Finally ! A government policy that worked.

[SerendipityJane]

Given how perfectly it delivered:

However, the study says the policy’s impoverishment of larger low-income households has helped few parents get a job – instead, its “main function” has been to push families further into poverty and damage their mental health.

It's impossible to believe that wasn't the aim all along. (See also bedroom tax).

Still voting Tory now, eh ?

(We'll put to one side the unspeakable policy if a rape resulted in a 3rd child. That can't be debated anywhere except Tennessee or Texas).

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/jun/01/two-child-limit-on-uk-welfare-benefits-has-failed-to-push-parents-into-jobs

I'm sorry, but point three is bullshit, unless you mean emotional. Abortions are handed out so freely it's worrying. I myself was in tears explaining I felt I had no option owing to violent partner, no questions asked, no counselling offered, sent me off with my tablets the same day.

There are very very few families that are not more than a few months salary checks away from poverty. I would suggest people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. As others have said people get disabled, die or move on after 3 or 4 children already in family, they literally are saying that if you have more than 2 children then the others deserve to be punished cos shit happened

But people should be more than a few pay checks away from poverty before starting families. I wouldn’t start a business without financial planning and risk management, so why would I start a family without it?

Honestly, the fact that you all buy into this left and right crap is exactly why we are where we are. Set the minions upon each other, divide and conquer.

All parties are the same, none of them have a clue what the real world looks. Not one of them has had to go hungry to feed their child, or faced a winter with no heating. But sure argue amongst yourselves, it's really helping the country.

Because that is not how life works. No ones jobs are 100% sure - most people are on 1 or 3 mths notice. With the ever tightening cost of living its even worse - the percentage with a years salary each in savings is v small.

Some people put more thought into buying a car or whatever else than having children. It's selfish to have them just because you want them and can't be bothered to consider the financial risks and implications.

I wish the people being smug about only having children you can afford would wake up to the fact that we're facing a demographic time bomb and need more babies being born, not fewer! Would you like to be able to retire one day? Would you like functioning public services, social care with enough staff to actually care for you and your loved ones? Frankly people having larger families these days are doing a public service. And it's only becoming more ridiculously unaffordable.

Realistically, if everyone waited till they had a years back up in the bank, very few would ever manage to have children.

Quite. The best way out of poverty is through education and work. I thank my lucky stars everyday that I'm not still festering away on the estate I grew up on.

Apologies for the double post!

No, perpetuating a human pyramid scheme is not a public service, ffs. Also don’t kid yourself that anyone having a child they can’t afford is doing it with my retirement in mind.

Larger families should be unaffordable - in my experience it’s a shit way to grow up.

Why? People save for house deposits. They save to buy cars. They save for fancy weddings and honeymoons. They can save to ensure financial security for their child, surely.

Family size has been falling for years - not because of recent Tory policies

Not very good at reading are you ?

No, perpetuating a human pyramid scheme is not a public service, ffs. Also don’t kid yourself that anyone having a child they can’t afford is doing it with my retirement in mind.

People having families is not a 'human pyramid scheme'. And by larger families I don't mean crazy large, but anything more than two is really the preserve of the wealthy these days, and that's an issue when you look at the population level and factor in lots of people having 0-1 children. A massively ageing population with a very low birth rate is an issue.

Enlighten me. I can only read what you’ve written in your post.

why is it better for families to depend on welfare instead of work?

It's not the government's fault these families are impoverished. It's their own. If they want more children they shouldn't expect people like me who work and have had to limit our family to what we can afford, to fund their choices.

It's not only about work it's about fairness. We have a non working family near us with 6 or 7 children and I resent like hell them being funded 100% by the taxpayer

Lots of wealthy families choose to only have 2 children though, I don't know any who have more personally and I know a fair amount. If they have the money and choose not to then in what way are others being unfairly held back? The biggest factor is women no longer feeling coerced into having children, and society not dictating that you should start a family or whatever else. Its very positive really. People don't have children so they can support the next generation, people have them as they want them- simple as that really.

The whole point of this article that the policy isn't teaching people how not to be poor. It's just making them poorer. There is nothing wrong with working, but if you can't afford childcare for three young kids while you go to work (something that is campaigned about often on MN) then removing money form the third child will not suddenly make people go out an work. Considering that the biggest growing group of people in poverty are in households where at least one person is in work.

If they have the money and choose not to then in what way are others being unfairly held back?

I'm not sure I understand your question here. I'm not talking about anyone being held back or advantaged.

The biggest factor is women no longer feeling coerced into having children, and society not dictating that you should start a family or whatever else. Its very positive really.

And that's fine. Not sure it's the 'biggest factor', but anyway my point is about basic affordability of things like a home that of course will then impact decisions over family.

People don't have children so they can support the next generation, people have them as they want them- simple as that really.

Of course they don't. But it's still a really big factor if you're looking at society as a whole.

You seem to be looking at this from an individualist perspective alone, which is fine, but I was actually making a point about social trends.

So what should be done? The children suffer. Is that OK?

Yes years, which has pushed up the average age of mothers, which in itself presents a risk. Good on you if you managed to save 18 years of income to support a child, but this is not an option for many, a years savings gets you nowhere if you've fell into illness, or have a disabled child, it doesn't take away anyone's basic human right to procreate.

UC claimants can claim up to 85% of child care back. That is a quite a lot.

Also, I have quoted what OP wrote. Relying on cheap and badly executed sarcasm is not a good way of putting one’s point across.

Most people have children they can afford and then circumstances occur which mean that they can't afford them. What shall we do then, take them away? Kill them?
Again, not supporting children means having to support them more as adults. It's cheaper to fund children than fund poor, unhealthy adults.