Angry at scrapping of 2 child limit

Circumstances change. It’s perfectly possible to be in a strong financial position when you decide to have children, then redundancy, illness or death come along and it all goes tits up. That’s why we have a safety net.

But nobody forced the parents to have children in the first place. And they knew about the costs before making that choice.

some People are very hard of understanding.

Logically, how to vouchers work? Some for food, utilities, transport, clothes, toys, books….? What happens when the washing machine breaks down nd you need cash to buy a new one? Usually, you juggle your budget but as much of your budget is vouchers you’re going to have to juggle them. So you give them to a friend and get them to give you the cash. Only, you will be friend gives you £30 for a £50 voucher. What happens when a loved one is in hospital and you have additional busto find but your transport that just won’t cover that cost. What then? How are you going to manage that or are we suggesting that people benefits shouldn’t have the “luxury”of being able to spend time with loved ones in hospital will be able to replace the washing machine when it breaks down?

People on benefits do not need to be infantilised. Too many people saying being on benefits equals a bit stupid unable to manage a budget or anything else. simple fact of the matter is and some majority of people are able to manage the money that they have whether that be from wages benefits or a mix of the two. And it’s cheap for those pack taxpayers if cash is paid. And let’s face it all posters care about on here is the feelings are the poor taxpayers you apparently get nothing for their money.

if you work in a school, you surely have an understanding of the complexity of all this?

You really need to have a think about that. Look at average rents, childcare costs, average wage, lack of political will to get absent parents to pay maintenance….

You didn't respond to my comment saying im sick of seeing these high income fathers spend their entire income in casinos and then the kids are walking around in rags. It's not just poor people who can't manage their money and prioritise their kids. So making benefit claimants pay for every shop isn't going to solve the issue.

It's social services job to investigate negligent parents not assume that every poor parent is wasting their money and make them pay for everything with vouchers

You know how many non benefit claiming parents waste their income on cocaine gambling and alcohol and are actually in debt?

I don’t think disagreeing with not wanting any child to live in poverty is anything to be proud of.

Are you even real?

Aside from the abusive relationships mentioned above, people get ill and die, or are killed in accidents.

The four children they could afford at birth are only getting half the money they need to live on.

In what world is that fair or reasonable?

I know life insurance is cheap when you're young but critical illness is way to costly for people on ordinary money.

No it doesn’t what an odd claim. And not everyone agrees with you going by the vote.

True, but the government can help reverse this.

The social contract should ensure we have conditions in which ppl can thrive.

At present I’m not even sure how ppl cope - living in precarious, expensive housing is a large part of the issue I think.

Low oppurtunities.

Poor education.

Poor support (mental health, substance abuse, DV etc)

@Sleepingmole6 Because you said you are sick of left wing ppl protecting benefits at all costs.

I consider myself LW, not claimed a benefit in my life thankfully, but believe that the current benefits are too low, poverty too high and services too scant.

It shouldn’t be down to your school to provide such support (what does that entail?), it should be a national aim - like sure start/connexions- to reduce poverty and raise lifestyles.

However are you sure your schools approach is even working if you still have purely fed children?
And how do you think reducing benefits will help your children?

If children are living in poverty, it is their parents that are to blame. Not the government.

Brilliant post. A lot of people are clueless about realities.

Why are you replying to me about this? I haven't even mentioned sure start. All I've said is that the welfare of children needs to be central - more than well-meaning ideas. I'm sick of seeing children at our school only fed plain pasta at home, or not bought shoes. Our school provides a huge amount of parenting support to deprived families - some take it up, others dont.

Sounds a bit like the Brexit argument. I don’t want any child living in poverty. I sincerely hope it will be reversed.

The vote on this is majority it should stay, it feels like politicians are scrabbling to do this.

I'm sick of ppl, often right wing, always looking for punitive measures against the poor/disadvantaged instead of investing in services that 1. Improve society, 2. Employ ppl to further improve their life chances.

www.theguardian.com/education/2025/may/22/sure-start-centres-saved-uk-government-2-for-every-1-spent-study-finds

I'm far from left wing but making all benefits parents have to pay for everything with vouchers is not the answer to that issue. Years of working in a casino I've seen high income fathers blow More money in slot machines in one day than benefit claimants get in a month. Then I see their children around town wearing falling apart rags.

So are we going to make everyone who has children have their grocery basket inspected?

@notbelieved Don’t forget - who supplies the vouchers and how much of a cut do they get?

Some ppl would probably transfer/sell them - use £20 of your vouchers to buy me shopping that I’ll give you £15 cash for.
win/win

But the point being made is this:

put money in my bank account: One person required to process the payment.

give me vouchers: one person required to send me the vouchers. Another required to liaise with the supermarket to supermarket gets its money. Another required to manage non arrival of vouchers.

Double or triple the cost to tax payers?

Not cost effective. No guarantee the most vulnerable eg. children will be better fed.

Pensions make up around half of the bill.

interesting that I cannot find a more recent graph, but with welfare cuts and increase in retirees, I cannot see that this chart has changed much.

https://fullfact.org/economy/welfare-budget/

At least it is some barrier to help children. At my school children eat plain pasta for dinner every night, the only proper food they get is at school.

I'm sick of left wing people protecting any sort of benefits at all costs - including the well being of children.

But the difference is, that benefits are taxpayers and government money

loads, absolutely loads of people who claim benefits are also tax payers, And we all pay VAT.

How? How do vouchers protect children? They couldn’t be sold on? Used for food a child doesn’t like? Exchanged under the counter for vapes or cigarettes?

When you receive them they absolutely are 'hardly any money'.

The idea that people on benefits are more likely to buy the wrong things than those whose pounds are entirely earned or provided as pensions is nonsense on stilts.

Benefits are not "hardly any money" they are the governments largest expenditure.