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

The taxpayer should pay because civilised countries don't let children go hungry because of their parents' choices.

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.

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.

So if YOU couldn’t work tomorrow, how would you like to be supported by the system you have (presumably) been paying into?

But us tax payers still have to pay for them two kids for a few year.
Why didnt the parents save and budget before they had a second knowing they already claim benefits for one why not better yourself before you have another that we have to pay for.

Dont have kids if you cant pay for them.
We have system in place to help parents that have children with disabilitys and people that can not work due to a health reason and rightfully so it should be used.
But some abuse the system with having kids for more money then it makes it harder for them that really need the help.

Universal credit will only pay for two kids so people can't keep having kids and once the kids reach a certain age parents are expected to work.

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.

And IF for any reason you couldn’t work then what do you think is a better solution?

I’m not sure how I feel about the state shelling out more and more for lower income families to have 3+ children…

… while most average-to-higher earning families are having to opt to have very small families because of affordability concerns.

Particularly absurd given difference in cost of living across the country.

First of all there is no cap on child benefit assuming you you earn under the threshold you csn have as many children as you want it's the child elements of universal credit, there is a cap on ( most people on tax credits have transitioned on to universal credit now)
Many people in receipt of universal credit DO work they just earn a low wage.

I’m not sure what you mean by the hours- there are lots of full time jobs that lots of parents simply can’t do around pick up & drop off, plus needing time off for holidays or paying for childcare.

2 of my friends had to leave their jobs when their children started school, 1 because she couldn’t do the job between the hours of 9am and 3pm, the nature of the job was set shifts which were no longer possible and the other because once she factored in the cost of breakfast & after school club plus clubs for school holidays it didn’t make financial sense to continue.

I also have a friend currently looking for a new job with a 4 year old and despite having plenty of experience and skill, her job search is hugely limited because she needs to find a job that is between the hours of 9 & 3pm, Mon-Fri which either pays enough to fund holiday childcare OR has enough annual leave for her to cover the holidays herself- the job doesn’t exist. She has said multiple times that her options for work would be massively different if she had reliable childcare from 8-5, and through school holidays, she could actually work most jobs at that point. But once she has to factor in the cost of all the clubs it’s not viable.

It’s not uncommon for parents to work full time to afford life, especially these days. They see their children the same time everybody else does, before and after work. Lots of things are important for children, but high up on that list is a roof over their heads and food in their tummy.

I’m not saying it’s the perfect answer but it would allow parents to look at a much wider range of jobs, rather than looking for a unicorn.

No - but it would make more of a lasting impact for children living in poverty for them to be supported and provided for by their absent parent throughout their entire childhood instead of a being bunged a few extra quid by the government until they are 5.

I think if other taxpayers subsidising these policies felt flush with cash then their would be less concern.

At the moment many working parents pay a lot of tax and get little for it and when taxes are going up to pay for someone else's children it feels like you take the food off one person's plate and put it on someone else's plate.

The answer clearly isn't taxing higher earners more because we know they are leaving the UK because of high taxes (and law and order, failing NHS) and that reduces the overall amount of tax raised.

Child maintenance isn't counted in respect to benefits.

Some parents make me laugh when they say i dont claim or never claimed any benefits i only get child benefit well thats still a benefit.
I believe if you have children you should pay for them and child benefit child tax credit should not exist.

Yeah. My family is in poverty because the LA can't provide a school place for my disabled child, nor is there suitable childcare options. so I cannot work and we are poor. More child benefits for my youngest isn't going to make a difference. What we need is the same opportunities given to non disabled people. Failing that high enough benefits to pay off my mortgage which I'm unable to do.

Also a carer state pension that is higher than normal state pension to save me from poverty in my old age once I'm too old to care for my son and too old to work as like the mortgage I'm not paying into a pension and it worries me massively

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

Parents who both work have to do this anyway, I and everyone I know uses and pays for breakfast clubs / after school clubs. We don't all have the luxury of free money to feed kids at home with. We need to work full time to afford to feed and clothe kids

Where are they getting the hours from?

When are they supposed to see their children, which even the Government itself says is best for children?

Who is deciding who is worthy of a space? There's never going to be enough space for everyone. Schools in most areas are oversubscribed and all the new housing developments are only making that worse...

I agree

*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 don’t think this is the argument at all? I saw the point as being that if these things are free & available- after school clubs, breakfast clubs, school holiday clubs- then parents are able to work more hours or take on more jobs rather than being restricted to working part time/term time to facilitate drop off/pick ups/childcare, therefore those families are better off?