Two kids benefit cap

‘ only have as many children as you can afford ‘ I can afford my 3 children just now . I couldn’t if I became unemployed . Are people suggesting only the rich with family money have children now ?

Jesus, don't say that, you'll create an anxiety epidemic!

I agree. Especially when it was ideological. At the same time as giving tax revenue to the most rich.

Actually, people in higher socioeconomic areas are FAR more likely to be regular drug users. The biggest drinkers are men in the highest income households but you are right about smoking, those in the poorest areas are more likely to smoke. Maybe we should increase the taxes for the highest earners to discourage all the drinking and drugs, it's for their own good.

Bad. It’s outrageous that 4 million children are living in poverty in one of the world’s wealthiest countries.

The load of rubbish on this thread , are people aware that normal working people sometimes end up needing benefits ? I have 3 and both me and my husband work but what if he died or became disabled why would they punish us for having had 3 children ? Benefits are meant to support people in need .

I get benefits because my children come first. Actually a lot of the benefit money coming into my account is in their name because of their needs, and gets spent appropriately. That includes things that on paper seems ‘for me’, but unfortunately due their needs I have to run a car on finance (and because I’m on UC I have shit credit so costs more). I have to live in a shit area because people don’t like renting to single mums on benefits, not my choice again but it’s not like I’ll ever live in a mortgaged/outright owned house again.

Im not sure lifting the benefit cap is a priority over having more social housing that’s with more than 2 beds. I’d sooner see the latter sorted asap over the former if it is a case of one or the other. At the moment neither seems to be on the agenda.

But you would have a better standard of living than anyone who relies on benefits.

Also I get that there are different circumstances and he might of died or left the country and exceptions should be made. Just to clarify before y'all jump down my throat

No because why are the taxpayers paying for a man's kids because he refuses to pay maintenance. That shit is his responsibility we need to start going after dead beats and making them pay a reasonable amount towards their children.
I know someone who only pays SEVEN POUND A WEEK to his kids. The taxpayer literally pays more than that with child benefit *(about £20 a week). This country is notoriously shitty when it comes to making dead beats pay maintenance.

*Oh and child benefit is separate from universal credit child element which is more and the one that is capped

What about those who have children they can afford and their circumstances change? Job loss, disability, bereavement, divorce or abandonment, mental health conditions, caring responsibilities etc

Good, I don't think they should ever lift the 2 child cap.
If you can't afford more than two children don't have them. To many big families with no means to support themselves. Not to mention the lack of bigger bedroom housing to house them!

Bad because the only people who suffer are the children. The children become adults with health problems who can't actually work.

I'm not sure if anyone saw the Panorama programme recently about the decline in children's health but it's because more children are in poverty.

www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m00215yf/panorama-britains-child-health-crisis

Labour has said that it would be an aim to get rid of it.

Don't have more kids than you can afford.

I know plenty of people who stopped at one because if they had more they couldn't give both children the best possible life. The tax payer should not be paying for people who want things they cannot afford - maybe if people lived within their means (children, pets, housing etc) our economy might be in a better place.

You missed out ‘50 inch tv with Sky’ from your Benefits Bingo list…

Anyway those things are old news now. If you want to go more modern stereotypes, say ‘only buy North Face clothing and vapes’. No one smokes anymore, get with the times…

And what about the circa 1k per month it costs to put my youngest child into nursery so I can go to work?

Or would it be better if I quit my job, stayed at home with the children I've been forced into raising by myself, and relied on the benefits system even more?

A vast proportion of those on Universal Credit are working parents and single parents who are in that position through no fault of their own. Should they have no opportunities to better their circumstances for the sake of their children, simply because they've been forced into relying on a safety net whilst their children are young?

I can't understand this thought process. In life there are rules and as much as people ad saying my DH buggered off.... there's not going to be a rule that suits everyone's personal circumstances.

Housing is a huge issue for a start! I'm a single parent myself and honestly I wonder how anybody affords 3 plus kids!

Ever? Ever Ever? So no parent on benefits is putting their children first. What a crock of shit.

I don't know about the cap. I can see both sides of the argument. For unemployed parents lifting the 2 child limit will be useless without also raising/removing the benefit cap.

On the point of parents who don't claim not being able to afford a 3rd/4th child, would removing the 2 child limit also raise the the max income you could earn and claim. For eg, let's say you need £5k per person per year. (Picked because it's a round figure only).
So a family of 4 needs £20k. If you earn less than that you'd get topped up to it.
If you earn that much and want a 3rd child you'd then need an extra £5k which would be given as UC.

I'm not saying that solution is affordable just pondering if that's how it would work.

Benefit cap is good.people need yo learn personal responsibility!

I'm all for it. It's a deterrent at the end of the day children are lovely but extremely costly! It's parents themselves who are plunging their own kids into poverty the GOV has stepped in and rightly so.

We have a welfare system that acts as a net to protect the most vulnerable in society. Children are some of the most vulnerable in society. There is no way currently to force fathers to pay for their children and the amounts they are meant to pay are often nowhere near enough.

Very well said @Shielehdie and I agree entirely.

Even if my circumstances had not turned out the way they have, I would still and have always been wholeheartedly against the cap because I don't believe any child should live in poverty, regardless of the circumstances in which they were conceived.

Do you have any evidence to support that claim?

And how do you propose she forces him to do that?

I had three children I could comfortably afford in what I thought was a secure and stable marriage.

After my children were born I was emotionally abused and eventually assaulted by my husband.

I now can't comfortably afford three children by myself, particularly after spending years on maternity leave and reducing my hours to care for the kids. Choices I made when I had my husband to support me.

None of this is my children's fault. And not all people on Universal Credit are jobless lowlifes who are churning out kids for cash that they spend on drugs and fags and booze.