Debate: Limit on Child Tax Credits (2 children only)

[Macman]

What are your thoughts on this?

Should the government lift the cap? Or is 2 children being reasonable?

Me personally I think it's fair, having children and what not. But do not expect the state to fork out for all your children.

[kalniel]

Depends what the aim of the tax credit is really.

If it's to encourage an 'ideal' number of children for our projected population needs then fair enough. If it's to help those in poverty then it's trickier to introduce a cap if there is a genuine need.

[peterb]

As a general principle I'm fine with it. One of the unspoken elephants in the room about climate change is that it is humans that consume energy, so anything that limits the growth of the population is good - but it needs to be global.

As for the practicalities, it depends how it is applied. If someone with 2 children re-marries, would or should children of the second marriage/relationship be eligible? If so, under what conditions?

And it doesn't stop people having more than two children, just that state subsidy is limited.

[DanceswithUnix]

But this surely only limits the growth of population of poor people? Seems a harsh way to reduce poverty.

[Macman]

Might seem like a harsh method... but we as a society cannot sustain to hand out welfare payments to folk who are having 10-14 children :|.

If folk are out working Full-Time to pay for their children but there comes a point when a couple shouldn't have anymore children because they aren't financially stable to provide for 2 and X amount of children, regardless of how big a family one might want.

[Bagnaj97]

As a general principle I'm fine with it. One of the unspoken elephants in the room about climate change is that it is humans that consume energy, so anything that limits the growth of the population is good - but it needs to be global.

As for the practicalities, it depends how it is applied. If someone with 2 children re-marries, would or should children of the second marriage/relationship be eligible? If so, under what conditions?

And it doesn't stop people having more than two children, just that state subsidy is limited.

Presumably it would be limited per household. I wonder if you'd then see large families splitting up to make the most of it!

[Domestic_Ginger]

Positive move IMO. I only have 2 kids and don't get any tax credit. Subsidised nursery was a great move, the government give x hours a week at a certain age ( my wife is in charge obviously). I think this was a good move to get people into work.

Implementation is not going to work though. Family planning is questionable in many cases, its easy to think people start farming to get benefits but I tend to think its just as much being irresponsible.

I don't think it will stop pop. growth due to immigration.



At a glance it looks similar.

I'm getting a bit hacked off with housing developments everywhere.

[kalniel]

Presumably it would be limited per household. I wonder if you'd then see large families splitting up to make the most of it!

If by household then you could apply for housing credit to buy more houses

[Ttaskmaster]

As I understand it, Benefits pretty much began as vouchers for specific essentials, ie food, milk, bit of transport/fuel and the like. They were to provide for those who had lost their primary breadwinner and needed the help. There was no actual money.

Now, you get money for just about anything, with rent and things paid for you on top. Because it's all money, you have only to play the system and score certain gateway benefits to access others and build quite the income.

If you want to have kids, YOU must provide for them.
If you cannot provide for them, you should not be having them. They are your right, but they are also your responsibility. And yes, that is the primary reason I do not have them myself.

The state is not there to fund them. The teachers are not there to raise them.
Certainly I am not here to pity them (or you) and there are plenty of people trying hard to do themselves what some others seem to think is just owed them.

[deejayburnout]

Tax credits are good for those who what to work and need a bit extra to top up there income but it might encourage some to abuse the system. The whole benefit system needs to be looked at. It seems to me that it encourages some to sit on there behind and live off the state, while other work 60 hours a week to feed there family.

Limiting it to claim for 2 kids only might be a good idea.

[Saracen]

I think there are some outlier situation that need careful consideration, like the result of rape, or families resulting from marriage, but on the general principle of funding for no more than two kids for the vast majority of claimants .... dead right, and way overdue.

Also, a wonderful example of an Osbornian hand grenade lobbed into Labour's privy in the perfectly correct expectation that it'll cause a stink and some will end up showered in ... you know what. Labour currently seem to be so confused about whether to vote where their heart tells them, or where they know the majority of the electorate are, that they're so busy bitching at each other I'm not sure they've yet noticed there's a Tory government they're supposed to be opposing.

George, me ol' mucker, whether this was designed to cut future welfare bills, or discombobulate the other lot, it worked like a dream.

[csgohan4]

If you can't afford more children, why should the state fund for them?

[Saracen]

If you can't afford more children, why should the rest of us fund for them?

Corrected for you.

[OilSheikh]

Good step by the govt. It's times families stop having 10 kids just to get child benefits.

[Lucio]

I have concerns about how this will be introduced, if they phase this in so that only children born after the law is ammended, then it'll be 19ish years before it fully takes effect, and any benefit will likely be swallowed by future economic woes.

If it's introduced suddenly, then we're further stagnating the economy at a time when we need to get people spending again, particularly in poverty stricken communities.

I don't disagree with the idea in principle, but I suspect that the latter approach will be taken and all these cuts are really hurting this country, and even worse, is staggeringly hindering the future generations to the point where unless you're born into money, you're basically forced to be a serf for the rest of your life.

[Saracen]

The announcement was that it's "new claimants" that are affected, so yup, it's phased, and it'll take time to significantly reduce the bill. So I guess objective one is to stop it getting bigger. Then, it'll reduce until it grts to a level implicit in funding two and only two kids, max.

As for the effect on the economy, it'll take some cash out of consumer spending, but it'll also help reduce the deficit and, eventually, reduce the debt, and ultimately, also reduce the financing cost of servicing the debt a bit, too.

This is the cold, hard reality of deficit reduction. For far too long, as a nation, we've been spending above our earnings. Keep doing it and we eventually end up as another Greece. So we have to reduce spending on something. Quite a lot of somethings, actually. And whatever is cut, takes money out of circulation in one way or another, and someone's going to lose out. But there's no choice.