To think the 2-child benefit cap is fine?

Sorry, but still not understanding the 2 child benefits cap. I even watched the Martin Lewis video.
Do you get £287 a month for each child? Is that just money off tax if you are working? Or is it money in your pocket if you are not working? Plus child benefit?
and if the cap is removed it continues to be £287 a month for however many children?

I think I am not understanding this at all. If you have a good website to explain it to dummies I would appreciate it. I can’t see why we still have child benefit.

I think there are better ways to manage the benefits bill than allowing children to drop into poverty simply because there are 3 or 4 in the family or more. it seems to me its targetting the most vulnerable in society for something they have no control over.

Agreed - there are many things that need to be fixed in this country.

But until we fix the major systemic problems this cap shouldn’t be in place.

I don’t really understand what point you are making in your first paragraph but most men don’t leave the country to avoid child maintenance. Some men do leave the country but I’m not really sure what can be done about it and I don’t think legislation around child poverty should be based in the assumption that if men are asked to pay for their own children then they will flee abroad unless there is evidence that it’s a widespread problem and we are literally better of with the £5 a week situation. The state collecting maintenance would remove the control that men currently have by withholding money.

I’m not sure what the situation is now with disabled parents and I have no plans to make the dead pay maintenance. My mother got “widowed mothers allowance” but I don’t think that’s a thing now. I don’t think CM policy should be based around the dead really - most separated dads aren’t dead and should pay. I’m not actually a policy maker so I have no plans to do anything. I just don’t think you can increase money going to the children of single parents under the current system because there is a disincentive to increase income and it is far to easy to hide income and to make choices such as being financially supported by a new partner to avoid payment.

Wouldn’t that just lead to the taxpayer paying absolutely massive amounts of public money to compensate for useless dads? I can’t see how the government would get all of that money back - the dads would still either cheat the system or, if they’re on benefits or low wages themselves, be unable to pay. You could prosecute them but then that just fills the prisons (or further hampers their job prospects, or both).

Idk. The government manages to collect council tax, income tax, capital gains, VAT, corporation tax etc. Student loans get collected. I don’t think you need to fill the prisons - there is a huge sector of society - the majority in fact, who prefer to pay bills than get a custodial sentence. Maybe they will get a second job, cut back in other expenses. Maybe they can actually afford it but are “self employed” - like the example I was actually replying to. Either the dads pay, the government pays or the kids live in poverty. My preference is the dad’s pay. At the moment there is too many ways for them to not. The worst option is the poverty one imo. I’m not in the system - I’ve never claimed benefits or CM - but was under the distinct impression that the current system for calculating maintenance by parents income rather than actual expenses was a bag of shite. I don’t mind being wrong.

But the solution to this situation doesn’t need to be benefits in the sense of cash transfers? Free childcare and care for your aunt would have enabled your mum to work. Getting rid of the benefits cap doesn’t necessarily get rid of the barriers to economic participation (in fact I doubt that it would, given the cost of childcare - economically it would make more sense to focus on that).

Actually the Tory governments of the past 14 years have deliberately set out to create a narrative where the slightly less poor are encouraged to despise the poor and blame them for all the economic woes of the country. The narrative that “we” are paying for “them” is precisely what they wanted to promulgate. I absolutely made an assumption that you were in the former category but it’s not illogical. I notice you haven’t said I was wrong.

And I do believe it is morally superior to want to care for the weakest and most vulnerable in society.

Two children is enough- end of.

Going by the majority of posts on here people seem to struggle with one and think it’s hard.

85% of people agree with you OP.

Both should have kids and be supported to be economically productive so they can look after them. Maybe a compromise is support for children to age 5 - and only support for 2 once all kids over 5. Since that will mean all kids in school and parents can work to look after kids they choose to have.

Sudden events can happen and the welfare state could support for 12-18 months - which is a safety net. Support of multiple kids to 18 by the State does not promote independence and a growth mindset.

Regardless of fertility decline, we don't need people have children that the State (I.e. us all) have to look after in entirety until adulthood.

On a global scale, slowing population growth helps climate change!

the issue is not that I don’t understand what a net contributor is, the issue is your sneering assumptions about the personal circumstances of a person simply because you disagree with their politics. It’s illogical and it’s arrogant. Your tax bracket doesn’t give you moral or any other kind of superiority, so get over yourself. If you don’t understand that I doubt google will help you, such a pity.

Don’t have three or more kids and you will never have to worry about the cap.

Problems is, the cap affects children and women (vast, vast majority). With today's news of violence against women and girls now being at critical, this poverty inducing cap needs to go.

I didn’t mean the mum, I meant the kids when they grow up, as a response to the person I was quoting.

@RationalityIsHard how easy do you think it is for, say, a single mum of 3 to “get out and earn some money”.

My own parents had 3 kids, both worked, all good. Within a 3 year period they had got divorced, my grandma (who provided the childcare that enabled my parents to work) died, and my mum became the sole carer for her disabled sister (previously looked after by her mum, my grandma) so had to give up work completely. I grew up on benefits as a result. We often struggled to eat and heat the house and this was pre benefits cap. Luckily I went to a great free grammar school, then Oxbridge, and now earn a frankly ridiculous amount as a lawyer in the City. I pay more in taxes than most people in the country earn. I could not have done that without the support of the benefits system (and access to excellent free education).

Do we want kids to grow up like me or to be trapped in poverty?

Or will they be incentivised to get out and earn some money if they realise no-one is going to pay for them if they do nothing?

Well I don't have statistics, but I am willing to bet they are more likely to end up like that if they are brought up in poverty.

If you don’t understand what a net contributor is you can always use Google.

I am a very high earner and I would happily pay more tax to ensure that children in this country didn’t grow up in poverty, because ultimately as a society we would all benefit from that. It is very short sighted to think otherwise.

All well and good but unfortunately people who have more kids than they can support don’t do so after sitting down at the kitchen table for a reasoned and responsible look at their finances, and they’re unlikely to start no matter what policy chances are made to benefits.

What might help is improvements to education, but levels of intergenerational poverty will sadly compound this issue. Because early childhood is particularly vulnerable, investments in early childhood should improve lifelong outcomes. How those investments are best administered though is up for debate.

The cap was introduced to prevent a situation where a person on universal credit was receiving more than a person working full-time on minimum wage could earn.

Think about it for a bit. How is that helpful if you were doing fine until 2024 and your third child was born in 2022?

I have no words.....!

Will they though? Or will they be one of those multi-generational families that have never worked or never been net contributors?

what does this even mean? People who disagree with me don’t pay tax? Bizarre logic. But if you’re so moneyed up dear, skip the frivolous bets and pay it straight to the needy mouths of fifth and sixth kids who won’t be getting their benefits?

I think the cap should remain. There was a recent BBC panorama programme which had 4 families discussing the cap and how it affected them.

All wanted the extra money. One mum was discussed the lack of dentistry for child. Her son needed multiple teeth removed. Giving her more money may allow her access private dentistry but it doesn’t solve the greater issue of a lack of dentists! Perhaps changes to way dentists are funded, an increase in dental courses and an immigration policy which encouraged overseas dentists to come here would help everyone.

Another single parent was spending a fortune on take aways because her children ‘only ate junk food’ especially pizza. The mum attended a cooking class and suddenly her children were eating home cooked chicken and rice. Giving her more tax payers money wouldn’t help she needs support to teach her basic cooking skills and perhaps the father of both children could pay more!

Another parent was a grandmother who was looking after her grandchild (approximately 8 yoa) and her own daughter (approximately 6 yoa) she had concerns that her grandchild had ADHD. But the wait for an assessment was almost 2 years. IMO giving her more money wasn’t the answer, more nhs funding to provide faster assessments, an ECHP and improved access to SEN education/support would be of greater benefit.

The final parent had 5 children! She received just over £3000 for each of her eldest 2 children per year. For the remaining 3 she would receive an extra £10,000! Anyone on average wages cannot afford 5 children, so who did she (and her husband) think was going to fund her children? When having children you have to think of what might happened financially. Most of us think of this and have fewer children, but for some people that doesn’t appear to apply to them. If they were given more money I suspect they would just have more kids as being able to provide for them independently is not high on their priorities!!

What a ridiculous response to someone suggesting that you shouldn’t always just plan for the best, but maybe think about how you’ll cope if something goes wrong.

If you’d struggle to get by if something unfortunate happened, is it totally unreasonable to think that maybe you should be having just two children rather than three or more?

In the UK we are no longer having enough children to maintain our population (without immigration). Many couple are deciding to have no children or to only have one. largely down to the COL. Childcare costs/availability have been a huge factor.