Page 8 | Angry at scrapping of 2 child limit

BearBuggy · 2024-12-04T15:42:05+00:00

I know there are a few families that find themselves in rotten circumstances and this isn’t aimed at them . However I live in an area where having children to continue to receive benefits was the norm and only now the cap is in place has that stopped. The Scottish government has now announced it will be scrapped. I am so angry I’m paying towards people breeding children they can’t afford. I didn’t vote SNp this time because of this, as did many of my friends. They lost heavily in my area but still seem to not care what the tax payer is saying.

MintChocCat · 21/05/2025 09:19

IVFmumoftwo · 20/05/2025 22:27

What if you need it to pay towards your gas or electricity etc? I used it to buy ice creams from the shop or clothes from vinted. Vouchers would be useless.

I also use it to pay for nursery fees. I can't use vouchers for that.

Edited

Show quote history

Then maybe the vouchers need to cover more?

MintChocCat · 21/05/2025 09:18

BearBuggy · 04/12/2024 15:54

@Drivingoverlemons I agree child poverty needs addressing but don’t believe this is the solution. I live in an area with high poverty. I see hungry children every day without jackets and it’s heartbreaking.
Doesn’t stop the parents getting pissed at the weekend or enjoying a daily can of monster 🙄 Paid out of benefits as none of them work

Whereabouts do you live OP? Apologies if you’ve already mentioned.

IVFmumoftwo · 20/05/2025 22:27

Anon501178 · 20/05/2025 20:07

Agree! Why it isn't always given as vouchers anyway is beyond me...

And I say that as someone who claims benefits!

Show quote history

What if you need it to pay towards your gas or electricity etc? I used it to buy ice creams from the shop or clothes from vinted. Vouchers would be useless.

I also use it to pay for nursery fees. I can't use vouchers for that.

Anon501178 · 20/05/2025 20:07

RandomWordsThrownTogether · 04/12/2024 16:28

Maybe replacing the child benefits with vouchers that can only be spent on groceries and children’s items would be a compromise. The problem is the cap did hurl a lot of children into food poverty and they should not be penalised for their parents decisions.

I honestly don’t think anyone, rich or poor, should have more than two children as our world is literally catching fire in places - the planet can not survive if we don’t curb population growth and reduce consumption. In the same light punishing children is not the answer. Maybe financial incentives for getting a coil fitted after your second child and replace child benefits with food vouchers that can not be spent on alcohol.

Agree! Why it isn't always given as vouchers anyway is beyond me...

And I say that as someone who claims benefits!

YourRubyLion · 16/12/2024 13:31

30percent · 06/12/2024 14:49

Child tax credit/universal credit are what people on low income get for their children. Child benefit everyone gets and it's only 25 pound a week for the first child and less maybe like 19 for subsequent children but child benefit is not capped at 2 you can have 10 kids and still get all those 19 pounds a week for each one.

Only child tax credit/universal credit is affected by the cap I believe the confusion comes because people just refer to all benefits as "benefits" so when it relates to children it becomes "child's benefits"

Show quote history

Everyone doesn't get child benefit. Jf you earn over a certain amount you get taxed a huge amount and also get child benefit reduced by tax.

JusteanBiscuits · 11/12/2024 16:04

Cyclingmummy1 · 07/12/2024 08:54

Though in higher income households it has to be repaid by the higher income earner.

Show quote history

Yes. We got screwed by husband getting back pay which nudged him over the limit. If had been paid the salary increase from the date it was backdated to we wouldn't be having to repay a chunk of CB. But because it wasn't, it cost us more than the payrise.

chaosmaker · 09/12/2024 22:41

BIossomtoes · 09/12/2024 12:45

It can’t. It’s impossible to predict possible lifespan predicated on old age.

Show quote history

The individual could decide their own 6 months. Although that would be what those against it are calling a 'slippery slope'.

BIossomtoes · 09/12/2024 12:45

chaosmaker · 09/12/2024 00:07

Maybe it should if the individual wants it to!

Show quote history

It can’t. It’s impossible to predict possible lifespan predicated on old age.

chaosmaker · 09/12/2024 00:07

BIossomtoes · 07/12/2024 15:09

No it isn’t. Terminal illness within six months can’t possibly include old age.

Show quote history

Maybe it should if the individual wants it to!

chaosmaker · 08/12/2024 23:28

ByMerryKoala · 05/12/2024 13:28

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.

I'll be dead then and didn't create descendants to suffer this so I win :)

BobbyBiscuits · 07/12/2024 15:59

@1dayatatime @StandingSideBySide I do see both your points. One of my main motivations to choose not to have kids was financial.

teatoast8 · 07/12/2024 15:46

MrRobinsonsQuango · 05/12/2024 12:36

I’m not surprised you are annoyed -l would be fuming as well. I’m not a fan of the conservatives but the 2 child cap is totally reasonable. I don’t see why taxpayers need to pay for people mindlessly having child after child they can’t really afford 🤷‍♀️. It’s not a luxury most of my friends working full time not on benefits can do

I think it should be 3 child cap

DiscoBeat · 07/12/2024 15:45

I doubt that it makes a huge difference. Yes we would hope everyone would make informed decisions about whether they can afford to extend their family but I wouldn't want to see their children, or those from changed circumstances, go without, so I don't like the idea of a cap. It sounds like punishing the children to me. 😢

teatoast8 · 07/12/2024 15:43

Cableknitdreams · 04/12/2024 23:17

Well, we know this isn't true, because parents have to go to Jobcentre interviews and get ready for work when their youngest child is 1.

Also, it's much easier as a single adult than as a parent (I've had to apply for benefits in both situations).

Show quote history

Thats not true. They don't need to look for work till their child is 3.

StandingSideBySide · 07/12/2024 15:39

ToBeOrNotToBee · 07/12/2024 15:34

Life happens, circumstances change
.
I waw born into a family of 5 kids where dad worked very hard, run 3 businesses and mum took care of home and kids.
When I was 10 mum died and dad overnight became a single parent and had to liquidate his companies to look after us. We were thrust into poverty overnight.
It's nice to know you are of the opinion we should have starved.

I would rather advocate for situations such as yours, that are not the norm, are outside of the two child cap.
No one is saying you deserved to starve.
( My grandfather was in the same situation with seven kids in Ireland and it would have been great to get some, any in fact, support for my mum and her siblings. I’d like to think we’ve moved on.)

ToBeOrNotToBee · 07/12/2024 15:34

Life happens, circumstances change
.
I waw born into a family of 5 kids where dad worked very hard, run 3 businesses and mum took care of home and kids.
When I was 10 mum died and dad overnight became a single parent and had to liquidate his companies to look after us. We were thrust into poverty overnight.
It's nice to know you are of the opinion we should have starved.

1dayatatime · 07/12/2024 15:33

@BobbyBiscuits

"What's wrong with people getting child benefits? It's not the kids fault their parent is poor."

It's a tricky one because it's the parents who decide whether to have children or not but the children who suffer the consequences if the parents are unable to provide for them. For example if I had say 5 children then I would be unable to provide for them- my decision but they suffer.

The problem with child benefits is the moral hazard that although it provides a safety net to stop children being brought up in poverty, it also creates an incentive to have more children than the parents otherwise would have done.

By limiting the benefits to 2 children then if the parents are poor then there is some form of safety net for those two children and hopefully it disincentivises the parents from having more children.

StandingSideBySide · 07/12/2024 15:32

BobbyBiscuits · 07/12/2024 15:22

I don't have children. But I would very very reluctant to place any kind of state mandate on procreation. What's wrong with people getting child benefits? It's not the kids fault their parent is poor.

It is however parents responsibility to ensure, if they are planning a pregnancy, that they can afford the child.

StandingSideBySide · 07/12/2024 15:29

BIossomtoes · 07/12/2024 15:19

It’s also worth noting that the assisted dying bill going through parliament is quite specific that it applies only to someone with a terminal illness with a maximum of six months to live.

Exactly

BobbyBiscuits · 07/12/2024 15:22

I don't have children. But I would very very reluctant to place any kind of state mandate on procreation. What's wrong with people getting child benefits? It's not the kids fault their parent is poor.

BIossomtoes · 07/12/2024 15:19

It’s also worth noting that the assisted dying bill going through parliament is quite specific that it applies only to someone with a terminal illness with a maximum of six months to live.

StandingSideBySide · 07/12/2024 15:14

BIossomtoes · 07/12/2024 15:09

No it isn’t. Terminal illness within six months can’t possibly include old age.

Show quote history

The comment was made as ‘what if’.

It’s also worth noting I didn’t refer to people dieing of old age !
It’s also worth noting the chance of getting a terminal illness diagnosis increases with age.

BIossomtoes · 07/12/2024 15:09

StandingSideBySide · 07/12/2024 15:07

Maybe that’s what AD is really all about

Show quote history

No it isn’t. Terminal illness within six months can’t possibly include old age.

StandingSideBySide · 07/12/2024 15:07

XDownwiththissortofthingX · 07/12/2024 03:03

Or do something to drastically reduce the population of pensioners 😛

Show quote history

Maybe that’s what AD is really all about

Drivingoverlemons · 07/12/2024 14:39

strawberrybubblegum · 07/12/2024 10:55

Rory Stewart and Alistair Campbell did both say that recently, but it's been fact-checked as wrong.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/alastair-campbell-office-for-national-statistics-british-northern-ireland-wales-b2660229.html

In 1948 it was 4.9 times
In the 60s it was 4 times
Currently it's just over 3 times

They don't mention it in the fact check, but I think you also have to balance that demographic shift against the productivity shift caused by advancing technology. Labour productivity in the UK (gross value add per hour worked) has tripled in real terms since 1948.

So it isn't really meaningful to just look at the demographic change in isolation.

At 1948 levels of consumption - but with current productivity - we could support a much larger pensioner population than we have. But we have much higher material expectations than in 1948! Where should the balance sit?

Show quote history

That is really interesting. I agree that the actual detail is more intriguing than the headline figures.

As well as the ‘baby boomers’ now (‘NHS babies’ with good bones and immune systems thanks to all that free milk and orange juice) the population of retired people in 1948/1960 was presumably much smaller than now due to shorter life expectancy and world war 1 having killed so many men in particular. I don’t know the figures on this.