Angry at scrapping of 2 child limit

Benefits are hardly any money, having vouchers and ppl checking expenditure would cost more to administer?

Who provides the vouchers? How much will they charge? Who will administer and oversee the transactions so supermarkets get their hard cash?

Ppl who use benefits to supplement rent, buy a fridge - how?

Who decides what the money can be spent on?

And should we include making state pension a voucher?

I’d prefer more scrutiny of the transfer of public wealth to private companies via contracts, they are killing the country.

If anything we need to spend more money in improving services (sure start, Connexions, addiction help, social services etc) pay those workers more, ensure a career pathway etc and chances are many of the social ills will stop in a generation.

Yeah I know. Too early in the morning. 🫣

Of course anyone from any walk of life can be selfish with money, and not prioritise their kids.I'm not by any means 'anti-poorer people' as you seem to be implying.But the difference is, that benefits are taxpayers and government money.

As regards your comments about social services, you would probably be suprised how much it takes to get them involved nowadays! (I work in the sector) They often won't do unless it's extreme neglect.And it's hard to evidence neglect too sometimes.
This is especially the case in relation to cannabis, which is given the 'green light' mostly it seems.

I think we will have to agree to disagree about the vouchers, but I think its all too easy for people to see a lump of money go into their amount and get 'tempted' by things other than the essentials.

Not when you can have a sanctimonious bosom hoick about irresponsible parents.

Yes. The actual stats are surely important here.

Spending money responsibly is more important frankly. I don't follow the logic of why no strings should be attached.

Every £25 wasted in money that could go into improving the country for the rest of us.

Still would need a member of staff to come over and approve the contents of the shopping wouldn't it. That's the whole purpose isn't it?

They mean child tax credit or child part of universal credit

Why is everyone talking about Child Benefit when the 2 child cap doesn’t even apply to it?

That doesn't change the point though does it?! It is money that is meant to support children. Supplying as vouchers would protect the most vulnerable children. Just use self checkout if you are embarrassed or ashamed.

Many who claim child benefit are tax payers too.

Absolutely. I think population growth is far more worrying than climate change. But it's the elephant in the room.

Since it is taxpayers money I think having vouchers is reasonable. Now most supermarkets have a self-checkout so not really an issue is it?

Not comparable because when you go to those places you only see other people in the same situation mostly. In the supermarket in a small town the shop worker and the people behind you in the queue will see every time. Having everyone talk about how you're a lazy waste of space is not fun

Do you also think it’s humiliating going to a food bank or the job centre? How would it be any different? Perhaps we all need to challenge our beliefs around this. Everyone & anyone can fall on hard times. If it were me, I’d be thankful the help is there and that I and my children are not going hungry.

But that’s exactly what I’m saying - it IS social service’s job to check out those types of situations as well.

The specific issue we are focusing on in THIS thread is child poverty in the case where a family’s income depends on benefits. Perhaps a better solution would be that a family on benefits with social services involved where there is financial mismanagement should be awarded vouchers to go towards their children needs. That seems more appropriate I think. This issue isn’t black & white, there’s nuance.

I understand the argument of people's taxes and it's not money they earned etc. Fair enough

I'm just saying it seems some on this thread think the issue of parents wasting money on drugs, alcohol, gambling etc would be solved if people on benefits had to pay for everything with vouchers. As if they are completely unaware of how common it is for high income fathers to blow all the families money on spot machines. How do you solve that when those families don't even claim benefits?
Just my opinion that it's social services job to investigate these situations no matter the family income.

If you live in a small town and go through hard times where you need to claim benefits it becomes very humiliating paying for every shop with vouchers all the shop workers and people behind you in the queue knowing etc. Thinking you're a waste of space. Might work in a big city not a small town

IMO, it is social services to investigate those kinds of issues, and of course I agree with you that it’s not only the economically disadvantaged that mismanage their finances. However, in cases where someone is in receipt of a state benefit, I think that ought to be monitored more closely. I don’t think that’s unreasonable or penalising. It’s something that’s being provided to them by the state, I.e. tax payers - it’s not money that they have earned. If someone who mismanages their own finances, fine, let them - and if it impacts children involved, then indeed, social services need to get involved. I do feel we are conflating two rather separate issues here.

I am arguing in the case of child poverty, whereby parents/families mismanage state-funded benefits, there ought to be more intervention. That’s the specific issue I am contesting here, and it is for the benefit of the children involved and disadvantaged - NOT to control or punish parents from poor backgrounds!

That is helpful to know, thanks!

It's social services job to investigate situations where parents are spending the family income on drugs/alcohol/gambling etc instead of the kids.
Unless you think only poor people are bad at managing their money and prioritising their kids?
I've worked in casinos for years and seen high income fathers blow all their money on slot machines (spending in one day more than a family on benefits gets in a month) and then I see them out with their kids the kids clothes are falling apart rags. Not to mention all the high income cocaine addict parents.

So let social services do their job and don't expect making poor people embarrass themselves paying for every shop with vouchers will solve this issue.

My area isn’t deprived at all. We have council gardened parks and a library. The only funded holiday clubs are for disabled children and available to all regardless of income. It’s funding has been cut and far from benefitting poorer people, it makes it more difficult for them to access as they have taken transport away, and the onsite services are much less than they used to be so if you can’t send cash for them to have a day out there is little for them to do. It used to be 10 days over a year, now you’re lucky if you get half of that.

Our Council tax has gone up over 11% this year and I’m ok with that. Every year the Council consults on its proposed cuts and every year they target cuts to services for the most vulnerable in our area. Social work and disability services have been decimated. Every time they try to target something that affects people not living in poverty (cutting breakfast club and after school clubs, shortening the school week, school transport etc) there is a very middle class uprising and these things are dropped. Instead they cut services to more vulnerable people who have far less of a voice, and people like yourself are all for it because you believe the myth that these people sit on their arsed and don’t work. I guess it’s partly true because the ones who are affected most are the children.

I have seen first hand the fallout of these cuts, and have seen the improvements when more money is available for councils to spend. Reducing waste in local and national government is absolutely necessary, and they need to show their working, but to suggest additional taxes never go towards things which benefit the country is ridiculous.

Nail on head.

As for this It’s really unfair that sensible and responsible people are penalised so much.

You’re not penalised. You pay appropriate taxes for you income, the same as everyone else. You chose to live on an unadopted road. You could move to the place with nice parks. Stop being a victim.

Yeah, people just popping out kids for the paltry benefits they can get. That’s really happening everywhere. If it was anywhere near worth doing, pretty much everyone would be doing it.

Under the SNP, child poverty has increased. The attainment gap in education has also increased. The quality of education overall has reduced. If the SNP are going to avoid another generation of people living in poverty, they have to do something. I’m a higher rate taxpayer and pay even more because I live in Scotland, I have no issue with my additional tax helping to reduce poverty.

My issue with this policy is, has it been evidenced that this will reduce poverty and close the attainment gap? I expect there isn’t, which means this is yet another populist policy designed at giving the SNP another “Westmonster” headline.

I believe the 2 child cap should stay for the simple reason that there are some people having children that can't look after them properly and use them as cash cows for benefits, where as if there is a cap they would be less likely to do this.