to wonder when the 2 child benefit/tax credit cap is being introduced?

[lookingupathestars]

I thought the government were going to limit child benefits and child tax credits so that they would only be paid for the first 2 children. When is this going to happen? I am sure I read about it not long ago.

am interested too

As far as I am aware, no policy has yet been decided.

i think the current potential policy undser ciscussion is to come up with a 2 tier system for long term unemployed and short term.

i can imagine the long term unemployed bring limited to 2 and the short term having no limit beyond current 26k cap.

I don't think there are any plans for this yet, it's just an idea that they have floated to see what the response would be.

whats the 26k cap

I thought it was only proposed, and that it was 3 children?

If they bring it in, will people who already have 3+ children lose even more money than they already have? Or will it only affect future children? I ask because me and a friend were discussing it ages ago, and she didn't believe it would happen (she also denied the current cap would happen, and still says the bedroom tax doesn't exist) she reckons if it does, people who already have 3+ children won't be affected, as 'that won't be fair'

No policy as yet but I suspect it's only a matter of time, and if introduced sensibly (ie not penalising children already born and not penalising women who have naturally conceived multiple pregnancies) then it's an eminently sensible proposal.

I don't think there is an official policy - possibly it's been dropped?

26k is the recently introduced cap on total benefits. but i have not read your op properly....

It was a suggestion that is all and no plans to introduce it. The objectives for it will be covered with the 26k cap.

Jacks - not true at all. Most of the people affected by the £26k cap are people in private rentals (many with less than 3 kids) or those with none living in London because of the cost of housing.

There are lots of families with 3 or more kids in social housing who are not affected by the cap at all (even in London).

The suggestion was following the philpotts trial because it was thought obscene the amount of money they were getting. That issue is dealt with by the 26k cap. Personally I thought the suggestion at the time was appalling as it was trying to make political gains out of a tragedy. It was never made for any other reason than stigmatising larger families who are seen as benefit scroungers.

I agree attaching it to a specific tragedy was distasteful. But taking the issue as an entity in itself, many people believe its entirely justified and sensible. There are finite resources and this would be a sensible approach- with the proviso of course that it would not apply to existing children or natural multiple pregnancies.

I recently read a statistic that the average number of children in a family claiming benefits was no different to the national average children so despite what the Daily Mail says there are not hundreds if families breeding like rabbits in order to get 100k in benefits and a 18 bedroom council house.

Yes there are a few families that are but the majority aren't.

sweetkitty then it won't affect many people, so is not an issue then?

Not coming in yet but keeping a close eye as yet again people with multiples are screwed.

Applied to future children not yet born then it seems ok to me. I would not like to see children currently born penalised though so no retrospective impositions. As far as I know though there are no plans at all to intro any policy of the type mentioned by OP.

caroldecker - why have a policy at all then if its affecting hardly anyone? Or is it just all for show to get tough on the benefit scroungers

What if you are made redundant and have 5 children? Do you not get anything for them or is it just if you have another child whilst on benefits?

Again it will be another rushed not thought out, unfair policy

I think it is a sensible idea and it sound like they are aiming it at the 1st children, in future, born while the parent(s) are not working and in receipt of full benefits. I would hazard a guess that it means the following:

1. the 1st 2 live births (singular or multiple) while parent(s) are out of work and in receipt of benefits.

1. any babies born after a live multiple pregnancy and birth, will not receive any extra benefit money for that child/children.

1. all children born before the date the legislation come into force, will be provided for if parent(s) are out of work.

1. children born while the parent(s) are in work, then made redundant, and are in receipt of full benefits, will be provided for.

I think that's roughly what it's trying to get across, but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong

'will be provided for'
wtf?
Oh no, small child, sorry, you have to starve I'm afraid.

This was an idea that hit the headlines a few months ago IDS was the one who was spouting off about it being the answer to all the Governments financial/benefit bill problems.

His 2 child policy was to limit all benefits to 2 children per family group, at some point he bandied about 2015 as a start date and said that it would only effect children born after its introduction.

However, this is not official policy, hasn't even been debated yet and IDS has gone very quiet on the matter which isn't a shock as the tories are imploding at the moment. Keep an eye out as I suspect it will rear its ugly head again very soon.

Chiggers they simply cant do it that way. If you pay benefits for one family with 5 children because dad was made redundant then you have you have to pay to all who are classed as job seekers or say put a time limit on it of 12 months so if you don't find a job in that time benefit is cut.

IDS was lashing out at a benefit culture that doesn't really exist in any great number, yes there are some but the cap will affect them.