Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To think adding more child benefits is a pointless and futile policy?

189 replies

MelissaExplainsItAll · 27/02/2025 10:30

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/feb/26/parents-under-fives-could-be-exempted-two-child-benefit-cap-uk

I think child poverty would be better relieved in ways other than giving the parents more cash.

For example:

  • better funded breakfast and after school clubs
  • better funded nursery hours (banning top up charges)
  • expansion of free school meals
  • better school funding
  • direct funding of school holiday clubs

AIBU?

OP posts:
x2boys · 27/02/2025 13:40

Zebedee999 · 27/02/2025 12:54

Poverty years ago was when kids had no shoes, no healthcare, starving etc. Nowadays it is defined as: "In the UK, poverty is defined as when a household earns less than 60% of the median income in the country"

So if you give those in poverty more money, the median moves up, thus poverty is always there and can never be solved no matter how much money you throw at it (or how much poorer you make others by ever increasing taxes). True poverty doesn't exist anymore in the UK.

Show quote history

There is a big difference in relative poverty and absolute poverty
I would hope no child in the UK goes to bed hungry and has adequate clothing and foot wear but that's very basic, dome kids are still living in very over crowded less than ideal living conditions

Tandora · 27/02/2025 13:37

MelissaExplainsItAll · 27/02/2025 10:30

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/feb/26/parents-under-fives-could-be-exempted-two-child-benefit-cap-uk

I think child poverty would be better relieved in ways other than giving the parents more cash.

For example:

  • better funded breakfast and after school clubs
  • better funded nursery hours (banning top up charges)
  • expansion of free school meals
  • better school funding
  • direct funding of school holiday clubs

AIBU?

I’m guessing you think this because you are too well off to be eligible for benefits? And/ or you don’t have more than 2 children.

Sinkintotheswamp · 27/02/2025 13:36

offmynut · 27/02/2025 12:06

I have savings that can tie me over plus my rent for the next 14 month give and take a few weeks for me to find a new job.
Its called being prepared for life.
If i was to fall in a in a hole and had nothing we have a UC system that would help me find work.
But i would not have children because i know i could get money i want to pay for my own children so i can say what they have i have got it for them not used tax payers to fund it.

Show quote history

What amazing job did you do to save 14 months of living expenses then? Is it something easy that lots of people could manage?

Sinkintotheswamp · 27/02/2025 13:35

offmynut · 27/02/2025 12:06

I have savings that can tie me over plus my rent for the next 14 month give and take a few weeks for me to find a new job.
Its called being prepared for life.
If i was to fall in a in a hole and had nothing we have a UC system that would help me find work.
But i would not have children because i know i could get money i want to pay for my own children so i can say what they have i have got it for them not used tax payers to fund it.

Show quote history

What amazing job did you do to save 14 months of living expenses then? Is it something easy that lots of people could manage?

Original poster
MelissaExplainsItAll · 27/02/2025 13:14

tiger2691 · 27/02/2025 12:45

The main driver of child poverty and the increase in child poverty is the 2 child benefit cap, Starmer knows it, everyone it, but just like they know that council Tax has become the new poll tax, they all sit on their hands. Giving children a bowl of porridge and a piece of fruit for breakfast will not stall the ever increasing deep and entrenched poverty and social inequality, nor will it reduce it.

Anyone interested in such matters should read this...

www.jrf.org.uk/uk-poverty-2025-the-essential-guide-to-understanding-poverty-in-the-uk

Interesting to read there that children are more likely to live in poverty than working aged adults or pensioners, and 45% of in large (3+) families were in poverty.

What can be done to discourage people who are poor and have two children from having more, if not a benefits stasis or cut?

OP posts:
eqpi4t2hbsnktd · 27/02/2025 13:02

Parents in work should not require financial help from the government.

This is the problem. It now costs more than 2 salaries to raise kids... this can not work!
If working parents need benefits then the employment system is broken... which is being supported by the benefits system.

It's madness.

TakeMyLifeAndLetItBe · 27/02/2025 12:59

How about we just make it more affordable to live on one wage and people can decide if they'd rather work fewer hours or be a SAHP? Not to make it easier for them to work longer hours and have even less time with their families.

Donttellempike · 27/02/2025 12:59

Your essay is as irrelevant as it is boring

Donttellempike · 27/02/2025 12:58

Zebedee999 · 27/02/2025 12:54

Poverty years ago was when kids had no shoes, no healthcare, starving etc. Nowadays it is defined as: "In the UK, poverty is defined as when a household earns less than 60% of the median income in the country"

So if you give those in poverty more money, the median moves up, thus poverty is always there and can never be solved no matter how much money you throw at it (or how much poorer you make others by ever increasing taxes). True poverty doesn't exist anymore in the UK.

Show quote history

Rubbish

Zebedee999 · 27/02/2025 12:54

Donttellempike · 27/02/2025 11:02

Poverty is a lack of money. So more money is the solution

The problem is the mega rich not paying their tax

Not the poorest, who are having their kids pushed further in the gutter

Poverty years ago was when kids had no shoes, no healthcare, starving etc. Nowadays it is defined as: "In the UK, poverty is defined as when a household earns less than 60% of the median income in the country"

So if you give those in poverty more money, the median moves up, thus poverty is always there and can never be solved no matter how much money you throw at it (or how much poorer you make others by ever increasing taxes). True poverty doesn't exist anymore in the UK.

tiger2691 · 27/02/2025 12:45

The main driver of child poverty and the increase in child poverty is the 2 child benefit cap, Starmer knows it, everyone it, but just like they know that council Tax has become the new poll tax, they all sit on their hands. Giving children a bowl of porridge and a piece of fruit for breakfast will not stall the ever increasing deep and entrenched poverty and social inequality, nor will it reduce it.

Anyone interested in such matters should read this...

www.jrf.org.uk/uk-poverty-2025-the-essential-guide-to-understanding-poverty-in-the-uk

CruCru · 27/02/2025 12:44

I am being a bit snippy but the point about better funded nursery hours and banning top up charges is rather tricky. My children are quite old now but I remember nursery being expensive - however the lady who ran the nursery was not wealthy. It’s really expensive to provide a nursery setting and it is largely staffed by women who are not particularly well paid. We need to value women’s labour more.

If we compel a business to provide a service for under the market rate (which is what banning top up charges will mean) they will opt out of providing that service.

MeowCatPleaseMeowBack · 27/02/2025 12:42

MelissaExplainsItAll · 27/02/2025 12:12

Because most parents have to work to pay their bills. If they don’t need to (for instance, because they have a breadwinner and a SAHP), then this wouldn’t apply anyway.

Show quote history

I don't see how that relates to my question.

Itisbetter · 27/02/2025 12:28

offmynut · 27/02/2025 12:15

Having a stroke or a life changing health issue is completely different to having children for the tax payer to pay you to raise them on there money.

Show quote history

Yes but the thread is not about people having children to claim benefits us it? It’s to discuss how best to support children from the poorest families. You seem incapable of imagining a life without the ability to work and earn your own money so I invented a scenario to help you.
If you no longer had your savings and couldn’t work how would you like your children to be supported?

TickingAlongNicely · 27/02/2025 12:28

An observation from when I was last looking for holiday clubs..

Our area had quite an extensive scheme for those on FSM. Not sure how well used it was, or indeed if it was oversubscribed. Included activities and free food.

Then there was expensive private providers.

The big gap was for those who were on lowish wages, not on FSM, but needed full time holiday care, even for just part of the holidays.
What was needed was similar to the FSM scheme, but subsidised rather than free. That would make a huge difference to parents.

Mrsttcno1 · 27/02/2025 12:23

DragonFly98 · 27/02/2025 12:18

Did you give one thought to disabled children or ones with SeN when you thought that up? Those children are statistically likely to be poorer and less likely to be able to access the above.
Also so much money would be lost unnecessarily implementing the above. Finally being poor doesn’t mean you can’t manage your own finances!

There is already additional funding available for those families with disabled children.

Donttellempike · 27/02/2025 12:21

offmynut · 27/02/2025 11:44

Why should the tax payer pay for others to keep having kids.
If you want them you pay for them not use a job center UC because you know the government will pay.
Ive seen some have kids for money and some are working there arse off just to raise one child without any benefits they work to pay for there child.

Show quote history

Who do you think the taxpayers of the future are?

DragonFly98 · 27/02/2025 12:18

Did you give one thought to disabled children or ones with SeN when you thought that up? Those children are statistically likely to be poorer and less likely to be able to access the above.
Also so much money would be lost unnecessarily implementing the above. Finally being poor doesn’t mean you can’t manage your own finances!

ScholesPanda · 27/02/2025 12:15

AmusedGoose · 27/02/2025 12:05

Totally agree. Helps working parents and removes children from unstable homes for more time. Kids should have a port in a storm. Plus local police will tell you how minor crime and unsociable behaviour increase out of school time.

Is a lot of crime (minor or otherwise) committed by the under fives age group in your view?

offmynut · 27/02/2025 12:15

Itisbetter · 27/02/2025 12:11

So you have a stroke tomorrow lose your sight and right hand, you pole through your savings till you dip under the allowance (£6k??) and unsurprisingly because you can no longer drive, cook, manage you can’t find work. How do you want to be helped? Would you like your child to be fed etc through breakfast clubs etc etc or would you prefer them to see more of you?

Show quote history

Having a stroke or a life changing health issue is completely different to having children for the tax payer to pay you to raise them on there money.

Original poster
MelissaExplainsItAll · 27/02/2025 12:14

Rinoachicken · 27/02/2025 11:27

I think getting tougher on unpaid child maintenance would have a better effect.

I’d love to see a breakdown on how many children don’t receive their entitled CMS, vs how many receive £7 a week or whatever it is if the parent is unemployed.

I suspect that getting those non-working, non-resident parents into work would have more of an impact.

OP posts:
Original poster
MelissaExplainsItAll · 27/02/2025 12:12

MeowCatPleaseMeowBack · 27/02/2025 12:10

*MelissaExplainsItAll *Why do you think it's better for schools to do more parenting rather than parents?

Because most parents have to work to pay their bills. If they don’t need to (for instance, because they have a breadwinner and a SAHP), then this wouldn’t apply anyway.

OP posts:
Original poster
MelissaExplainsItAll · 27/02/2025 12:11

YouveGotAFastCar · 27/02/2025 11:23

*For example:

  • better funded breakfast and after school clubs
  • better funded nursery hours (banning top up charges)
  • expansion of free school meals
  • better school funding
  • direct funding of school holiday clubs*

The vast majority of those won't help parents with children under 5, as they are all school-related. School preschools here are vastly over subscribed.

"Better funded nursery hours" is very vague. Banning top up charges allegedly happened last week, but even if it did, is just going to mean that nurseries increase their fees. Mine had already announced that it was putting up prices on April 1st to cover the national insurance and minimum wage increases; and we already pay just under £500 a month for two days a week for my three-year-old, and that's with funded hours. We're not in London, either.

This is one of the more expensive nurseries in the town, but we've been on the waiting list for six others for over 18 months. School preschools are overrun, even though the hours are tough for some people.

My concern with the new policy proposal is that my mum kept having kids so she kept receiving maximum benefits. She would have another whenever the funding started to drop. She loved babies, and felt incentivised to keep having them. She had pretty severe mental health issues, but I have childhood friends who don't and have gone down that same path... A hard-cut off at five risks encouraging people to just keep having a younger child and pushing that problem further away.

I hadn't heard about top up charges being banned. At my nursery it’s £2 an hour for “consumables” when using funded hours, and the funded days have to be 10hrs, so it still costs £20 a day. They do offer “limited funding only places” but that’s only on certain days and my understanding is that there’s only a couple of these places.

OP posts:
Itisbetter · 27/02/2025 12:11

offmynut · 27/02/2025 12:06

I have savings that can tie me over plus my rent for the next 14 month give and take a few weeks for me to find a new job.
Its called being prepared for life.
If i was to fall in a in a hole and had nothing we have a UC system that would help me find work.
But i would not have children because i know i could get money i want to pay for my own children so i can say what they have i have got it for them not used tax payers to fund it.

Show quote history

So you have a stroke tomorrow lose your sight and right hand, you pole through your savings till you dip under the allowance (£6k??) and unsurprisingly because you can no longer drive, cook, manage you can’t find work. How do you want to be helped? Would you like your child to be fed etc through breakfast clubs etc etc or would you prefer them to see more of you?

MeowCatPleaseMeowBack · 27/02/2025 12:10

*MelissaExplainsItAll *Why do you think it's better for schools to do more parenting rather than parents?