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

Just to add, I also believe this should be 2 children per parent. So the dad cannot be having multiple babies to women who then have to rely on benefits.

So the cap isn't stopping her from having more and more children- so it literally, in your example, isn't working?

I don't know what the answer is I really don't.

But very often the men not paying (and it is usually men) are on benefits themselves.

No, we need the cap and I say that as a parent on UC.

I am an 80s baby from a council estate, I have seen numerous friends have baby after baby because they could.

I mean, my sister best mate keeps having children and she has 5, 4 disabled and she’s trying for her first son. She will never work.

@leastofmyworries I don't think the first point of CMS should be classed as income. CMS firstly needs an over haul starting with getting the fathers to pay and provide yearly bank statements! Very few people are raking a decent amount of money through CMS if any money at all as it stands.

CMS do not count it as income (rightly so) because it's unreliable and often fluxuates. This would leave the mother and child/children at the detriment of the father choosing to pay or NOT...

The two child benefit cap seems popular and going by some remarks on other social media accounts I’ve seen today , lifting it isn’t popular at all. Especially as it seems other taxes are rising. What with this and the waspi women claims back in the news ( and the large black hole they have to sort out) the whole thing is a mess.

I don't know enough to answer fully- but the evidence that the money saved as a result of the cap, is subsequently spent in the health and justice systems as a result of poverty is compelling.

I'm not a high earner myself btw, I have also cut back over recent years just like everyone else, but I have also volunteered with children for the last ten years or so.

First thing I definitely would do is criminal charges of neglect for absent parents who refuse to pay towards their children, just as a resident parent would be subject to if they didn't feed or clothe their child. I would also count child maintenance income as income when awarding UC.

PP on here explained really well how child poverty is estimated.

So what Labour want to do is to remove the cap and increase taxes on higher earners. Your median level goes down, income of large families going slightly up. Magic - vast number of children are lifted out of poverty.

Did it help those children who did need help? most likely not. Did it take away from those currently better off children - absolutely. So all looks great on a paper, but the net result is worse or the same.

Perhaps UC should fund 100% of childcare then not up to 85% plus have an additional element for SEN childcare / respite if those parents want to work ?

All society can do is try, and keep trying, to improve outcomes for children. Lifting the cap can be one of many measures as part of this.

Putting the cap in place didn't work.

That’s my concern tickly. That our welfare social net society is abused by some. It’s very hard to comment without straying into some dark places / eugenics which makes this very difficult to deal with.

How sad that a system set up to help those in genuine need through no fault of their own is abused in this way. The risk is the tax payer is pushed too far and there is a backlash then the genuine claimants will suffer.

Before the cap there were children who were still in poverty. It's not about handing out money but rather what is being done with the money because there are no checks being conducted on what is being done with the money, more is handed out. It is an unsustainable model. At some point we have to say stop and look more deeply into how to realistically solve the issue of child poverty including increased responsibility from parents.

What happens if they lift the cap and children are ‘still in poverty’ a couple of years down the line, with outcomes no better?

I agree with this.

The cap has done nothing but mean more children are in poverty and I think there is evidence to show it doesn't actually even save any money, once additional costs in the health, education and justice systems are accounted for as a result of the higher poverty numbers.

People are free to have more than 2 children if they want despite the environmental disadvantages but they should not expect others to financially support this decisions.

I’m disabled myself and certainly not ableist but we can’t pretend that some families are not absolutely rinsing the taxpayer while continuing to have children with a very high likelihood of SEN. I used to follow one woman on Insta who had 4 children, 2 diagnosed with ASD/ADHD, both on DLA, she was ‘fighting’ for a diagnosis for a third and didn’t work. In total she was getting:

1. A taxpayer funded 4 bedroom house (on account of the fact her kids are disabled and can’t share)
2. UC and 2 lots of high rate DLA - so around £3000 per month in benefits, if not more, including CB
3. 1 child in SEN school with taxis. Through my work I know this would cost approx 100k a year

A conservative estimate would be a taxpayer bill of £250,000 a year, to house and educate and feed her and her kids. The youngest is quite little and I wouldn’t be surprised if she has more.

For context, probably 20 people are working full time to fund her. I find it very hard and even galling that posters would see more kids as her ‘right’

Exactly. Hand in sick notes for 12 weeks, have a phone call to UC to get put onto LCWRA, stay on LCWRA for the long haul as it’s never reviewed. Job done.

Autism/ADHD etc can be genetic so it would make perfect sense to me if a family had say, 3 children and 2 had Autism/ADHD or even all 3.

Especially if one or both parents are also Autistic and/or have ADHD.

Well isn't it more likely that you will have one or two children with SEN the more children you have?

Yes other posters won’t believe us but there are loads of families like this! Think how many posts on here there are where every single child has a diagnosis - in fact I’m quite surprised if there are, for example, 3 kids and only 1 with SEN

I'm pleased to see that this abhorrent post got deleted. Imagine having that kind of an attitude towards disabled children. My respect to those who answered it with composure.

I know there are people in this thread who support keeping the child benefit cap, and that’s a legitimate policy view to discuss. I would invite those of you who share that stance to come forward and make it clear that you do not agree with the ableist and discriminatory remarks made by that poster. I'm aware that one of two have done so already.