"16 Kids and Counting" - how do they afford it?

Spendless

zagfles wrote: »

The current tax credits came in in April 2003. Before that it was the WFTC which was similar amount (at the time, but over the last 10 years tax credits have increased massively), and before that it was Family Credit.

16 kids on a £30k income would get £38577 a year in tax credits! Plus £11507 in child ben. So that's over £50k tax free in addition to their earnings. And the benefit cap wouldn't apply as they are in work.

Yes, sorry 2001 was a typo. I knew they came in on 6 April 2003 as Miss Spendless was born on 31st March 2003, hence my reference to 10 years and her birth. I'd made my initial claim with just Master Spendless on it as baby wasn't born and then had to get through and add her once she was. I was also aware that other systems had existed before, as an office junior in 1984 I had to do a daily post office run and any errands for other staff and I frequently collected FIS (family income supplement) for the 2 single parents who worked in the office. What I wasn't aware of was that the current system started on a par with the one it replaced. I know it is massively different now, as I can tell that from the SOA that people post around the board.

Spendless

BTW_ How will his finances work out once Universal credit comes in? Are there any calculators yet on-line to see? Think he must claim for 14-15 kids as the eldest is probably too old to claim for. Don't think she's still in education as she's recently had a baby and unsure about next one down if she's left school and working or not?

zagfles

Spendless wrote: »

BTW_ How will his finances work out once Universal credit comes in? Are there any calculators yet on-line to see? Think he must claim for 14-15 kids as the eldest is probably too old to claim for. Don't think she's still in education as she's recently had a baby and unsure about next one down if she's left school and working or not?

There's a UC calculator here http://policyinpractice.co.uk/universal-credit/universal-credit-calculator/universal-credit-claim/ but last time I checked it hadn't been updated with the changes to the disregards announced in the Autumn statement. But it won't be far out.

For this family, UC will be very similar to tax credits. The child elements are exactly the same and that's what makes up the bulk of their award, the income taper is different so there'll be a small difference. There are capital rules with UC which there aren't with TC, though there is transitional protection, even for those with capital.

Angelicdevil

Wine_of_the_World wrote: »

However the other Indian family.......

They're not Indian, they're Pakistani.

notanewuser

Spendless wrote: »

Ahhh I'd missed the bit about the mortgage being more than the grocery bill.

I didn't think he was that much older than her?

According to her blog, he was 17 and she was 14 when first baby was born.

And I'm going to bed :mad::mad::mad::mad::mad: having seen her posts about holidays abroad and the bakery giving them the "luxury of a 10 bedroom house".

If tax credits were scrapped tomorrow that family would be on its @rse, not in the lap of luxury.

coolcait

notanewuser wrote: »

According to her blog, he was 17 and she was 14 when first baby was born.

And I'm going to bed :mad::mad::mad::mad::mad: having seen her posts about holidays abroad and the bakery giving them the "luxury of a 10 bedroom house".

If tax credits were scrapped tomorrow that family would be on its @rse, not in the lap of luxury.

I'm not sure why you're so hung up on the issue of how old they were when the first child was born.

You'd be amazed (or not) about what people get up to sexually.

This is a couple who have made their relationship work over the years - even if they didn't get off to the best of starts.

As far as we know, neither of them have had sex with their best friend's partner. Or any item of the BF's partner's furnishings.

southcoastrgi

coolcait wrote: »

I'm not sure why you're so hung up on the issue of how old they were when the first child was born.

Because he was over the age of 16 & she was 14 therefore he is guilty of statutory rape, yes there are the Romeo and Juliet laws however all this means is the sentance would be less than it normally would however the charge is still the same, it also makes no difference in law if she was a willing partner or not.

coolcait

southcoastrgi wrote: »

Because he was over the age of 16 & she was 14 therefore he is guilty of statutory rape, yes there are the Romeo and Juliet laws however all this means is the sentance would be less than it normally would however the charge is still the same, it also makes no difference in law if she was a willing partner or not.

Ages at time of the birth of the child..

It is possible that the father was also under the age of 16 at the time of conception. If the mother was over the age of 13 at the time of conception - which seems likely, if she was 14 at the time of birth - then "statutory rape" may not apply.

As I said, you'd be amazed (or not) at what people get up to sexually.

bluesnake

I would like to state the obvious that if were were to go back to the beginning of the previous century then many of us have come from large families, often they would have less benefits and money than us. Even in the 60's a family with 6 kids could easily be found in schools.

shoppaholic_returns wrote: »

I suppose I am going to get flamed, but I found the fact that we pay child benefit for all of these children extremely disheartening, and I strongly feel we should limit the amount of child benefit/other benefits we pay out to those who do not pay into the system.

If you are going to have a big family and pay for it YOURSELF, then good luck to you. However, having this many children and not contributing is irresponsible and selfish IMHO. I can understand if you have been put into this situation by being made jobless, but for g*ds sake stop having kids at this point!!!

I can understand where you are coming from, but to put a different slant on things: we need more young people to pay for the pensions and medical for our ageing population; a growing population produces more finance, stability, ideas and a sustainable future. Yes all kids are blood sucking parasites for the first 20 years, but they then become tax payers.

Perhaps we should encourage people to have more kids? Providing they are not an asbo kid, have had parenting, then is there anything wrong?

I have not watched the program, the thing about having a food business is that you not only get food, but other things from wholesalers. Also living in a town, or village, especially surrounded by smallholding has its perks, like misshaped veg from which the soil still has to be washed off, pyo odd size fruit, eggs without egg boxes, and meat from farmers. Also small communities trade goods and favours more. I know my grandparents lived like this.

These days I seem to be paying the supermarket an awful lot for somethings that once were flavourful, and never came in plastic bags. I do no think I've had a decent tasting strawberry, carrot or tomato from them in [STRIKE]years[/STRIKE] decades.

southcoastrgi

coolcait wrote: »

Ages at time of the birth of the child..

It is possible that the father was also under the age of 16 at the time of conception. If the mother was over the age of 13 at the time of conception - which seems likely, if she was 14 at the time of birth - then "statutory rape" may not apply.

As I said, you'd be amazed (or not) at what people get up to sexually.

I haven't read the blog but someone above said he was 17 & she was 14 when the first child was born, therefore he could have been 16 or 17 (both over the age of consent) & she could have been 13 or 14, if the female is under 16 & the male is over 16 then it can be classed as statutory rape although if the ages are close it rarely is, if it is the other way around & the male is under 16 & the female over 16 it is classed as sexual assault, so yes it does apply if the police had wanted to persue it although of course the time has long past for that.