Two Child Limit

[MobilityCat]

Will you be affected? Campaigners have lost their legal challenge to the government's two-child limit on welfare payments.
They had argued the policy breached parents' and children's human rights. The Supreme Court dismissed their case.
The rule, which came into force in April 2017, restricts child tax credit and universal credit to the first two children in a family, with a few exceptions.
It was one of George Osborne's most debated austerity measures.
The policy has affected families of about one million children. Campaigners described the decision as "hugely disappointing".
Full story here www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57776103

I think the decision was correct. Paying for two is already very generous on top of schooling, healthcare etc.
People are free to have as many children, they just have to ensure they can afford their choices.. Supporting children financially is a parenting basic.

No one is stopping people to have more (though 2 is really more than people need). Not providing benefits for more isn't against human rights

I’ve already been affected, dd was born once month after the cut off. Didn’t realise there was any campaign tbh

Which newspaper are you writing for? Your post reads exactly like a tout for opinions for the press.

FWIW nobody is going to be affected, because the 2 child limit was already in force, so it’s not going to be a case of people suddenly losing out, they just won’t be getting what they already didn’t have.

I think the ruling is correct. People are free to have as many children as they want, it’s not up to the state to pay for them. If you can’t afford to have more than 2 children, without child benefit, then you don’t have more than 2 children, it ain’t that hard.

nobody should be having children they can’t afford.

I think the first shitty thing they did was redefine working tax credits as a benefit.

Having more and more children did become the career choice of some women and I think it was really problematic for everyone. So I did support it at the time and still do.

Wasn't aware it was being challenged, glad it has been rejected though. Nothing stopping you having as many kids as you want, just don't expect the state to be obligated to help fund that lifestyle choice for you, a bit shit for the kids as it isn't their choice to be born into that, but unfortunately a line has to be drawn somewhere.

I think if you want to have a bigger family you need to pay for it yourself.

It's a tough one. I do think it's irresponsible to have children that you can't afford to support. I also think there are strong environmental arguments for encouraging people to have fewer children.

However, it isn't quite as simple as that, is it? Some people will accidentally get pregnant and not wish to terminate the pregnancy. Some people will experience a change in circumstances through illness, disability or redundancy etc that mean they are no longer able to afford the family that they had planned. Sadly, some women will get pregnant as the result of rape. Not everyone's lives are perfectly planned. And none of it is the fault of the innocent children who did not ask to be born and who do not deserve to grow up in poverty... even if their parents are feckless and irresponsible.

It is inhumane to deny support to children who really need it, whatever has caused that need.

I’d like payments (worldwide!) to encourage couples to have fewer children.

Well, total fertility rate is 1.6 and in a free fall. Roughly only 18% of women (down from 25% before the introduction of the limit) go on to have a third or more, so it's a bit of a moot point for majority of the people. Especially when you consider that almost half of women who had a birth of third order or more since then fall in the category where they, or their partner, earn over the child benefit limit.

On the side note, I work in a place looking at numbers like these, so I'm not pulling the stats out of thin air.

Contraceptive is free..

Some people will accidentally get pregnant and not wish to terminate the pregnancy. Some people will experience a change in circumstances through illness, disability or redundancy etc that mean they are no longer able to afford the family that they had planned

Contraception is free and methods can be used together so there’s really no need to be “accidentally” pregnant if a person doesn’t want to be. Yes job losses etc can happen but it’s not hard to think I can afford x now but could only afford x if I wasn’t working and make a decision that’s financially sound if things change. Or have good insurance in place or savings.

The world is already hugely over populated, we shouldn't be paying anyone to have children IMO.

Its tricky because as a single parent i have massive barriers to getting back to work so its not just a case of get a job have more kids by the time you have had one your screwed my holiday childcare wiped out my wages so for 10 weeks of the year I earn less than nothing the 85% childcare paid by the government is actually UP TO 85 % this is apparently decided at random us of course you have to pay it before they pay back AND you need to upload the right invoices at the right time in the right order this will not be explained to you until you do it wrong and lose money

I can see why they have done it I could almost agree with it if getting and keeping a job was easier than giving birth to a spiky football

My SD s husband turned to drugs during lockdown and abandoned her and their three children. Maybe there should be special circumstances.

It's fine. It's not actually a human right to have more children than you can afford to feed and clothe.

I have one child because I can only afford one. If you want to have tons of kids no one is stopping you. But it’s your responsibility to provide for them. I’m as left as you can get, but even I don’t agree with the state paying for multiple children.

While I broadly agree with this ( and have always thought there should be a cap on how many children you can claim for.
,
There are complications ;
What happens with multiple births , if your 1st pregnancy = twins fine claim for both but what happens if your second pregnancy is twins / triplets can you claim for both / all

What happens if your DC dies either very early on ( days / weeks ) or a bit later ( 5/10 ) or just before they are no longer young enough to claim for ( 16 ?? )
If you go on to have a third child after the one child has died can you still claim ? can you only claim what is 'left over' sorry not a nice term but I can think of another way of putting it , from the deceased childs allowance

First off, people that see this as the government restricting the number of children cannhavevis incorrect, they're just not going to publicly fund more than two.

Some people have seen having lots a children as a career choice, so this has stopped it.

Surely if you're reliant in benefits, then having more children is not the answer. We all know how expensive having children is.

Therefore I'm.gjad it was ruled in this way

@Lagomtransplant

Well, total fertility rate is 1.6 and in a free fall. Roughly only 18% of women (down from 25% before the introduction of the limit) go on to have a third or more, so it's a bit of a moot point for majority of the people. Especially when you consider that almost half of women who had a birth of third order or more since then fall in the category where they, or their partner, earn over the child benefit limit.

On the side note, I work in a place looking at numbers like these, so I'm not pulling the stats out of thin air.

I find this fascinating because when you read MN, it genuinely sometimes sounds like it's 18% with less than two.

Not on any benefits, not even child benefit as we are very fortunate, but I feel for those who fall pregnant accidentally and can't terminate due to religious or other reasons, are in abusive marriages or whose circumstances change. Ultimately I think it's the children who will suffer and it saddens me. Whether or not having many children is responsible, once they are here I believe we should be ensuring they're all safe and provided for. I shudder at the Dickensian direction we are going in.

I feel like we should be going after tax dodging corporations before we start hitting welfare. Most of the welfare bill is actually pensions I believe, but I guess they won't means test that anytime soon given the voting power that holds.

@Whammyyammy

First off, people that see this as the government restricting the number of children cannhavevis incorrect, they're just not going to publicly fund more than two.

Some people have seen having lots a children as a career choice, so this has stopped it.

Surely if you're reliant in benefits, then having more children is not the answer. We all know how expensive having children is.

Therefore I'm.gjad it was ruled in this way

Universal credit is an in work benefit your argument effectively supports the proposition that poor people shouldn't breed

I'm hoping that's not quite how you meant it

once they are here I believe we should be ensuring they're all safe and provided for

Yes their parents should be ensuring that, be it taking any job, second job etc.

@AlternativePerspective

Which newspaper are you writing for? Your post reads exactly like a tout for opinions for the press.

FWIW nobody is going to be affected, because the 2 child limit was already in force, so it’s not going to be a case of people suddenly losing out, they just won’t be getting what they already didn’t have.

I think the ruling is correct. People are free to have as many children as they want, it’s not up to the state to pay for them. If you can’t afford to have more than 2 children, without child benefit, then you don’t have more than 2 children, it ain’t that hard.

nobody should be having children they can’t afford.

I'm not a journalist, I'm a humanist and retireed teacher