To think the 2-child benefit cap is fine?

Does anyone know how I can find out how my local MP voted on this issue?

"People don't seem to understand that we are not producing enough children in the UK.

The birth rate in Scotland is something like 1.39 per woman and in England it is something like 1.49."

But is that necessarily an issue? Why must our population keep on growing?

In fact the ONS said that in 2023 the UK born population only just stayed constant and that growth in the population was just down to immigration.

Serious question, why do we need to increase our population every year?

How do other countries deal with this issue?

Take Japan for example. The last time their birth rate was above 2 was back in 1975. It's been less than 1.5 for more than the last 30 years.

Also, many Japanese people live much longer than your typical Brit so there is a much greater proportion of elderly people.

Japan reached a peak population of 128 million in 2009 and that has since fallen by about 4%.

Is Japan collapsing? No. Are they figuring out ways to deal with increasing numbers of elderly people? Yes.

I also note that South Korea has similar figures. The population there has also peaked. The last time fertility rates were above 2 was in 1984 and the figure is now less than 1.1

Is South Korea about to collapse? I'd say probably not.

Both of these countries are at least a generation ahead of the UK and other European countries in dealing with these issues. We can learn a lot from looking at these countries and seeing what works and what doesn't work.

I listed things upthread I think we should invest in. Given that almost 40% of working age households are net recipients of benefits there’s really no guarantee that additional children will grow up to be net contributors - our economy needs structural change not to be propped up by an ever increasing population.

Yes, of course, but the suggestion here is that parents should be denied the means to provide clothing and food in the first place.

I understand, but children cannot take responsibility for their parents’ actions and choices.

It seems a very muddled message. The state is happy to pay the mortgages of all the buy-to-let borrowers who have tenants on universal credit but won’t invest in its own future population?

I totally agree that all these things should be funded too.

Still doesn’t put food on the table though.

Good.

There was so many having kids and abusing the system. They maybe ought to do a 6 month leeway for those who have lost their jobs but other than that I agree not to scrap the 2 child rule.
They really need to look at other factors when it comes to poverty such as the cost of energy pushing up all the food prices!
Good & energy prices come down = less poverty.

If a parent is leaving their child unclothed and starving, it would be better for all that the child is permanently removed from the parents care.

Exactly. I mean what's the point in trying at all if we're all going to get a divorce then die? Sod it, I'm off to rob a bank.

You could argue the deterrent is precisely to be able to have adequate resources to support the kids who are already here.

From 2015 when this was phased in, it has been clearly stated.

I get it and agree we don't want children in poverty But people do need to take responsibility for their own individual choices.

Other support initiatives are in place and still being considered.

Interesting missed this happening

Googled and see ‘Seven Labour MPs have been suspended from the parliamentary party after voting against the government on a motion to scrap the two-child benefit cap’

That's why we need more children being born to pay for benefits, pensions and healthcare. A small investment in children helps us all in the long term. Or have you missed the fall in birth rate?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/feb/23/birthrate-in-uk-falls-to-record-low-as-campaigners-say-procreation-is-a-luxury

A couple of people have said no one can predict the future but no one can predict that things will go well either so why assume that they will? Something like half of people will get cancer at some point, around 1 in 10 children/1 in 4 working age adults has a disability, a third of marriages end in divorce etc… why are many people not thinking about what would happen if such common situations happened to them?

Are you suggesting "the taxpayer" should leave children unclothed and starving if the parents don't provide?

There has to be a way of preventing people for having a huge amount of children on benefits without penalising people who have fallen on hard times, had a change of circumstances etc.

Well at some point surely a parent has to pay for something? Are you suggesting the taxpayer has to feed and clothe every single child 24/7 now?

Would it somehow be more "fair", or give you an increased sense of justice if your fellow worker's children were needlessly left in poverty?

As pp said we cannot send them back, but surely govt could pay for children in existence but not those conceived after claim began

So once again, the child, and the siblings of the third child, are the ones punished for the actions of the parents. This is "fair" how, precisely?

This is why the cap is nonsense. It's not deterring people from having children, which would be counter-productive and short-sighted in any case since we have a aging population which isn't being replaced, and the consequence of the cap is that the children, who play no part in choosing to cross the threshold, are the ones punished for the actions of the adults. We also need to dismantle this nonsense idea that people living in poverty are invariably there through choice, fecklessness, or their own irresponsibility. The cap is an ideological pandering to this attitude and resolves nothing at all.

Breaking News

On the news it’s been confirmed that Parliament votes against scrapping child benefit cap.

Oddly the first report I googled doesn't give stats-
https://www.actionforchildren.org.uk/our-work-and-impact/policy-work-campaigns-and-research/policy-reports/child-poverty-and-barriers-to-work/

It also doesn't define what work is.

Do they? Where are the stats for this, please?

I was pregnant with my 4th child when my husband was injured in an incident at work. We were told the prognosis by the Consultant as I was sitting with a ten day old baby in my arms. Other kids were with gran. We were told he would be in a wheelchair within ten years, there was nothing they could do about the pain he was in and he would not be able to go back to work.

We wee "lucky" in that he was a police officer and received a pension but it was complicated and it took 2 years to sort it out so I had to go back to work earlier than I wanted to and God it was tough as his carer a baby, a toddler and two older ones. If we hadn't had his pension we'd have lost our home and back then there was no two child cap, I don't know how we could have survived with the two child cap.

We can't all see the future.

For many children, unfortunately they wouldn't benefit from an increase. I'm not tarring everyone with the same brush, as I had a major circumstance change in my life so know how difficult things can be, but it's not wrong to suggest that many people will choose to spend an increase in money on themselves rather than their children. Drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, whatever else. Again, not everyone, no, but many.

I don't think this will miraculously resolve child poverty. I didn't think I'd ever say this because I was outraged at PIP potentially becoming vouchers, but if child benefit needs to go to the cost of raising a child, perhaps it should be given in vouchers that can only be spent on food and nappies and not anything you choose. The genuine people who need the money for their children would surely accept this?

As a teacher, I've seen many children living in various states of deprivation and neglect. The extra money would not have been spent on those children.

Also, CMA needs a massive, proper overhaul. There are children living in deprivation due to absent fathers refusing to pay, and it's time this was taken more seriously.

Who feeds and clothes kids during school holidays?

Remember most children in poverty have a working parent.

There are lots of ways - evidence shows that the now defunct Sure Start Centres were a real boost to children from disadvantaged families. You could fund educational opportunities such as trips, sport and music. You can reduce the burden on families for things that routinely cost money when bringing up children - school uniform, shoes, school dinners, childcare etc.

Life isn't fair.

And actually the UK population needed both of you to have 3 children.

Otherwise we are going to have to import more adults between 22-45 for the workforce.