conspiracy theory I'd like you to talk me out of.

I think IDS have a team of civil servant who research how they can get votes. I suspect them of coming on mumsnet and noticing the amount of threads on here about 'should I have another baby?'. The responses to these threads are largely NO, not if you are dependent on tax credit.

There are whole discussions to be had about tax credit propping up the unsustainably low minimum wage, but what I'm trying to get at is that there are a significant number of posters who wanted a larger family, but denied themselves because they felt they couldn't afford it, and now cheer that IDS is validating their choice, and planning to penalise larger families.

I find this deeply depressing, that low waged families are having their family choices curtailed, and there is so little solidarity amongst us, that this new proposal is being seen as justice.

I know that was abolished. But the tax free allowance was raised by quite a bit. And that is probably just as beneficial and simpler. I am simply not understanding this low waged families having their choices curtailed. Most people have to consider money when planning their families. A lot of people put off a second child because of nursery fees. So working mothers are having their choices absolutely curtailed because of childcare costs.

Err no working PARENTS are having their choices curtailed because if childcare costs. Isnt that what you meant to post.
As paying towards childcare should come from the fathers wages too.

I do see it is unjust that working families have to agonise for ages over spreadsheets when deciding whether they can afford children, when non-working ones, who are not faced with complex childcare v. job decisions, can have large families funded by the taxpayer.

However - the more ridiculous excesses of housing benefit have now been curtailed (and indeed benefits generally are being slashed with unpleasant ruthlessness), and as other people say there is no way of implementing this policy fairly. People on benefits do not live the lives of Riley and as ever the people who would suffer most from this policy would be the vulnerable and chaotic, as Lucy Mangan argues here:

www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2012/oct/12/lucy-mangan-family-planning-tories?INTCMP=SRCH

I think the polarisation between working and non working families is slightly irrelevant here. By the time this comes into force, ther will be a universal credit, which means that what is now social security benefits for people out of work, and tax credits, for those working more than 16 hpw, will be coming out of the same pot as child benefit, if I understand correctly. So those working families Who are earning NMW and therefore dependent on whit is currently tax credit, will be just as much curtailed as unemployed families.

It is exactly this kind of polarisation which leads to the lack of solidarity we need to try and defend safety nets for families.

Agree with you Bumpstart. Totally.

What would happen if you are in a relationship where you earn enough to have a 3rd or fourth child and then one partner decides its not working anymore and fucks off, deciding they dont really want to pay maintainance etc.
The resident parent would then be punished for the 3rd and fourth child. Even though the decision was made when it was affordable in that relationship.

Thanks darkest eyes.

I fear that universal credit, as a benefit system, is gradually having large chunks chipped off, and off, and by the time it is introduced, will in no way resemble a support net for struggling people.

Deeply depressing.