Angry at scrapping of 2 child limit

Using ‘Breed’ to describe poeple having children is disgusting.

I was really referring to work
ie if the parents won’t ( work) although now reading over the original posters comment I see I misunderstood and they actually meant
won’t provide for

In that case if a parent won’t provide for the basic needs of their kids irrespective of income that’s called neglect and social services need to get involved

Stop reading the daily mail and check out some books from the social studies section of your library. Or google some questions you have.

You can even ask chat GPT:

The reasons some parents rely on benefits rather than working can vary widely and are often influenced by a combination of personal, social, and systemic factors. It’s important to approach this topic with nuance and understanding, as each family’s situation is unique. Some of the common reasons include:

1. Childcare Challenges

•	<strong>Cost of Childcare:</strong> Childcare can be prohibitively expensive, and for some parents, especially single parents, the cost of working may outweigh the financial benefits if their earnings barely cover childcare expenses.
•	<strong>Lack of Availability:</strong> In some areas, quality childcare is not easily accessible, making it difficult for parents to work.

2. Health Issues

•	<strong>Physical or Mental Health Problems:</strong> Some parents may be unable to work due to their own health issues or because they are caring for a child with special needs or disabilities.
•	<strong>Chronic Illness or Disability:</strong> Long-term conditions can limit the ability to take on or sustain employment.

3. Limited Job Opportunities

•	<strong>Low-Skilled Work:</strong> Some parents may lack the qualifications or skills needed for higher-paying jobs, leaving them with low-wage options that don’t make financial sense compared to benefits.
•	<strong>Regional Unemployment:</strong> In areas with limited job opportunities, finding sustainable work can be a significant challenge.

4. Economic Factors

•	<strong>Benefits Trap:</strong> In some cases, the design of the welfare system can create a “benefits trap,” where taking a low-paying job results in a loss of benefits and leaves a family worse off financially.
•	<strong>Housing and Other Costs:</strong> Parents might rely on benefits to cover essential costs like rent, utilities, or medical expenses that their wages would not adequately cover.

5. Family and Social Circumstances

•	<strong>Lack of Support Networks:</strong> Without a support network (e.g., family or community assistance), some parents find it difficult to balance work and family responsibilities.
•	<strong>Generational Poverty:</strong> Families with a history of reliance on benefits may find it harder to break out of the cycle due to systemic barriers and lack of opportunities.

6. Cultural and Societal Attitudes

•	<strong>Stigma or Assumptions:</strong> While some may assume parents on benefits are “choosing” not to work, this is often a simplistic view. Societal pressures and systemic failures play significant roles.
•	<strong>Desire to Be Present for Children:</strong> Some parents prioritize being at home with their children, especially during their early years, over entering the workforce.

7. Government Policies

•	Some governments provide incentives or safety nets that allow families to prioritize caregiving over employment in certain circumstances. These policies may inadvertently reduce motivation to enter low-paying jobs.

While some may see benefits reliance as a lifestyle choice, for most parents, it is a result of complex and interconnected challenges. Addressing these issues often requires systemic reforms, such as affordable childcare, better job opportunities, and support for those with health or family care needs.

How are you going to make them? What about the working parents who don't adequately provide either from poverty or neglect should they be made to as well?

Nothing to do with 3 years being a good age developmentally then ...that must just work for the employed.

You think the corrective to rapid global population growth is rapid global population decline. It's a child's understanding - it's like throwing cold water on hot oil.

I agree and if we continue with this downward trajectory we make matters worse and worse.
We can’t stop global warming but theoretically we can slow it and work towards ways of mitigating its impact.
Over reproducing goes against that.

In terms of your comment re countries offering lower tax burdens. I also agree, if we tax away the 15% net providers we are left with nothing in this country, something other countries have clearly already seen coming.

That shit is baked in. It's happened already. Now we'll get to see the other side coin. Where increasingly elderly, frail and sick populations cannot maintain their borders, where health and social care will buckle under weight we cannot yet imagine or mitigate, where migration will shift to those countries offering the lowest tax burden, where innovation will stall because those who are productive and capable will be occupied entirely by necessity and not what can be. It will be a fresh hell, while we endure the effects of global warming. Joy.

Agreed.

No we don’t need more people having kids. I have some friends with 3 or 4 kids and I don’t think they have “too many kids” because they are brilliant parents. But not everyone needs to be having even one kid let alone 3.

I used to work in social services and mainstream education and believe me there’s more than enough unfit parents from all social classes that leave children who spend their adulthood recovering from their trauma or neglect.

Yes, I know there may be economic impacts in terms of the labor workforce or pensions etc, but I don’t really see everyone having more kids as the answer. It’s a big thing to bring life into the world and that’s often forgotten. Many people shouldn’t be doing it and certainly not for the good of the economy!

And let’s face it, even if we look at in terms of financial benefit to country, many (not all) of the ones who are having too many kids they can’t afford aren’t raising the kids that are going to be net contributors. Generational worklessness is a big thing.

With birth rates plummeting, mostly due to the cost of raising children, I see this as a positive thing.

I think we are already seeing the global consequences of overpopulation and over consumption already

Really!
Do you not think we should value all non human life forms and those on the margins of society.

Haven’t RTFT and no strong thoughts either way on the cap but yes having worked and lived in deprived issues where there js often generational unemployment and having kids is seen as the only way to progress in life, I feel the issue goes way beyond some extra money.

They'll be small comfort compared to the dramatic geopolitical instability and the cascade of consequences that follows.

@SerenePeach . So for impoverished families to keep on producing impoverished children with poor futures so that the people who have attained education and wealth can continue to work and not pass any of this life experience and opportunity onto children is a road to one destination. A population lacking in skills, education and aspirations and the slow decline of the professional class until we run out of people to be our doctors, lawyers, dentists etc. and council estates become children farms.
How is this a good idea? How does it benefit anyone? And most of all who is going to pay all the benefits for these large poor families when the high earner group has shrunk and aren't paying their taxes anymore?

We need people to do all sorts of jobs, not just the highly-paid and skilled ones. Arguably a shortage of carers is going to be a significant problem going forward. And outcomes improve significantly for children in poor families when you invest more money in them - we invest in our own futures when we invest in all children, not just our own.

The high earner group is already shrinking. Many high earners don't think it's worthwhile to have children - the opportunity costs are too great. I'm not sure you could pay them enough to change their minds and it's not a given that their children would similarly be high earners too.

However as a planet there are clear benefits

I would be looking at the positives in terms of reduced
Global warming
Deforestation
etc

This is a terrible idea.

Families who are in the lower socioeconomic bracket tend not to be educated or be able to provide life lessons on how to lead a prosperous life to their children as they have not figured it out themselves. The greatest predictor of the type of life you will lead is the type of life your parents lead. They also tend have fewer skills to pass on their children and can't afford all the extra curricular activities that develops childrens interests, self confidence and abilities. That is why poverty is intergenerational.

So for impoverished families to keep on producing impoverished children with poor futures so that the people who have attained education and wealth can continue to work and not pass any of this life experience and opportunity onto children is a road to one destination. A population lacking in skills, education and aspirations and the slow decline of the professional class until we run out of people to be our doctors, lawyers, dentists etc. and council estates become children farms.

How is this a good idea? How does it benefit anyone? And most of all who is going to pay all the benefits for these large poor families when the high earner group has shrunk and aren't paying their taxes anymore?

Global growth will decline by 2100, by that point the inverted population pyramid in countries which already have dwindling fertility rates will be incredibly vulnerable.

Despite the ageing population there are more births than deaths.
So in terms of that ageing population those births are going to live much longer too and make the situation worse on a global level
Spending and lifestyle expectations and overconsumption on an individual level cannot be maintained at the current rate.

The CB cap has reduced the choice of having a third by 5% according to stats.
The figure is low because there are many reasons people have children and finances is only one of them with many not considering the affordability anyway,
Its also worth noting those on UC still get more money for more children.

Not that I think that this will be a situation that is altered by a retreat on the two child cap. 😁

It's an aging population. Longevity is the driver, not births when it comes to the growing population figures. The number of countries with a fertility rate high enough to maintain population stability is so emaciated that it spells a crisis for swathes of the globe who will be thrown into a financial and productivity death spiral.

That sounds like Gilead
What an awful thought

If you look at this in terms of the planet rather than our small island. Or an individual country we are a growing population
Watch the population meter grow online minute by minute, going up up up.
The world is overpopulated and whilst we continue to over-consume we are bringing about its downfall

So
Either continue to have babies for this small islands economy and reduce consumption in everything including on a personal level.
Or value the planet as a whole and reduce the population.