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

@Graphista you are talking into a void unfortunately.

@Puffalicious that's utterly heartbreaking to read

I despair that people can read that and STILL support such a shitty, heinous policy that leads to

CHILDREN STARVING!

Shame on all of you

couldit me neither. Otherwise intelligent people are so blinkered. It's the false American dream all over again. Burns had it down pat:

"The best laid plans o mice and men
gang aft alley
An le'e naught but grief and pain for promised joy"

@Essentialironingwater

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.

Saw this picture and it sums up what you're saying

@Foxglovesandlilacs86 then you are extremely FORTUNATE you are not in that position as a result of anything extraordinary that you have done that others have not. You are privileged and yet are begrudging the POOREST children in our society essential support for basics like food - honestly how can you possibly justify that?

But you DO need to have had opportunity to get out of the cycle of poverty/ escape your adverse circumstances. And you need to have been taught the things you list by parents who gave been taught them before you. It's called equity and there is no equity of opportunity in 2021 in this country.

Absolutely!

I don’t think anyone is saying that they want children to suffer

Actually EVERY SINGLE PERSON who is saying they support this decision is saying PRECISELY that

Don't sugar coat, deny or minimise that.

That's literally what you're saying if you support this you're saying you support a policy decision that directly causes CHILD STARVATION

Yes Graphista shame on them all.

Your list of 'luck' is so accurate I want to print it out and stick it on the walls of every poster here who signs up to child poverty. Bastards.

If they saw what I see every day, if they worried every summer holidays about the kids that they won't see every day they might understand why I call them utter bastards. The 'I'm alright attitude' purported by Thatcher is threaded through our society ( sorry, she said there was no such thing as society, the fucking sociopath). I'm proud to live in a society that holds each other up. How long that exists remains to be seen with the Tories in power.

Apologies for the rant and the politics, it's my number one issue that riles me. No-one could witness what I witness and still support this bill.

@Graphista but @Foxglovesandlilacs86 sums up the blind privilege.

"have family support. No mortgage, we own a few successful businesses and have inherited properties that we rent out"

So basically benefited from family but think children who don't have that opportunity should suffer.

My parents did very well for themselves & have been able to help me. However they were both immigrants & it was drummed into my head how fortunate I was.

@Puffalicious I work in education & I also see the reality.

Thought you might couldit. Solidarity.

You can scream and stamp all you like but you are convincing very few people. And you are confusing "not seeing the reality" with "not thinking this is a good solution to the problem".

Dreadful policy, the ones that suffer from it most will be the children.
Some families will have more than 2 children, be paying their way quite happily but if there was a change of circumstances such as parents develop ill health or lose their jobs they will be penalised.
I didn't know about appeal but its very sad they lost.

@Puffalicious the crazy thing is how some fall for it. The divide & conquer. In reality this won't save any money & they will be going after the next group soon.

There are already discussions about raising the age of free prescriptions to state pension age. I don't expect to see either when I'm old!

@Whatinthelord

Starting to feel decidedly ‘Daily Mail’ in here.

I thought family size reduced inline with increases in education, wealth and access to healthcare?
Poorer, less educated populations tend to have larger families. So, from that stand point, wouldn’t it be better for people concerned about overpopulation to support better benefits, better access to healthcare and education?

…but na….let’s take a few quid of the families of vulnerable children instead.

YESSS what a logical comment thanks @Whatinthelord

If people can't afford to have children and support them on their wages why should the government pay for extra children??

Some people have 7,8,9+ kids it's a ridiculous idea to pay for them all there needs to be a cut off I think it's quite reasonable but I also think it shouldn't have been for new claims it should have been for people already in the system as it isn't fair to pay for some families with 3 or more kids and not others

They need to be consistent with their approach

Very little sympathy OP from taxpayers.

@worktrip

Very little sympathy OP from taxpayers.

The thing is, the tax payer has been conned into believing this is saving them money.

It doesn't. The tax payer just spends more on things like children's social care, and then further down the line will need to invest in MH services and crime. As child poverty will cause a crisis in this area further down the line.

It is overall a good thing if people have less children. I happened upon a world population site. The increase is terrifying. No way should anybody be encouraging more children.

@BarbarianMum

You can scream and stamp all you like but you are convincing very few people. And you are confusing "not seeing the reality" with "not thinking this is a good solution to the problem".

There's no screaming or stamping, just open discussion. I don't wish to be patronised, least of all by a Tory. If you know the reality what is your solution then? It needs systematic change and investment, but I don't see the right suggesting any of that. As PP have said, can we start with PROPER taxing of big business?

“Actually EVERY SINGLE PERSON who is saying they support this decision is saying PRECISELY that “

No, I think that are saying they want people to take responsibility for their family size, and not to have more children if they can’t afford them/expect others to pay for them.

As cited on this and other similar threads, many working parents stop at one or two children due to financial reasons.

What is the solution?

Say if infinite amounts of children were covered by the state; there would be nothing stopping some having more and more. If you work and can’t afford more children so you have no choice to stop having them.. what barrier is there for ones who don’t work and can’t afford more children?

And don’t respond with starving children.., even in caps, I get it nobody wants to let children starve obviously

What exactly does the government do?

The tax payer just spends more on things like children's social care, and then further down the line will need to invest in MH services and crime. As child poverty will cause a crisis in this area further down the line

Hallelujah. Someone with a holistic view. Like the Danish government who invested heavily in early years care 30 years ago: it's now paying for itself AND creating funds as they have a huge reduction in the bill for social work intervention, care, MH, crime and benefits.

Aged 16 I had a child (this was many moons ago). I was young single mum and on benefits.

When my child was 2yrs old I was funded to go back to college. Books, travel, food and childcare all paid for. It changed my life chances. Straight after college I was working, degree and post grad later I'm still working in a well paid job.

2 years of support = 30 years of paying tax.

I'm not saying this would work for everyone but you either spend time and money on groups providing real help.. or you fund them for a life time.

Very little sympathy OP from taxpayers

You realise, of course, that by far the majority of people who claim benefits are also tax payers?