Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Recommended Posts

Dear HPC


I know this is off-topic, but can it be left up for a few hours? 

i read on here a while ago that there was a well know scam where parents have a lot of kids but very spaced out, the idea being that they maximise benefits? 
 

can anyone outline this for me? I was trying to explain the thought process of another couple to my partner who are having a baby quite late on in life, and the possible reasons for it, think one of you guys can explain it much better than myself 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ghostly said:

Not really a scam, just the by-product of a bonkers system.   

I think the thought process was that you get child benefit up to the age of 16 (I think beyond that if they're still in education / training) so if you stagger the births of the children you can continue to receive the benefit for longer.  Now, child benefit itself is minimal (~£20/week plus ~£18/week for each additional child) but it opens up the whole benefits world such as child tax credit, etc. that can add up to quite a bit.  Couple that with working less than 16 hours per week and you can also get some other 'tax credits' too.

You can run through some different scenarios at entitledto.  

It's also a reason why schools have a lot of children with special needs.

1) it opens up a whole world of additional benefits for the parents (and some cash for the school provided the needs aren't too minor or severe).

2) older parents seem to have children with poorer genes which make special needs more likely.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jiltedjen said:

Dear HPC


I know this is off-topic, but can it be left up for a few hours? 

i read on here a while ago that there was a well know scam where parents have a lot of kids but very spaced out, the idea being that they maximise benefits? 
 

can anyone outline this for me? I was trying to explain the thought process of another couple to my partner who are having a baby quite late on in life, and the possible reasons for it, think one of you guys can explain it much better than myself 

Christ, you dont have kids.

Imagine are in their early teens, so born just as TCsv2 swung into full splurge mode.

My youngest has several friends where theres a 10-15 age gap. 2 kids, still at home in mid 20s. Two more 13 n younger,  Single mum doing 16h in shop.

It's not CB scam, its Tax credits.

UC makes this less lucrative.

See tax credit said face

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, the "late life" child used to be a method to offset the nightmare scenario of having two teenagers who are NEETs (neither employed or in any sort of training) that still live at home with no prospect of moving out or moving on.  Particularly if they are boys and can't move on housing-wise by getting pregnant.   I don't know for sure when the "two child" rule came into being but I think it was to combat this situation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Houdini said:

It's also a reason why schools have a lot of children with special needs.

1) it opens up a whole world of additional benefits for the parents (and some cash for the school provided the needs aren't too minor or severe).

2) older parents seem to have children with poorer genes which make special needs more likely.

Oh God, every year, spring time, the prospective new parents visit Mrs spy's school.

Theres a handful of Downs every year now.

The number of live Downs birth, from the invention of the pill til tax credits, was on a rapid downward slope. Idiot Brown reversed 40 years of progress - and you dont want to risk having a Downs kid, as it spectrum condition.

And the new one - fat gormless younger mum with 55+ Dad (Hello Boris!) - Kode  has special needs....

Problem of older mums are well known.

Problem if older dads are less known but are very present - autism/retardation

Total classic sad case

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/entertainment/celebrity/radio-2-dj-ken-bruce-1036023

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, stop_the_craziness said:

Yes, the "late life" child used to be a method to offset the nightmare scenario of having two teenagers who are NEETs (neither employed or in any sort of training) that still live at home with no prospect of moving out or moving on.  Particularly if they are boys and can't move on housing-wise by getting pregnant.   I don't know for sure when the "two child" rule came into being but I think it was to combat this situation.

Or worse, a boy who's got his GF pregnant and can't get any suitable housing.

 25yo boy n gf n baby in one room.

10yo, 13yo + 22yo sharing one room.

And mum and whoever she brings back from spoons on the sofa.

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, spyguy said:

Oh God, every year, spring time, the prospective new parents visit Mrs spy's school.

Theres a handful of Downs every year now.

The number of live Downs birth, from the invention of the pill til tax credits, was on a rapid downward slope. Idiot Brown reversed 40 years of progress - and you dont want to risk having a Downs kid, as it spectrum condition.

And the new one - fat gormless younger mum with 55+ Dad (Hello Boris!) - Kode  has special needs....

Problem of older mums are well known.

Problem if older dads are less known but are very present - autism/retardation

Total classic sad case

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/entertainment/celebrity/radio-2-dj-ken-bruce-1036023

 

The proportion of live births resulting in a child with Downs been static for decades due to antenatal screening. More pregnancies diagnosed with Downs (likely due to older parents) but that increase is matched by termination.

image.png.9d2097f13aed0782e12786473ef89294.png

http://www.binocar.org/content/annrep2012_FINAL.pdf

Note the increasing number of Downs diagnoses while Brown was still in opposition in the early-mid 1990s. Even then his power was immense.

Edited by Dorkins
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dorkins said:

The proportion of live births resulting in a child with Downs been static for decades due to antenatal screening. More pregnancies diagnosed with Downs (likely due to older parents) but that increase is matched by termination.

image.png.9d2097f13aed0782e12786473ef89294.png

http://www.binocar.org/content/annrep2012_FINAL.pdf

Note the increasing number of Downs diagnoses even while Brown was still in opposition in the early 1990s. Even then his power was immense.

They stopped tracking the numbers. Or at least publishing them.

I'll look again.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, spyguy said:

They stopped tracking the numbers.

Haha, classic spyguy. Here's a phrase you could try practicing in the mirror: "Oops, I stand corrected."

Edited by Dorkins
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dorkins said:

Haha, classic spyguy.

No, they did.

I had a look in 2010, to check this.

There was a series, which they stopped as the numbers were too low, so did not think it worth continuing.

I'll have look this week if I've time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One of my grandkids is married to a doctor.

It's mostly middle class professional women having kids later in life that are attributed to the rise in Downs.

There's not a rise in live births though. Improvements to the screening processes the NHS use has actually seen the birth rate stay the same (it's actually dropped, but only by a little bit).

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jiltedjen said:

Dear HPC


I know this is off-topic, but can it be left up for a few hours? 

i read on here a while ago that there was a well know scam where parents have a lot of kids but very spaced out, the idea being that they maximise benefits? 
 

can anyone outline this for me? I was trying to explain the thought process of another couple to my partner who are having a baby quite late on in life, and the possible reasons for it, think one of you guys can explain it much better than myself 

It's mainly tax credits that bring the big gains for parents, Although I have noticed those on income support spacing it every 5 years (once the kid turned 5 they were expected to look for work). 

Child tax credits was an absolute cash-cow, There's a calculation on here somewhere that shows that a couple (renting with kids) working 16-24 hours in Tesco is roughly the same as a couple on a combined salary of £70k (Due to tax, loss of benefits + the childcare costs.)

Universal credit is putting a stop to this (see tax credits sad face thread). They have brought in a 2 child limit. 
Under UC a couple >25 with 2 kids (one born 2016, 1 born 2018) (not disabled), Living in a 2 bed house in Coventry would get: 
£498.89 for the parents,
£277.08 for first
£231.67 for 2nd kid.
£497.55 towards rent (2 bed private rental)
Total £18062 for the year. + £1788 in child benefit on top.  they would be able to earn £3400 per year without their benefits going down. 

Edited by Council estate capitalist
Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Council estate capitalist said:

It's mainly tax credits that bring the big gains for parents, Although I have noticed those on income support spacing it every 5 years (once the kid turned 5 they were expected to look for work). 

Child tax credits was an absolute cash-cow, There's a calculation on here somewhere that shows that a couple (renting with kids) working 16-24 hours in Tesco is roughly the same as a couple on a combined salary of £70k (Due to tax, loss of benefits + the childcare costs.)

Universal credit is putting a stop to this (see tax credits sad face thread). They have brought in a 2 child limit. 
Under UC a couple >25 with 2 kids (one born 2016, 1 born 2018) (not disabled), Living in a 2 bed house in Coventry would get: 
£498.89 for the parents,
£277.08 for first
£231.67 for 2nd kid.
£497.55 towards rent (2 bed private rental)
Total £18062 for the year. + £1788 in child benefit on top.  they would be able to earn £3400 per year without their benefits going down. 

When i split up with my ex-wife i was on about £60k/yr, her only part time. I was gobsmacked to discover that i could rent a flat and live a totally seperate life and our combined disposable income actually INCREASED, all thanks to tax credits. I have now met people who have actually feigned marital break ups, usually to move back in with mum and dad to get the windfall. this might also have the added advantage of getting your kid into a better school if one of your parents lives i the right catchment area..

Edited by debtlessmanc
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not all people have kids for monetary benefits, they have them because if they don't have them others will have them for them.....seriously our children are our future, there are no perfect parents, there are no perfect children....you can't choose your parents, you can't choose your children.;)

Edited by winkie
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, byron78 said:

One of my grandkids is married to a doctor.

It's mostly middle class professional women having kids later in life that are attributed to the rise in Downs.

There's not a rise in live births though. Improvements to the screening processes the NHS use has actually seen the birth rate stay the same (it's actually dropped, but only by a little bit).

Then they are stupid and ignorant, no excuse nowadays for popping out a mong except free choice. My wife had our second aged 42 and it was a surprise, we only found out at 16 weeks! 
 

first thing we did was drive to London, pay a clinic in Harley street £500 and had the wife’s blood fed X to the USA Lab for DNA nucal screening. Got results emailed back weeks later, 99.9% chance on no Down syndrome, huntindon disease? And a few other terrible things, and the second was a boy. They can tell this by finding the babies cells in the mothers blood, and testing it’s DNA. 
 

We were fully ready to abort if anything came back we didn’t want to live with. But I know some “cultures’” do not his to also abort unwanted girl babies. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, jiltedjen said:

So a couple with kids say 11 and 6

having a kid now wouldn’t actually net them anything? 

They'd get an additional £13.70 per week in child benefit + it might entitle them to another bedroom but that's about it.  
If that child was disabled they would be able to claim DLA + The "disabled child element" of UC + carers element.  There have been some spurious cases of claims for kids that have "ADHD" or similar. 

I believe the "2 child limit" should be read as "2 children on the claim" so if a couple with 2 kids, 1 about to "age-off" the claim they would benefit from having another kid. 

There is a fringe benefit to having another in that UC claimants are required to look for work after the child is 3. Not being hassled by the job-centre might unconsciously lead to some having another one. 

Edited by Council estate capitalist
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Dorkins said:

The proportion of live births resulting in a child with Downs been static for decades due to antenatal screening. More pregnancies diagnosed with Downs (likely due to older parents) but that increase is matched by termination.

image.png.9d2097f13aed0782e12786473ef89294.png

http://www.binocar.org/content/annrep2012_FINAL.pdf

Note the increasing number of Downs diagnoses while Brown was still in opposition in the early-mid 1990s. Even then his power was immense.

Interesting. I’d suspect Japan with its low birth rate would have a similar issue. I could only find this about older mums and screening / prevention.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ajmg.a.61298

I can’t easily find anything on recent years rates of Downs in Japan. if anyone else can it would be interesting given their dearth of births, like the U.K.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jiltedjen said:

So a couple with kids say 11 and 6

having a kid now wouldn’t actually net them anything? 

Don't you mean "wouldn't actually gross them anything?" Net would be after the expenses associated with the extra child. Is child benefit really so generous that parents have lots of money left over for non-child expenses?

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, markyh said:

Then they are stupid and ignorant, no excuse nowadays for popping out a mong except free choice. My wife had our second aged 42 and it was a surprise, we only found out at 16 weeks! 
 

first thing we did was drive to London, pay a clinic in Harley street £500 and had the wife’s blood fed X to the USA Lab for DNA nucal screening. Got results emailed back weeks later, 99.9% chance on no Down syndrome, huntindon disease? And a few other terrible things, and the second was a boy. They can tell this by finding the babies cells in the mothers blood, and testing it’s DNA. 
 

We were fully ready to abort if anything came back we didn’t want to live with. But I know some “cultures’” do not his to also abort unwanted girl babies. 

Erm....

The rise IS in abortions sport.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 416 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.