Do you think we should life the two child benefit cap?

Everything is ‘eugenics’ to those who don’t understand what it actually means.

Agree - it maybe needs to be explained or researched better - there is no actual Cap on claiming Child Benefit - you can literally make a claim for it for multiple children, (but it does then depend on earnings + the benefit cap as to how much you get in overall benefits, & unless it invokes the 2 child cap for people on UC / legacy benefits (depending on year of childs birth) it won't make a difference to CB). Also, if the 3rd child is a twin / multiple birth (or born in other circumstances, such as awful coercive control, or sadly rape) then the '3rd child' Cap doesn't necessarily apply, even on UC (but again depending on earnings, with consideration given to the circumstances - you may have to ask for a Mandatory Reconsideration if turned down for a 3rd child). (Unfortunately under these circumstances there is 'red tape' to go through, very personal information etc. but social workers & similar can advise). Sorry if this sounds a bit muddled, lots of info on Gov.uk. or via CAB. x
Maybe food / clothing vouchers could be a way forward??

How is it eugenics? 🧐

Are you saying that poor people are poor because of their genetics? 🤔

Financial abuse was the reason I was so angry child benefit became means tested in the first place. Firstly it was a stupid way of doing it, and secondly for some women it was the only money they had access to, even if they were married to someone who was loaded. That was years ago when I was firmly in the camp of not wanting kids. Still pissed me off.

Very few people are having lots of kids because they want to milk the system, and if they are the kids shouldn't have to suffer. They might still suffer because their parents are the shitty ones, but that could be true of better off parents who still don't want to spend money on their kids (I've read a few stories to that effect.)

My DS was the result of contraception failure. No way was I having an abortion. I've ended up as a single mum, had to apply to the council for housing and had to quit work because I couldn't find childcare in order to go back to work after maternity leave. Ironically my ex once had a moan about women like me, which is quite amusing in hindsight. He doesn't like single mums who live in council houses (housing association flat) and are on benefits (UC.) I thought I was in a stable long term relationship with someone who had said he wanted to have children with and marry me. I didn't want this for me and DS, but here we are.

I see a lot of families affected by the benefit cap in my work. I agree that for those families, lifting the 2 child cap will just mean giving with one hand and taking with the other.

I dont think benefit reform will ‘cut it’. I think we need far far bigger reforms and measures to get at roots of problems, but that would cost a fortune. Would ultimately save a fortune though.

What people aren't realising is that the 2 child benefit cap being lifted won't help anyone who needs it (those not working. ) because the benefit cap isn't being increased it will just be deducted again. It will likely only help working parents /disabled families who don't have a benefit cap in place.

I know that not everyone can work for Amazon, but I saw an advert for them on tv and they offer family friendly working hours around the school holidays. It is something other big companies should also do , but I bet many don’t. I’m not suggesting that everyone wants to or should work for them, but at least they are addressing child care issues which may stop a lot of people being able to work and seemed a good idea.

It was done like that as certain groups in society have keep having more children than they can afford.

Do you mean who made the cookies? I'll give you a hint - it's not the guy with all the cookies.

@WatchingCometsLand who paid for the cookies to be made?

They got a lot of you hook, line and sinker.

The Tories did a great job of convincing the masses that the country’s problems were down to millions of scroungers fleecing the system. Now that the country is in an even worse state despite savage cuts to benefits, we’ve had to move onto the age old favourite and blame immigrants. (And trans women just wanting to have a wee in peace.) If things get much worse, all these people casting aspersions on the (proven largely mythical) families with 7+ kids where no-one has worked for generations might find themselves a little bit closer to them than they like.

From what I’ve read Amazon pay very well!

I used to work in welfare and helped low income people with budgeting. I never came across any families in poverty, only single people. The majority of families had plenty of money to meet their essential expenses so I think lifting the cap is a bad move as will cost billions which we can't afford. There are hardship payments available which are means tested so for extreme cases there is extra financial help.

So many parents make decisions like this.

The way out of poverty is education. Children who are hungry and cold can’t learn and the cycle of poverty can’t be broken. A 4 year government can’t “fix” child poverty. It takes sustained effort through education and facilitating education to achieve it. Labour started this when they were in power previously with the Sure Start centres etc. But then people voted for child poverty to remain as they voted for the conservatives who tore down the systems the previous government had put in place. Through the conservative government food bank use rise exponentially, this is not something to be proud of! More children live in poverty than at the beginning of the conservative term.

Their underhand eugenics program to attempt to kill off poor people seems to be working and it will take another government a lifetime to reverse the effects. In the meantime children are cold and hungry through no fault of their own. They didn’t ask to be born.

You should only have as many children as you can afford. It sounds harsh but that is reality.

I would have liked more children but knew we could not afford to realistically give them the best life.

Low wages certainly
play a massive role though. When large multi million pound corporations like Amazon don’t pay a living wage why should people work and have to have their wage topped up by the tax payer?

In which case it is even more disgusting. Definitely eugenics in disguise.

So they need to put money into housing and in particular, homelessness and poor quality housing stock.
They need to make more community funds available via schemes who offer vouchers and gas and electric- not for those on UC but for all. They need to put money into sure start.
A lot of poverty is entrenched and lasts for generations- I’ve worked in this sector for 15 years and I see the children of these parents and sadly they are now parents themselves and also on benefits.
Children need to be lifted out of poverty but in a sustainable and long lasting way.
i also speak as someone who has been on benefits and homeless, so I’ve been in the same position as lots of people who are living in poverty.

But these sort of women won’t be on benefits.

Anyone who has read Take A Break will have seen the endless stories of a woman meeting someone, “falling pregnant” two minutes later, the “we grew apart” and then “he moved in” and “soon I saw the two lines” etc etc etc. The benefit cap may make such women think twice before being cavalier about contraception and having kids with someone they barely know.

Then there are the people who choose to have large families for cultural reasons. Repeated cousin marriage is giving rise to at least one disabled child, maybe several, per family. They will not care about benefit caps, but funding giant families where women and future girls will just repeat the pattern is unsustainable.

It's this, but also women are capable of raising children on their own whilst doing FT jobs and building very successful careers in many cases. Assuming it's 1-2 kids, not 5 of them of course

The way in which you describe "helping" these children is a way that allows them no agency though. There's no evidence to back up your wish to not provide money to mothers to buy clothes or food for their children, it's just a pretty spiteful request of yours. As PP have already highlighted there is enough evidence that money and benefits when given to mothers is spent on their children. You can't give an evidence based reason why you want to restrict the choice of food or clothes they can access, it's purely a way to apply some sort of punishment which is evident in the way you are talking about people you know NOTHING of. If you think calling someone who had children and went on to be one disabled irresponsible purely because they claim benefits makes you sound reasonable - it doesn't. So many posters on here backing up capping benefits because they are struggling and living hand to mouth while working - you are exactly the kind of people that many benefit claimants were before their circumstances changed even more for the worse. Many just as illprepared for the future if they had to stop working, even temporarily, it just hasn't happened yet. Will they be instantly feckless and selfish and not understanding of their children's needs overnight?

If we're gonna be consistent with your attitude though