To think the 2-child benefit cap is fine?

I am probably a net contributor and I feel the same that people should consider whether they can afford a 3rd child if their circumstances drastically change.

So we need to do everything we can about eradicating childhood poverty - including evaluating ways to ensure we don't add to that number

Do people not take out life insurance policies or critical illness cover any more? It's a condition of most mortgages, and just common sense. It might not solve problems forever, but will bridge the awful period after a catastrophic change of circumstances before people can come back up for air.

What really needs to change is child maintenance, so that's harder to fudge and bears closer relation to what it actually costs to raise kids.

I think there is a huge cultural element at play here that means that some families will always be expensive for the state. Removing benefit caps will simply make them more expensive.

There is often a reason why these large families are so big in the first place whilst relying so heavily on apparently insufficient benefits. They lack the sense of self responsibility that many other families have. This attitude extends to diet, education and exercise. It's not simply the case that throwing money at these families will automatically mean that all these cultural issues will be overridden.

4.3 MILLION children are living in poverty in the UK.

Do the 180,000 households have nearly 24 children each?

https://cpag.org.uk/child-poverty/poverty-facts-and-figures

Kids can be expensive. Dependibg on circumstances you can soend way more than 3k from the uc and £800 from CB.
But realistically if parents were to have extra kids for 4k per child extra they are unlikely to be parents willing to put all childs needs and spending first.

The cost per child to the gov
800-1000 per year (assume 800 as these are child2 etc) =12800
4k x7 yrs primary= 28k
5k x7 yrs secondary= 35k
Then theres preschool assume 1k per month from 3. So 12k+
Nhs birth 3k
Then add this 3k x16 years for the UC

14years fsm @ say £2 per day £5320
Our secondary bus is say £800 so x7y = £5600
Total £149,720

So if gov dont oay the 3k uC its saving them 48k

Apparently 0.3% of households (15000 households) have multigenerational persistent worklessness. Many reasons for that I am sure but government policy can attempt to help

Delving deeper though, From the Labour Force Survey:

In the LFS data, in 180,000 households (4% of the multigenerational households of working age), both generations are currently out of work and in 140,000 households both generations have been out of work for over a year. In data sources that track families through their working lives, sons with workless dads at age 10 to 16, spend 6-11% more time out of work from leaving full time education to 23 than sons with employed dads. They are also 15-17% more likely to spend a year or more in concurrent spells out of work during this period.

I always feel like a lot of MNers know all of them. Maybe it’s a very close knit community.

Mumsnet needs an 'ignore' button

Oh and child maintenance needs to be tightened up and enforced. That is clearly a huge part of the problem.
Living wages need to be paid by employers

As an example, a single mother with 4 kids can likely look after her family financially with a good median wage job, UC support for housing and 2 kids, child benefit for all 4 and child maintenence, especially if the kids are school age and after school club is subsidised.

And I am sure you can have more intelligent discourse beyond 'are you mad'?

Course I can. But there are some occasions when it’s not worth it. This is one of them.

Abusing children for the perceived faults of the parents is mad. Or worse, bad.

Comprehension is clearly not a widespread skill.

Let's educate children in the value of work by ensuring they see their parents work. Hence evaluating policies that ensure the welfare state is a safety net and not a source of income over the lifespan of children.

We all agree that under 5s are expensive - targeted help at that stage from the state works. Calculating on state help to raise kids till adulthood is not healthy for adults or children. And sadly growing up in a home with non-working parents who are able to work sets children up for a lifetime of misery.

Kids need more than £200 to thrive so economic growth is the answer

And I am sure you can have more intelligent discourse beyond 'are you mad'

That could be difficult to administrate but it is important to demonstrate the value of work to children as well - so the cycle is broken.

Right. Let’s educate children in the value of work by forcing them to go hungry? Are you mad?

Yup. It would cost £3billion a year to remove. We need to be focused on growth as that is what will help every child in the UK. We also need to look at other ways to support children in low income homes - free school meals, subsidised breakfast and after school clubs so their parents can work. Another option is additional benefits only for those with any child under 5 - once all school age, UC benefits only for 2. That could be difficult to administrate but it is important to demonstrate the value of work to children as well - so the cycle is broken

But it would cost to remove it and I think it needs to be looked at as part of the wider strategy to address child poverty. I don't think it's appropriate for elected Labour MPs to be defying the Whip at this point.

The cap wasn't instigated because of cost but purely as part of Cameron's and Osborne's disastrous austerity plan, serving no purpose except as part of their ideological attack of the poorest. It's shameful to see how embedded it's become in political discourse and with those who probably call themselves left-wing.

Agreed. A 3 line Whip for the King's Speech is the norm.

I'd like to see the cap abolished or reconsidered and I think the rape clause is demeaning but this is not the time to defy the government. I'm beyond furious with my MP. I've already spoken to my local councillor who says he had no idea that he was going to do this. He agrees with me about the policy but fully understands my view that I voted for a Labour MP, not one who's going to be sitting as an Independent for a minimum period of six months. These MPs were warned and knew what would happen.

i don’t think it’s simple at all!! It’s massively complicated and there will be variations due to circumstances and I don’t know where the bar should be set. I’m not saying that people shouldn’t get carers as it is now it’s that if carers allowance was raised to 35 hours at minimum wage they’d be a hell of a lot of parents giving up work that presently do work my dh included. My friends son gets middle rate care for autism/adhd and she filled the form in honestly and he qualified (no mobility) but he goes to mainstream school, doesn’t need an ehcp and is getting on well, can walk to school independently, can be left at home alone for several hours at a time. Don’t get me wrong he is significantly more difficult to deal with than a nt child of same age and stills needs her to sort certain things for him that nt child could sort themselves but he is no where near the level of need your child is. Likewise my sons needs are much higher than her sons but not as much as your sons

I think there should be either the two child cap OR the benefits cap but not both.
I have more objections to the benefits cap, as it penalises families who have to privately rent in expensive areas. Removing that would take a lot of children out of poverty

Who would you class as severely disabled?
My son goes to a special school too for children with severe and profound learning disabilities
He gets the highest rates of DLA I'm both care and mobility under SMI rules
He's 14 ,but cognitively around 2/3 years of age
But a lot more able the children in his schools ie those with profound and multiple learning disabilities who are in wheel chairs unsble to move ,on oxygen, tube fed,I don't think it's quite as simple as youvthink and everyone's circumstances are different

I’ve not got time to read the full thread at the minute so apologies if it’s already been mentioned but the criteria for qualifying for carers allowance is not that high. You “just” have to have a child on middle or higher rate care on dla. There is a hell of a lot of people that would be entitled to carers allowance based on their child’s dla but don’t qualify as they are working so their income is above the threshold. We both work full time I’m in a fairly decent paid job but dh earns not much over minimum wage for full time in a warehouse. He changed to this job so we can be more flexible for ds who is autistic and in special school, dh starts work very early and does pick up as there are no after school clubs in special schools. It’s bloody hard at times juggling things but dh earns more than he’d get on carers so it’s worth him working if carers was increased to level of min wage as some people suggest he would definitely give up work, and that’s what the chancellor has to factor into her decision, not just increasing carers allowance for existing claims but the number of people that would then leave the workplace to claim carers. I know of alot of people with similar type children to mine so no different care needs as such but one of them has had to give up work due to other factors eg. Child being out of school due to delays with getting ehcp, Sen school transport being totally inflexible, lack of before/after school care at special schools and mainstream schools not accepting Sen children at clubs due to staffing, no childcare available in holidays- I could go on and on with this reasons. Personally I would prefer the government to fix these things that would enable parents of disabled children to work rather than just throw money and make it so it’s no longer worthwhile working. Obviously there are severely disabled children who require 24 hour constant care at a high level including someone staying awake through the night and that is a completely different situation and it’s not possible for one or both parents to work, I would totally support more money going to that type of parent but not everyone who qualifies for carers through dla middle or higher rate care.

Parents who take responsibility for their 3 children after their spouse walks away are affected but the parent who walks away can have two more children with a new partner and claim benefits for them (and avoid maintenance).

Stricter rules on maintenance needed which takes into account all assets and a parent choosing to work on less money to pay less maintenance.

And surely if the benefit cap is meant to stop the feckless having more kids then Future children should not reduce maintenance paid by a non resident parent.

People saying "we can't afford it" and "why should we pay for people who have more kids than they can afford" are missing the point. It has been proven that the child benefit cap does not deter low income families from having more children.

Since we know the cap is ineffective, those arguing to keep it are doing so purely on 'principle'. We all agree that children living in poverty is unacceptable, but those saying "yes, but why should I pay for them?" don't seem to realise they're paying anyway. Poverty is hard on the human body, and places an extra burden on the NHS. Schools are increasingly subsidising the families of children living in poverty which means cutting back elsewhere. Children in poverty are more likely to need intervention from already overstretched social care services. All these things cost money. A welfare system that is compassionate and actually works isn't just a moral requirement, its important for the health of our public services.

Yes, I agree. It makes a change to have a PM strong enough to clamp down on unaffordable idealism.👍