How do we know the extra welfare payments for multiple children will be spent on the children .

[hattie43]

A genuine question really . I don’t begrudge the children and I’ll save my irk for the parents but how do we know the extra money will be used to support the children in the right way giving them a better start and turning them into these honerable citizens. It worries me that the kids with feckless parents are going to be given much more money but the parents spend it on themselves not the kids . Just because these parents have more money doesn’t mean they’ll use it responsibly or change the attitudes they may pass down .

If billionaires and corporations were forced to pay enough tax we could do both. That's the real victory of the right - convince everyone there's a small pot of money to squabble over.

unlikely . Theres lots of families where beige and fast food is the preferred diet nothing to do with cost.

We never know. That's always been the case.

As a secondary school teacher, I was involved in situations where we'd report neglect to social services and damn all was done about it. An example would be the family where the children were clearly underfed and the parents were smokers with beer bellies.

Unless social services are prepared to intervene, nothing will be done. We can't react by withdrawing benefits for fear that the money is misspent. We can only put in place firmer reactions to neglect when we see it. That is, remove the children to a place of safety and the parents' child-related benefits will automatically be withdrawn.

The issue is that SS persists in saying that the best place for the child is with the family. At least, that was the case in the LA where I worked. Its child protection record is abysmal.

To be fair, they're not exactly showing responsibility in the first place by having more children than they can afford.

What countries have cancelled school holidays and run schools 6-7 days a week? Presumably that would mean increased staff pay and an increase of staff.

As someone once pointed out to me, life can come along and kick you in the teeth. Any one of us can finish up in a position where illness and/or redundancy causes a sudden drop in income.

I'm okay, but I expected to be comfortably off at this time in my life. I didn't expect that I would discover (too late) that some work on the house hadn't been done properly or that my husband would have a stroke which eventually caused me to retire before I was ready, thus causing a dramatic drop in my income.

You can't. But what you absolutely do know is it wasn't being spent on them when they didn't get it.

Ahh, the old ‘if you can’t afford to feed/clothe them, don’t have children’ bullshit.

The benefit cap often hits those who become lone parents, having been in relationships where they had no need for benefits. Then the relationship breaks down and suddenly they need help from welfare, they have three (or more) children, and the system only helps them provide for two. We are not talking about families that don’t work and ‘breed constantly’ or what ever revolting description you want to use, we are talking about the majority who work, support their families and due to relationship breakdown, or illness and loss of income, find themselves unable to provide for them. Remember that the vast majority of families in receipt of benefits are working, not sitting at home all day watching Jeremy Kyle on 52” televisions like the Daily Mail would like you to believe.

@MarvellousMonstersbur aren’t only a minority of UC claimants in work? Only 38% are in any type of employment. And the work requirements are just 16 hours equivalent of minimum wage

Less than 40%’are in work.

We were looking for a 25 hour per week person recently. We did have a few applications from people wanting 16 hrs which isn’t enough. Is 16 hours per week still a trigger for benefits.

You're the one spouting bullshit I'm afraid.

As of May 2025, approximately 34% of Universal Credit (UC) claimants in the UK are in work, which represents 2.7 million people. This proportion has remained relatively stable since January 2024, when it was 38%.

A lot of them will also be pensioners and disabled people, those requiring temporary help after redundancy or long term illness like cancer.

Not just parents who seem fair game in your bashing.

Yes I think so, you only need to earn £932 a month as an individual, or £1534 between a couple. So very part time, especially the couple one as that’s not even close to one full time job between them

But pension credit is not counted in the universal credit numbers. Universal credit is working age

We have 4.3 million children living in poverty and unfortunately living in a larger family makes it more likely!

This is correct. Me and DH have 4 children, he works full time, I work part time and we have a small universal credit top up. We pay tax. If the cost of living wasn't horrendously expensive we would be able to live on our wages alone. We have survived so far without any money for our 3rd and 4th dc.

This. You can't whine about the falling birth rate & then make it virtually impossible for people to have kids, it makes no sense.
Anyway, in my child bearing days, you would have had to offer me a great deal more than the current benefit to persuade me to have a third pregnancy!

Who is whining about a falling birth rate? Very universally considered a good thing.
I think it is talked about only in economic terms as something to think about.
No one wants more humans.

Nearly 60% of families affected by the two child limit are in work, which is the more relevant figure given that’s the policy we are talking about.

I think it's more like 60 % of family this will affect has the father in work. There are at home lone single mothers on UC, and there are at home mothers with a partner who works, and everyone in this instance claims UC. So I don't see the point woman to woman distinguishing which family works and gets UC, and which doesn't

ASDA and the like sell new clothes. If your child's uniform is in a local charity shop you need cash to buy it, vouchers don't work.

Vouchers don't work on the bus either.

A £10 ASDA voucher might buy some uniform but selling the voucher for £5 means you can buy from the charity shop and not need the bus.

@sashh there was a news story I read online yesterday and the free breakfast scheme that had a photo of some food and a group of the children (primary school).
The uniform was one of those ones that had a "kilt" style skirt etc. Clearly not a uniform that could be bought at the supermarket apart from probably the shirts.
It really pissed me off because if parents didn't have to be buying that uniform we (society) might not need schemes such as free breakfasts because parents would actually have the money to buy food - instead of a stupid skirt.

Tbf, without tax payers people relying on benefits would be stuffed.

So would most tax payers! It pays for much more than benefits of course. It's just many people think that they are better than those on benefits, a moral high ground if you will.

ETA i don't claim benefits but I would be screwed without the NHS, state schools for my children etc etc. I am still a net receiver as the vast majority of tax payers are, regardless of whether they claim benefits.