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

every poster here who signs up to child poverty. Bastards.

Yet none of them has the true guts to admit it!

but @Foxglovesandlilacs86 sums up the blind privilege

Well exactly!

You were raised right!

@BarbarianMum I don't think we're "confused" at all! We just aren't advocating starving children - which ANYONE supporting or not being against this bill IS!

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

@Standrewsschool I heartily disagree - there's a LOT of "I'm alright Jack" on this thread - and I'm afraid a lot of it is coming from people who may well find...

A - they'll be the ones needing this support in the future

And/or

B - they will be the next target of govt "saving"

That woman on question time had happily voted Tory - inc voting for benefits cuts - while she thought it wouldn't affect her! Then when it did she was angry and distressed and scared for her and her family's future - so similar posters here really need to think on

nobody wants to let children starve

I disagree the more extreme posters here do, and I am certain that this govt doesn't gaf about poor kids until it becomes a potential vote loser for them! Like when a footy player shames them

What is the solution?

How about we start with compassion? With fairness?

How about we start with the costs of mps beyond what they actually need to do the job - pretty sure we can save several billion by stopping expenses, 2nd homes, top class transport, then paying salaries to their wives and kids...

Then how about clamping down on tax evasion

And tax avoidance

On corporate fraud

Stop "spaffing" money on vanity projects and ill thought out and poorly costed policies

Make employers pay an actual living wage so that those in work aren't needing top ups - that would free up a fair amount of money

Stop pissing away money on "paper shuffling" ie "reforms" of things like education that aren't actually necessary

Address the housing crisis and bring housing costs (the main cost for most households) down. Ban mps from being landlords and property developers while sitting as mps - it's a conflict of interest and when you examine voting records mps with these interests almost always vote against anything that makes housing regs more fair, safe, secure and affordable

Address the issue of energy, water and telecom companies charging extortionate amounts and being headquartered overseas and therefore taking their profits within the Uk but paying sod all taxes and not paying to fix when they fuck up either but leaving govt to clean up their messes

Just for starters...

The money IS there it's the political and ideological will - and basic human compassion and empathy that isn't

@coulditbecominghome

No they're not.

Err @OverTheRubicon plenty of countries do incentivise.

Yes, they are starting to incentivise, but no, they're not going to be in a mess if they don't. Far more likely that they'll be in a mess if they do - with China allowing more children, and birth rates in many of the poorest and most climate change affected parts of the world continuing high, there will be no lack of young people. At the same time, jobs are being automated and outsourced at an astonishing rate - so far it's mostly hit the less skilled, who have often been a bit sneered at by the same people in white collar and higher paid jobs who are about to see their own roles, from accountants to actuaries to radiologists, also increasingly automated away and partially outsourced (and in all those cases, it's already happening).

So if countries are incentivising people to have children, they're essentially saying that they distrust immigrants and technology so much that they'd rather see the world burn. That's pretty awful.

I think it is reasonable to have a policy that state supports two children (as far as I’m aware if the second pregnancy is twin/triplet then they are exempt). You can chose to have 1 or 20 children, nobody is stopping you, but the state will only give you benefits for 2. So, you must cut your cloth according to your means. If you can only afford to house, feed and clothe etc 2 children, then 1 or 2 is what you have. It’s called being a responsible adult and parent.

I am not in receipt of benefits. I earn £x per year. My wages do not go up if i have another child, nobody is going to come along and give me a bigger home. When we were deciding to have children, we had to look at what kind of lifestyle we wanted, how that fitted into how many children we could feasibly support and maintain that, or whether we wanted a larger family but with fewer luxuries.

The same should be true of those reliant solely on benefits and those on lower incomes who get additional benefits. Why on earth shouldn’t they be expected to match the size of their family to their ability to support them? Why are they allowed to behave irresponsibly by having more children than they can afford, in the expectation that the state will pick up the tab?

I think that the 2 child rule is about right. The world environment cannot sustain massive population expansion. Even without extra child benefit, extra children are very expensive for the State to support. Extra births, education and a life time of health provision to be found. Then there are jobs training and jobs to find and/or State provision if jobs can't be found or are low paid. Each extra child will also have children, impacting on the world environment resources. How can this be sustained?

We had an only child because we couldn't afford more when we were on low wages and before there were working tax credits ext. We had a choice of low paid employment or Unemployment Benefit. No top ups for low paid workers. We chose the low paid employment. We chose to have the one child although we would have liked more. I often wonder if it would have been a better choice to see how we would have managed with more on the low wages without top ups even for up to two but we made the choices we did at the time. Now there is the possibility for top ups to wages for the first two but no more people have to make their own choices too ...stop at two or have more but without the extra support. Different times. Hard choices either way.

Yes, they are starting to incentivise, but no, they're not going to be in a mess if they don't.

Starting? Some have being doing it for years. Why do you think so many are doing it then if it's a disaster?

It's not necessarily a question of distrusting immigrants. Developing countries tend to have younger populations & faster growing economies, those young people may not want to move.

Why is overpopulation always framed around children. Why not question the the idea of keeping people alive as long as possible?

Your post does not present an actual question to vote on for yabu/yanbu.

@IceCreamAndCandyfloss

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.

Contraception does fail.

Some (too many) women are in abusive relationships in which they are repeatedly raped.

People's circumstances do change in ways they can't imagine.

@coulditbecominghome

It was actually Family Allowance and, no, you didn't get it for the first child

Again it depends when you were born.

My parents definitely got it for their first & it wasn't means tested.

Well obviously it depends on when you were born. As I said (twice) my parents didn't get it for me

@lynsey91 You're back, can I please have the name of the insurance company you use?

@Puffalicious

Exactly OP. I work in a school with a high percentage of school meal entitlement- I know for sure a huge amount of these kids only get that one hot meal a day. Our dinner ladies know the kids who seem hungry to give a bit more to. The sheer amount of kids who sign up for after school activities/ supported study because there are snacks is unreal. The kids who turn up super early and stay super late because they don't want to go home is increasing. Food banks in the area are bursting with need. There's constant shout outs on social media for school shoes/ school trainers. The amount who come to school in the winter from freezing houses and with no coat is shocking (we provide what we can). I'm at the chalk face every day. This is poverty. It needs systematic change and investment not the cutting of benefits.

The chat of those so privileged they cannot see this makes me so sad. Walk a week in the (split) shoes of these children and come back and tell me about privilege.

Children in school will be at least 5 which means they were born before the cap even came in.

Are you saying that every single one of those children who only get the one hot meal a day, live in freezing houses, have no shoes etc have younger brothers or sisters that were born after the cap? I doubt that very much.

Oh & the people who got CB or the equivalent when it wasn't means tested are they still considered scroungers by you or is only those who currently get CB that are scroungers?

[quote coulditbecominghome]@lynsey91 You're back, can I please have the name of the insurance company you use? [/quote]
Oh you are still droning on are you? I don't use an insurance company because I was sensible enough not to have children. Get it now?

But you stated that insurance would mitigate any financial impact if a parent died or become ill if you stuck to 2 kids?

And yet you have no experience of said insurance or any insurance?

Glad we both agree you don't know what you're talking about 👍🏼

The same should be true of those reliant solely on benefits and those on lower incomes who get additional benefits. Why on earth shouldn’t they be expected to match the size of their family to their ability to support them? Why are they allowed to behave irresponsibly by having more children than they can afford, in the expectation that the state will pick up the tab?

Erm,,,you know that people fall on hard times? Have children they can afford and then something goes wrong?

2 is enough.
Contraception is pretty much free.
People need to start taking responsibility for their own actions.
Why should the state pay for more than 2 kids?

Why should the state pay for more than 2 kids?

Because innocent children should not be expected to suffer, even if their parents have been feckless or irresponsible.

Why don't people understand that, while some families might stop at two because of this policy, there will be many more who do not, for a whole range of different reasons. And once those children are here, it matters not a jot whether or not their parents are "deserving". What matters is the welfare of the child, surely?

Do people really think it's OK in a civilised society for us to turn a blind eye to children living in such extreme poverty that their parents can't afford to heat the house or put food on the table? What have we come to if we have stopped caring about this?

The whole system is a joke tbh - I have three kids, a ds and twin dds. I don't get wtc but it's not like I planned three children. I had a son and then twins which were a complete surprise. Same for CB why is it fair that two people in the same household can earn £49k each and still get CB but one earner above and it's stopped.

I still know people with 6 kids and still having more, they never worked a day in their lives and never intend to and play the system very well, they bloody joke about how cushy life is. That's who should be targeted, not those who are trying to make ends meet.

lynsey91 I'm not saying that-
many will have very young siblings, but not all- . What I am also saying is that I see terrible poverty and this cap is just one example of how things will be made even worse for some children.. I'm saying that holistically poverty is a complex issue and needs looking at very carefully by the best, non-political brains there are. We need solutions, proper, human solutions. I don't think a cap.is that solution. Like I've said, investment and systematic change is the solution. The money is there if we close the massive tax loops for big business.

[quote FTEngineerM]@RocksOnTheHill there’s way more available that the pill or coil. You can combine methods such as cycle tracking (avoiding fertile days entirely) and condoms/femidoms, ring and condoms, cap and condoms.

Or cycle track (avoiding fertile days entirely) and use condoms and a vagina ring or cap or something and that is a triple whammy.

If someone took all those precautions and still found themselves pregnant and didn’t want to be abortions are free too if they wanted one. We are lucky in this country.[/quote]
And there’s always vasectomy or sterilisation. I know even they aren’t 100%, but as close as is possible to be.

@coulditbecominghome

But you stated that insurance would mitigate any financial impact if a parent died or become ill if you stuck to 2 kids?

And yet you have no experience of said insurance or any insurance?

Glad we both agree you don't know what you're talking about 👍🏼

Other posters talked about having insurance in place in case circumstances changed. One poster has even said who her insurance is with.

To gaily have child after child and have no idea what you would do if you lost your job etc is just bloody stupid.

Why do people keep banging on about life insurance and critical illness cover. I am fortunate enough to be able to have these in place, but a lot of people simply cannot afford such luxuries as they need every last penny to pay for their day to day needs. Are people really so unaware of how a large section of the population lives?

Just wondering how things work when a woman has children from successive relationships. Am I right in thinking that if a woman had two children with one man, they split up and she has a third with a new partner, that she is not eligible for benefit for that child?

It's ok to admit you're wrong or you don't understand.

Yes it is prudent to have insurance, no one has stated otherwise.

The issue is the idea that insurance will completely mitigate the financial impact of a parent becoming incapacitated, which the poster you mentioned also disagreed with.

As I already mentioned upthread. It is often difficult to get critical illness cover for certain cancers, losing a limb, hereditary or pre existing conditions, etc. You would know this if you had ever had a policy yourself.

And many insurances are a benefit of work eg private health or death in service which not every employee is eligible for.

I agree that WTC should never have been termed a 'benefit'.
That said - I'm on them and have 3 kids; only the first two are on the claim. I think that's probably fair enough. Those who claim for five, six, seven kids are very much in 'taking the puss' territory'.

@AlexaShutUp they read it in the Fail so it must be true 🤦🏻‍♀️