will you have another baby if the two child limit is scrapped?

[Itsmetink]

I’m just curious what the results of this would be, if you could have another baby financially due to this being scrapped, will you?
before it becomes a benefit bashing thread, remember the majority of people claiming do work. Keep it civil and polite please 🙏
Im done having kids and I can see why they want it to be scrapped with the cost of living issues.

Or did the birthrate among those claiming benefits stay the same or rise?

I heard on the radio that birth rates have dropped for lower and middle income families.

If that's your trigger for having another child you probably shouldn't be having another child. Financially it will make very little impact, if you think it will... please don't.

@Needmorelego my point was child benefit used to be universal. I think it should be universal now, what with the tax cliff edges. I don't understand why benefits were fine for previous generations but not current younger ones who are paying more for less

There is literally nothing the government could have offered me to entice me to have more children than I chose to have regardless of incentives.

Most women feel like that.

@x2boys are you arguing that social housing didn't help support families?

No I'm arguing it isn't a benefit
It was never intended to be.

It’s not surprising. The population post WW2 to the population now is a difference of approximately 20 million people!

@x2boys but I said it supported families....

My mother’s house is three times the size my own and her rent is a third of what a similar house would be on rightmove. Definitely a benefit

Too old now, but no. Two is enough IMO. Just reproducing yourselves and no more.

It's really not
Private landlords can charge what they want as its profit .

@EvangelicalAboutButteredToast but population growth isn't why we have less social housing vs the past?

Well, it certainly isn't a drawback for those who have it.

I don't think everyone should get Child Benefit. A millionare family shouldn't.
But I do believe it should be based on household income not just the higher earner.
Because you get that situation of one parent working who earns £75000 and the family doesn't get it but two parents earning £40000 each (so £80000 total) and they do get it.
That's unfair.

All the evidence point to the cap having made minimal difference to the number of children born. I have 3, would have stopped at 1 were we reliant on state support.

That may be but this is now, it is not a valid argument to continue.

We wanted three kids so had that - but never expect benefit to be as importnat as they turned out to be - so many unexpected twists and turns in life for us post kids.

I think there is some data showing it had a small reduction effect in birth rate -

https://cpag.org.uk/news/has-two-child-limit-affected-how-many-children-families-have

The data shows that the probability of having a third or subsequent child declined by just 0.36 percentage points (or 5 per cent) after the introduction of the two-child limit – equivalent to reducing the number of births by around 5,600 a year.

...

400,000 affected families with three or more children are significantly worse off as a result. Every year about 50,000 children are pushed into poverty as a result of the two-child limit, and a further 150,000 children who are already living in poverty see their circumstances deteriorate further.

Childhood poverty tends to have lifelong impact with health and edcuation levels and it seems policy had less effect on birth rate and more on pushing more kids into poverty.

Nether the government nor MN as a whole are bothered by the decline in the birth rate - and lets be honest house prices and cost of living are more directly linked to birth rates and even they are farily complex relationships.

I was privately renting until a year ago when he evicted me and now I have a mortgage which also costs three times my mother’s houses rent despite being smaller. It’s definitely a benefit in both senses of the word

@Needmorelego is it unfair, the family with only 1 working parent will likely pay less childcare. However I think it should be universal as I said. Even for millionaires, plenty of other benefits are universal & some of those millionaires pay a lot of tax.

Childhood poverty tends to have lifelong impact with health and edcuation levels and it seems policy had less effect on birth rate and more on pushing more kids into poverty.

which is fundamentally wrong, we should not have more dc getting into pushed into poverty. We have huge productivity problem & a big part of this is not investing in our young, they are the future.

@cottonwoolie what always annoys me is the concept of having another child for extra money from the government = bad but using funding (aka money from the government) for childcare from 9 months = good.
All money from the government.

Agree. Means testing saves almost nothing, leaves women vulnerable to financial abuse and is targeting those actually funding it for everyone else. It's illogical

Nether the government nor MN as a whole are bothered by the decline in the birth rate - and lets be honest house prices and cost of living are more directly linked to birth rates and even they are farily complex relationships.

The governments are aware & have tried to implement certain policies but the electorate don't want to hear it. Anyone with a brain knows the triple lock should be paused but no government has the guts.

@Needmorelego I don't have problem
with funded childcare, it's heavily subsided in most European countries. I don't have an issue with scrapping the 2 child cap either, I don't believe the majority have a dc for benefits.

Again child benefit is universal in many countries and often much higher. It's so short sighted not to invest in the young