Page 16 | Do you think we should life the two child benefit cap?

Marshmallow4545 · 2025-11-11T07:16:11+00:00

I believe that the majority of people think that the cap should remain and child poverty should be tackled in different ways. Personally I would like to see children on FSMs allowed free access to after school extracurricular clubs and activities. I would also provide more poor families with access to food banks and would look to stock these with a range of healthy and nutritious options either through donation or state funding if required. I would also look to recruit volunteers to offer advice on health and diet in these places. I would provide clothing and school uniform banks with high quality, second hand clothing that kids would actually want to wear. I have some branded 'fashionable' stuff my kids have grown out of that's still in great condition that I would happily donate. All of the above in my view is preferable to lifting the cap and would be more effective in tackling the impact that child poverty has on the child. So AIBU that the two child cap should remain and we should look at other more direct ways to tackle child poverty?

Original poster

Marshmallow4545 · 11/11/2025 12:39

Andanotherplease · 11/11/2025 12:36

So you want to punish all families due to the actions of a few? On the basis of what you know of approximately 5 families ?

Thank goodness those in charge aren’t so narrow minded .

Show quote history

How am I punishing them? By wanting to provide the children with clothes, food etc directly instead of just giving the money to the parents?

I would argue you are punishing the children that don't have responsible parents who would spend the money wisely and in their interests. Those children would be far better off having their needs met directly and in a way that the parents can't hijack to meet their own needs.

OP posts:

Jamesblonde2 · 11/11/2025 12:38

No. We will all have to pay with increased taxes and spending cuts. If that’s her approach the cap should remain. I’ll say it again. I’m sick of paying for everyone else.

Andanotherplease · 11/11/2025 12:37

Kirbert2 · 11/11/2025 12:35

Do you think that disabled children are born with an 'I'm disabled' tag attached to them? Sometimes another child is born before it becomes obvious the first child is disabled.

Not to mention the fact that just because 1 child is disabled, it doesn't mean that all children born after will also be disabled.

Edited

Show quote history

Exactly.

I knew a family whose 3 dc were disabled in a car accident so there are all sorts of scenarios where suddenly a family has more than one child receiving dla.

Andanotherplease · 11/11/2025 12:36

Marshmallow4545 · 11/11/2025 12:34

Because people are people. Just because you're poor and have loads of kids it doesn't mean that you are a great parent. So many posters on this thread have mentioned limiting family size due to financial constraints. This is what loving, responsible parents do that put their existing children first.

I know at least five families that would receive more benefits if the cap was lifted. A few would absolutely spend the money how you suggest, but a few definitely wouldn't. I know this because of the way they spend the money they do have now.

The homework point in particular is super naive. I know at least three of these families make absolutely no attempt to make sure the kids do the homework and they all are households where the parents don't work. They don't value education and don't see the point of homework.

Edited

Show quote history

So you want to punish all families due to the actions of a few? On the basis of what you know of approximately 5 families ?

Thank goodness those in charge aren’t so narrow minded .

Kirbert2 · 11/11/2025 12:35

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Do you think that disabled children are born with an 'I'm disabled' tag attached to them? Sometimes another child is born before it becomes obvious the first child is disabled.

Not to mention the fact that just because 1 child is disabled, it doesn't mean that all children born after will also be disabled.

Original poster

Marshmallow4545 · 11/11/2025 12:34

Andanotherplease · 11/11/2025 12:30

Why do you think they won’t? I think that once this is lifted that parents who have been struggling will be overjoyed to be able to spend that money. Not on unecessary things but more food , having the heating on longer, maybe a dehumidifier if their home is damp. It’s not all about clubs and enrichment activities to lift children out of poverty. It’s about children having a warm meal and getting into a bed that’s not cold and damp. It’s about their parents not being so overworked and stressed and they can maybe then have time to do their homework with them etc.

Show quote history

Because people are people. Just because you're poor and have loads of kids it doesn't mean that you are a great parent. So many posters on this thread have mentioned limiting family size due to financial constraints. This is what loving, responsible parents do that put their existing children first.

I know at least five families that would receive more benefits if the cap was lifted. A few would absolutely spend the money how you suggest, but a few definitely wouldn't. I know this because of the way they spend the money they do have now.

The homework point in particular is super naive. I know at least three of these families make absolutely no attempt to make sure the kids do the homework and they all are households where the parents don't work. They don't value education and don't see the point of homework.

OP posts:

UnintentionalArcher · 11/11/2025 12:32

Happymondai · 11/11/2025 11:34

Yeah exactly my eldest has fsm almost 10 and has no idea because it’s all booked online, the other kids have no idea or the dinner ladies or teachers.
There’s no stigma this isn’t the 1990s, even when I was in secondary school meals were paid for through fingerprint. It must be over 20 years since anyone had stigma from having free meals

Show quote history

While it would be great if this were the case, and I would agreed that perceptions of stigma have significantly reduced because of how FSM are handled, stigma is still subjective. Some parents do not even want to go through the sign-up process for FSM, however discreet that process is. I don’t agree with this myself and if it were me, I would absolutely sign my children up, but the fact is that we regularly deal with parents who do not want to do this. There are other reasons as well as perceptions of stigma, but it is a reason, sadly.

Andanotherplease · 11/11/2025 12:31

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

How can you be so completely ignorant.

Andanotherplease · 11/11/2025 12:30

Marshmallow4545 · 11/11/2025 12:27

I'm so tired of posts like this. They are just so naive.

When we talk about a child living in poverty what do we mean? That their needs aren't being met in some key ways? If we were to list the needs of children and look to directly meet these needs with specific provision around food, clothing, access yo clubs etc then this would ensure the needs are being met and would alleviate the parents from meeting these costs freeing up more money in the household to meet other less specific costs.

The idea that you can just pay out loads of money to families that for whatever reason chose to have more than two children after a cap was imposed is incredibly risky. You'll always get a lot of the whataboutery but most of these parents will have been living in poverty and chosen to have more children knowing that they were driving their existing children into further poverty. This is not the kind of responsible decision making that we would expect of a loving and responsible parent. Why do you think they will spend the extra money they receive in a financially responsible way?

Show quote history

Why do you think they won’t? I think that once this is lifted that parents who have been struggling will be overjoyed to be able to spend that money. Not on unecessary things but more food , having the heating on longer, maybe a dehumidifier if their home is damp. It’s not all about clubs and enrichment activities to lift children out of poverty. It’s about children having a warm meal and getting into a bed that’s not cold and damp. It’s about their parents not being so overworked and stressed and they can maybe then have time to do their homework with them etc.

Nnnbs · 11/11/2025 12:29

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Original poster

Marshmallow4545 · 11/11/2025 12:29

Wontanyonethinkofthechina · 11/11/2025 12:22

She can't be bothered to actually research the issue while she wants to decide poor people for having an aversion to experts or something...🙄

Show quote history

I badly phrased something. I find it ironic that you have picked up on this as your post is almost incomprehensible

OP posts:

OVienna · 11/11/2025 12:29

No.

WanderingWellies · 11/11/2025 12:29

100% think they should remove it. It hasn’t done anything but ensure more and more children are living in poverty and has reversed all the gains made on child poverty in the Blair/Brown years. When children live in poverty, the impact is felt throughout all of society and ALL of the evidence shows that it’s worth it. Every £1 invested in children saves up to £6 elsewhere. The only reason to not invest in children is ideological and comes from a place of categorising people as ‘deserving’ or ‘undeserving’. Instead of funding more food banks (the huge number of which is one of the most egregious outcomes of the last 15 years), just give people more money. The belief that it isn’t spent on the children is not borne out by the evidence.

SteakBakesAndHotTakes · 11/11/2025 12:28

No it shouldn't be lifted. People not on benefits don't get a raise because they decide to have another child.

We would then be in the position of the already squeezed middle earners not being able to afford children themselves, while at the same time paying for others to have as many as they want.

BrightSpark10 · 11/11/2025 12:28

The is very simple answer to this - can we afford it? If not, then they shouldn’t lift it.

If they do lift the cap which we can afford then its obviously to soften the blow of increasing all other taxes.

Original poster

Marshmallow4545 · 11/11/2025 12:27

myglowupera · 11/11/2025 12:24

Disability isn’t an exception to the 2 child cap. My DD doesn’t receive the child related element of UC but she does receive the disabled child element.

My DS who is also disabled receives both the child element and disabled child element as he is my second child.

My household is exempt from the benefit cap but not the 2 child cap. Is that what you meant?

Show quote history

Yes apologies. That's what I meant.

OP posts:

Andanotherplease · 11/11/2025 12:27

Nnnbs · 11/11/2025 12:26

Which is fair. You can have some benefits, but it's less due to your financial decision. The taxpayer will not suffer.

Show quote history

Hopefully lifting the 2 child cap goes ahead

Original poster

Marshmallow4545 · 11/11/2025 12:27

Wontanyonethinkofthechina · 11/11/2025 12:14

Anyone who thinks opportunities or money available to children who's parents received benefits are at all comparable to those with working parents earning a salary are absolutely delusional. You know it's not true yourself which is why you said it provided extras for your children, that was literally your incentive yet you're acting like people have no incentive.

Personally for all the demonising of poor or disabled parents on here I'm much more concerned for the poor children being raised by grown adults who find it impossible to empathise with children in poverty. If you're a parent and resent another child having a free school meal or meals child benefit that might make their home warm at night, you've gotta be extremely cold inside. Hopefully your own children never have any ill physical or mental health or disabilities that prevent them from working or working full time lest you start considering them scroungers too.

Show quote history

I'm so tired of posts like this. They are just so naive.

When we talk about a child living in poverty what do we mean? That their needs aren't being met in some key ways? If we were to list the needs of children and look to directly meet these needs with specific provision around food, clothing, access yo clubs etc then this would ensure the needs are being met and would alleviate the parents from meeting these costs freeing up more money in the household to meet other less specific costs.

The idea that you can just pay out loads of money to families that for whatever reason chose to have more than two children after a cap was imposed is incredibly risky. You'll always get a lot of the whataboutery but most of these parents will have been living in poverty and chosen to have more children knowing that they were driving their existing children into further poverty. This is not the kind of responsible decision making that we would expect of a loving and responsible parent. Why do you think they will spend the extra money they receive in a financially responsible way?

OP posts:

Nnnbs · 11/11/2025 12:26

Andanotherplease · 11/11/2025 12:20

No it’s not ?

you can claim a disability element but not child element for a third or subsequent child

Edited

Show quote history

Which is fair. You can have some benefits, but it's less due to your financial decision. The taxpayer will not suffer.

myglowupera · 11/11/2025 12:24

Marshmallow4545 · 11/11/2025 12:19

Disability is already an exception to the two child cap so those families wouldn't be impacted.

Show quote history

Disability isn’t an exception to the 2 child cap. My DD doesn’t receive the child related element of UC but she does receive the disabled child element.

My DS who is also disabled receives both the child element and disabled child element as he is my second child.

My household is exempt from the benefit cap but not the 2 child cap. Is that what you meant?

Wontanyonethinkofthechina · 11/11/2025 12:22

Andanotherplease · 11/11/2025 12:20

No it’s not ?

you can claim a disability element but not child element for a third or subsequent child

Edited

Show quote history

She can't be bothered to actually research the issue while she wants to decide poor people for having an aversion to experts or something...🙄

Andanotherplease · 11/11/2025 12:20

Marshmallow4545 · 11/11/2025 12:19

Disability is already an exception to the two child cap so those families wouldn't be impacted.

Show quote history

No it’s not ?

you can claim a disability element but not child element for a third or subsequent child

Original poster

Marshmallow4545 · 11/11/2025 12:19

Andanotherplease · 11/11/2025 12:15

These parents could be carers with children in receipt of dla though ? There are so many possibilities other than choosing not to work (which you can’t as you’ll get sanctioned ?)

Show quote history

Disability is already an exception to the two child cap so those families wouldn't be impacted.

OP posts:

Andanotherplease · 11/11/2025 12:18

RubySquid · 11/11/2025 12:16

Then there is money from the DLA

Show quote history

That’s needed for extra costs due to disability so can’t be factored in completely to replace the UC child element

Overthebow · 11/11/2025 12:18

Differentforgirls · 11/11/2025 10:57

Oh sorry, I thought all the people on this thread who don't want the cap lifted are employed and must have jobs where posting on forums all morning is acceptable.

Show quote history

You do realise there are lots of different working patterns, and lots of professional jobs aren’t 9-5? I started work today at 7am, I will finish at 9pm, I do not need to be working all hours within those times.