Page 5 | 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?

Andanotherplease · 12/11/2025 12:08

Zitroneneis · 12/11/2025 11:53

Yes, and if the Government removes the cap, then even more parents will take advantage of this.

Show quote history

It’s impossible to just choose not to work on UC - you can’t choose to and just get benefits there are work commitments and sanctions if you don’t look for work and get work. The only exceptions are LCWRA and if a parent is a carer? It’s not some easy choice that’s allowed if you just don’t fancy working !

CorneliaCupp · 12/11/2025 12:01

Marshmallow4545 · 12/11/2025 11:16

The research often doesn't account for the population composition point though. It's very hard to factor in but a lot of these groups have seen their population explode. The fertility rate should be increasing if you factor this in. The fact it isn't indicates that the policy is suppressing fertility to some extent.

There is also plenty of evidence to show that pro natal policies can increase birth rate. This is essentially what we will have but only for the poorest in our society. We are encouraging poor people to have more children born into abject poverty with a high dependency on a state that can change policy on a political whim.

We need better, more direct intervention for poor children. Not pro natal policies like lifting the cap which will only incentivise more children to be born and without any guarantee that the money will actually benefit the children in question.

Edited

Show quote history

I think our main point of disagreement is that I don't think that people are poor because they are irresponsible or too stupid to use their money responsibly. It is so much more complex than that. No doubt that is the case in some instances (as it is in wealthier families, it's just more socially acceptable there.) The poor families I know are trying their absolute best to provide the best lives that they are able to for their families. They don't need to be treated like they've done something wrong, which seems to be the prevailing belief on this thread.
Life is tough for lots of people, but we have reasonable evidence from experts to say that getting rid of the cap will make life a little bit easier for this group of people. I can't really see the argument for not doing it.

charliehungerford · 12/11/2025 11:58

If you are irresponsible enough to continue to have children you can’t afford, especially when you are not working and are totally reliant on state support, you are probably not going to spend any additional benefits on your children. We all know families where the needs and desires of the parents are put first and the children are well down the list.

Zitroneneis · 12/11/2025 11:53

angelos02 · 12/11/2025 11:50

I just can't imagine thinking 'I'm in a shit position financially but I want another child but hey-ho some mug that gets up in the dark to go to work will pay more tax to pay for it'.

Yes, and if the Government removes the cap, then even more parents will take advantage of this.

Zitroneneis · 12/11/2025 11:52

PolarExpression · 12/11/2025 11:14

Yanbu it should stay. There needs to be personal responsibility. We all have struggles in life but not everyone has lots of kids who they can't afford and expects others to pay for them.

Exactly. Two kids is more than plenty!

Why should the rest of us go to work to support not only our own 1-2 children but also those of parents who recklessly have more than they can afford?!

angelos02 · 12/11/2025 11:50

I just can't imagine thinking 'I'm in a shit position financially but I want another child but hey-ho some mug that gets up in the dark to go to work will pay more tax to pay for it'.

pilates · 12/11/2025 11:36

The cap should remain. It is fine if you want a large family but you should be prepared to pay for them yourself. DH & I discussed this and felt we could give a comfortable life to 2 children, anymore and we would struggle. Live within your means.

nearlylovemyusername · 12/11/2025 11:28

CorneliaCupp · 12/11/2025 10:57

And the two child cap has had a limited effect on fertility rates, so all it is doing is keeping children in poverty.

Show quote history

Well, UK fertility rate was 1.79 in 2016 and 1.56 in 2023.

Maybe coincidence maybe not. It's twice the rate of decline from 2010 (baby boom)-2016

Original poster

Marshmallow4545 · 12/11/2025 11:27

SapphireSeptember · 12/11/2025 11:20

Bit rude to assume a lot of poor people are shitty parents. I grew up in poverty. We were clean and fed and had clean clothes (despite me once going to school wearing an interesting combo of clothes because I hadn't put my school uniform in the wash. I was 15 and it was entirely my responsibility.) I am poor now. The bills are paid, food/household stuff is bought, if I need to get anything for DS like clothes I do, or buy him a book or toy, and then if I have a bit of money left over I buy something nice for myself. But whether or not the cap is lifted won't effect me because I'm only having one child. That poor people spend money if they have it is a known phenomenon, and it's better for the economy.

Show quote history

I'm not assuming that people that are poor are shitty parents. You do often wonder though why a parent living in poverty would have more than two children knowing how this will adversely impact the new baby and the existing children. It doesn't indicate a responsible parent that is making decisions in the best interests of their children does it? It comes down to a few potential options:

The parents selfishly are choosing to have more children than they can afford because they simply want to.

The parents had an accidental extra child due to contraception failure. Sadly this happens and lots of parents that aren't eligible for benefits have to take the financial hit on this. One extra child though usually isn't completely unaffordable and you still do get CB.

If it's down to abuse then it's likely that there is financial abuse going on too and the extra money won't be spent on the children either.

OP posts:

Julen7 · 12/11/2025 11:26

PolarExpression · 12/11/2025 11:14

Yanbu it should stay. There needs to be personal responsibility. We all have struggles in life but not everyone has lots of kids who they can't afford and expects others to pay for them.

I have just read a thread on here from a single parent who is working 40 hours a week and has a young child in nursery full time and is almost at breaking point as she has hardly any outside help. Why are large families with often non working parents more deserving than this?

Edited to say I agree with you.

Nnnbs · 12/11/2025 11:20

PolarExpression · 12/11/2025 11:14

Yanbu it should stay. There needs to be personal responsibility. We all have struggles in life but not everyone has lots of kids who they can't afford and expects others to pay for them.

Exactly

SapphireSeptember · 12/11/2025 11:20

Marshmallow4545 · 11/11/2025 09:05

Child poverty is an economic measure judged against median household income. It doesn't take account of the child's actual lived experience and whether they have access to basic essentials.

You therefore can automatically technically drag loads of kids out of poverty by giving their parents free money. This will be particularly effective if you can tax richer households to do so therefore reducing the median income you're comparing them to. The fact this free money could be spent on anything the parents fancy is completely ignored. Yes, there will be responsible parents but there also will be a hell of a lot of irresponsible ones.

Show quote history

Bit rude to assume a lot of poor people are shitty parents. I grew up in poverty. We were clean and fed and had clean clothes (despite me once going to school wearing an interesting combo of clothes because I hadn't put my school uniform in the wash. I was 15 and it was entirely my responsibility.) I am poor now. The bills are paid, food/household stuff is bought, if I need to get anything for DS like clothes I do, or buy him a book or toy, and then if I have a bit of money left over I buy something nice for myself. But whether or not the cap is lifted won't effect me because I'm only having one child. That poor people spend money if they have it is a known phenomenon, and it's better for the economy.

Original poster

Marshmallow4545 · 12/11/2025 11:16

CorneliaCupp · 12/11/2025 11:11

That is what the research shows, though I have no doubt that the reasons for that are more complex. Improving the life chances of children in poverty is also more complex than removing the cap, but that is an obvious first step.

Show quote history

The research often doesn't account for the population composition point though. It's very hard to factor in but a lot of these groups have seen their population explode. The fertility rate should be increasing if you factor this in. The fact it isn't indicates that the policy is suppressing fertility to some extent.

There is also plenty of evidence to show that pro natal policies can increase birth rate. This is essentially what we will have but only for the poorest in our society. We are encouraging poor people to have more children born into abject poverty with a high dependency on a state that can change policy on a political whim.

We need better, more direct intervention for poor children. Not pro natal policies like lifting the cap which will only incentivise more children to be born and without any guarantee that the money will actually benefit the children in question.

OP posts:

PolarExpression · 12/11/2025 11:14

Yanbu it should stay. There needs to be personal responsibility. We all have struggles in life but not everyone has lots of kids who they can't afford and expects others to pay for them.

RubySquid · 12/11/2025 11:14

SoftBalletShoes · 12/11/2025 01:45

Maybe two kids IS plenty, but what about all the children who are already here and who are suffering from the drop in household income caused by the cap? And what about people whose second child turns out to be twins or even triplets? And accidental pregnancies? People should not be forced into abortions that they do not want. That is cruel.

Edited

Show quote history

It's been in place since 2017 so any kids born before that are at least 8/9 now so no reason for parents not to work. And multiple birthd are an exception

CorneliaCupp · 12/11/2025 11:11

Marshmallow4545 · 12/11/2025 11:08

Hmmmm I'm not sure we know that for sure.

We can see no significant drop off in fertility for impacted families but equally this doesn't mean that the policy isn't suppressing fertility to some extent. Since the introduction of the cap we have seen some groups grow significantly within the population such as Muslims and Orthodox Jews. These groups also tend to rely more heavily on benefits than other groups in the population. These families typically have very high birth rates due to religious reasons and wouldn't be deterred by the benefit cap.

If other groups continued to have larger families at the same rate and these fast growing groups also had larger families then we would expect fertility rates to increase. The fact they haven't means that some groups must be having smaller families.

Show quote history

That is what the research shows, though I have no doubt that the reasons for that are more complex. Improving the life chances of children in poverty is also more complex than removing the cap, but that is an obvious first step.

MrsMurphyIWish · 12/11/2025 11:11

I’m torn because I don’t think the cap has made a difference to reducing family size - not from my own anecdata. There were mums at my DC’s primary school who had children with 3-4 year age gaps so would never be required to find work. My DD is now in Yr 10 and the mum of the girl who was in her class is still having children. I feel sorry for the daughter as she doesn’t go to school. My DD sees her pushing buggies around.

I grew up in a chaotic household. Benefits money wasn’t spent on me. It wasn’t until I saw another world when I spent time in foster care I vowed to get out. Welfare money would be best spent on education, cultural capital etc.

Original poster

Marshmallow4545 · 12/11/2025 11:08

CorneliaCupp · 12/11/2025 10:57

And the two child cap has had a limited effect on fertility rates, so all it is doing is keeping children in poverty.

Show quote history

Hmmmm I'm not sure we know that for sure.

We can see no significant drop off in fertility for impacted families but equally this doesn't mean that the policy isn't suppressing fertility to some extent. Since the introduction of the cap we have seen some groups grow significantly within the population such as Muslims and Orthodox Jews. These groups also tend to rely more heavily on benefits than other groups in the population. These families typically have very high birth rates due to religious reasons and wouldn't be deterred by the benefit cap.

If other groups continued to have larger families at the same rate and these fast growing groups also had larger families then we would expect fertility rates to increase. The fact they haven't means that some groups must be having smaller families.

OP posts:

Julen7 · 12/11/2025 11:00

nearlylovemyusername · 12/11/2025 10:57

Public support retaining the two-child benefit limit as Starmer gears up for first rebellion | YouGov

They'd be insane to remove it whilst raising taxes. But they are insane anyway, so this to be expected

Yes they just do the very opposite of sensible.

CorneliaCupp · 12/11/2025 10:57

Nightlight8 · 12/11/2025 10:55

I would question anybodys parenting that doesnt consider money when they are planning on having 3 kids plus. Its well and good going on about the birth rate. Charity starts at home! If you cant afford it that's the end of that. It's not acceptable to just pop out more kids! Rents are high and childcare costs and the economy is in a shocking state...

And the two child cap has had a limited effect on fertility rates, so all it is doing is keeping children in poverty.

nearlylovemyusername · 12/11/2025 10:57

Public support retaining the two-child benefit limit as Starmer gears up for first rebellion | YouGov

They'd be insane to remove it whilst raising taxes. But they are insane anyway, so this to be expected

Nightlight8 · 12/11/2025 10:55

I would question anybodys parenting that doesnt consider money when they are planning on having 3 kids plus. Its well and good going on about the birth rate. Charity starts at home! If you cant afford it that's the end of that. It's not acceptable to just pop out more kids! Rents are high and childcare costs and the economy is in a shocking state...

Differentforgirls · 12/11/2025 10:52

BigAnne · 12/11/2025 10:50

I may be wrong but I assume you were a SAHP.

Show quote history

So stay at home parents are ALL lazy scroungers? And no, I job shared when they were small.

BigAnne · 12/11/2025 10:50

Differentforgirls · 12/11/2025 10:47

What's that got to do with you calling me a lazy scrounger?

Show quote history

I may be wrong but I assume you were a SAHP.

CorneliaCupp · 12/11/2025 10:50

Nightlight8 · 12/11/2025 10:36

If you think with the cost of rents and paying childcare upfront isn't a detterant to adding a 3rd child in this shocking encomy I would seriously question your parenting! Lack of services to get an appointment. I don't know why you wouldn't consider money it's common sense!

Show quote history

You are questioning my parenting because I can see from research that the cap has not had an effect on fertility rates?

commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9301/