Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Two Child Limit

705 replies

MobilityCat · 09/07/2021 16:00

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

OP posts:
Viviennemary · 10/07/2021 11:00

There is zero response to these posts because people don't see it as their obligation to support people with large families when they very likely restricted the size of their own due to financial constraints.

RickOShay · 10/07/2021 11:03

But what about the society their two children are growing up in and will have to navigate as adults?

jacks11 · 10/07/2021 11:06

@coulditbecominghome

I have income protection insurance- if I become unable to work due to ill-health then it will pay very close to my monthly salary. I don’t know if widely available to everyone, but most of my colleagues have it too. I also have life insurance.

You can get insurance to cover many situations where your income may change suddenly. Of course, not everyone may be able to easily afford that type of insurance. But again, I had to factor in those costs when deciding what size of family we could afford.

Radio4ordie · 10/07/2021 11:08

@IceCreamAndCandyfloss

I agree that WTC should never have been termed a 'benefit

But it is a benefit so rightly is called one. Even child benefit comes under the benefit list.

It was never really a refund of tax paid as many claimed more a month than they would have ever paid in tax.

The same can be said for people who get various childcare related subsidies but we don’t stigmatise that?!
Radio4ordie · 10/07/2021 11:12

Tax credits are really subsidies for companies to allow them to pay less than it costs to raise a family. In other countries companies bare the full cost of their employees more often with much high minimum wages. The fact we shame people for the fact our government was to offer cheap labour incentives to Amazon and the like is ridiculous.

coulditbecominghome · 10/07/2021 11:18

The same can be said for people who get various childcare related subsidies but we don’t stigmatise that?!

Do we not?

sashh · 10/07/2021 11:20

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.

Because everything pans out as planned.

What if your fourth planned for child arrives with disabilities that put a strain on your marriage and you fins yourself out of work and suddenly a single parent?

coulditbecominghome · 10/07/2021 11:20

Yes, I’d favour more money for healthcare, education, social services etc over paying for people’s choices. We should be encouraging personal responsibility and work ethics rather than allowing people to make choices they can’t afford which others have to fund through taxes whilst many will be limiting their own choices. An equal footing for all.

Surely that's a grey area regarding funding healthcare & social care when highlighting personal responsibility?

ddl1 · 10/07/2021 11:21

people don't see it as their obligation to support people with large families

It's not a question of supporting people with large families. It's a question of supporting the CHILDREN, who had no choice in the matter.

There is little or no evidence that many people are choosing to have large families on the assumption that taxpayers will pick up the tab, or indeed at all. A recent study of women born in 1973 showed that they had on average 1.89 children; that 19% had no children at all; that only about a quarter had three or more children; and only one-tenth had four or more children. Contrary to the stereotype that there are loads of teenagers starting to produce a long line of children, the average age for having a first child was over 30.

ForgedInFire · 10/07/2021 11:24

I find it disgusting that this country makes women prove they were raped to access a benefit. I'm always surprised more people aren't upset about that.

5zeds · 10/07/2021 11:29

The benefit is for the child not the parent. Will we be saying only FSM for the first two children too?Shock.

coulditbecominghome · 10/07/2021 11:30

@jacks11 but again the vast majority of people don't have income protection insurance (it's a tiny %). Many won't be able to afford the premiums & what's covered or not can often depend on your occupation eg office job or heavy machinery. Most people insure themselves for 50% of their salary & many policies do not allow you to claim benefits in addition so there will still be some economic fallout.

rathertakenaback · 10/07/2021 11:31

I have always said that child benefit should be limited to two children, and I'm as far from Tory as you can get. It did used to be abused by a minority. Years ago I worked in housing benefits, and you would see the scenario where a woman had had kids in her teens, never worked, but then suddenly realised when they hit 30 and the kids were growing up that this was coming to an end, so they would have another couple of kids. It was common enough that we used to joke about it. There were never any dads (officially) on the scene either. This pattern would repeat over generations too. The kids were trapped in this lifestyle with no way out, really.
It is a choice and a privilege to have children really. I and my contemporaries managed to limit the number of children we had, mainly so that we could give them a decent lifestyle and opportunities, and never expected to be subsidised along the way.

coulditbecominghome · 10/07/2021 11:31

It's not a question of supporting people with large families. It's a question of supporting the CHILDREN, who had no choice in the matter.

That's how I see it. I don't care if you have 1 or 7, I'm happy to support the child.

IceCreamAndCandyfloss · 10/07/2021 11:33

@Radio4ordie

Tax credits are really subsidies for companies to allow them to pay less than it costs to raise a family. In other countries companies bare the full cost of their employees more often with much high minimum wages. The fact we shame people for the fact our government was to offer cheap labour incentives to Amazon and the like is ridiculous.
I disagree. We have a minimum wage plus employers have no say in people’s lifestyle choices so why should they pay for them? If someone has children, lives in an expensive area, works part time or has a non working partner etc why should employers have to cover the cost?
RickOShay · 10/07/2021 11:33

@rathertakenaback
If you don’t mind me asking what’s your background?
It’s the children who will be affected by this, as you say locked into a spiral of poverty.

TheViewFromTheCheapSeats · 10/07/2021 11:35

So many cite ‘what you can afford’. I can afford three. However if DH had died when they were very young should they have been made to suffer both the loss of their father and a financial fallout probably larger than I could manage? Or if we both got I’ll together, should the children lose out?

TedHastingsweeDonkey · 10/07/2021 11:36

Raising and financing children are the the responsibility of the parents. Nobody else's. The real issue here is maternity leave / pay and the horrendous early year childcare costs.

Radio4ordie · 10/07/2021 11:38

@TedHastingsweeDonkey

Raising and financing children are the the responsibility of the parents. Nobody else's. The real issue here is maternity leave / pay and the horrendous early year childcare costs.
I can’t tell if you’re joking?! Saying children are soley the responsibility of the parents .. oh except for the times when I think it’s okay to subsidise!
Dervel · 10/07/2021 11:42

It isn’t a question of blame it’s a question of responsibility. To realistically bring children into the world one has to be responsible for them, emotionally, physically and yes financially.

I profoundly disagree with the philosophy that success and hardship are simply a matter of relative privilege. I am not making the case that somehow the world is fair (it clearly isn’t!), but this narrative that the poor are only poor thanks to the vicissitudes of fate, and the successful only succeed off the back of unearned privilege is not only flawed it’s actually dangerous.

You contribute to the poverty trap when you push a narrative that people aren’t responsible for their own successes and failures. It’s disempowering and feeds into a sense of powerlessness. It is the left’s own version of sneering at the poor, as if by being victims of an unfair system the poor dears couldn’t possibly be expected to make anything of themselves. I’d challenge that in the strongest possible terms.

That isn’t to say the right does much better, as I find the sometimes callous indifference to those struggling as disgusting as the rest of you. There has to be some sort of healthier middle ground, which I suspect is to be found in pushing to maximise opportunities for social mobility.

I also don’t think the solution is to be found in voting once in an election cycle and signalling your political colours in online debates and doing precious little else. We should be taking better care of one another better on a personal level. If a fellow family at your child’s school is struggling, discretely try to help. Volunteer at a food bank, or donate items if you can.

Between Brexit and Covid, there will be no shortage of people struggling to get back on their feet, so help if you can, and if you need assistance for heaven’s sake feel no shame in asking. I just don’t think government programs of whatever tribe you vote for do much other than make situations worse for somebody somewhere.

coulditbecominghome · 10/07/2021 11:42

We have a minimum wage plus employers have no say in people’s lifestyle choices so why should they pay for them? If someone has children, lives in an expensive area, works part time or has a non working partner etc why should employers have to cover the cost?

Employers aren't covering the cost, tax payers are because wages are so low compared to living costs. But you know this surely...

rathertakenaback · 10/07/2021 11:43

@RickOShay why do you ask?

Belledan1 · 10/07/2021 11:44

I really hope that the majority of the people on here think like me (i know i posted re someone i know earlier) that no one is saying that people should not get tax credits if they become a single parent, lose their job, hours cut etc. I mean more people that decided in the past to have more kids so they do not have to work ie i think its age 5 now isn't it you don't have to look for work, and just went on and have more and more kids. There was no incentive then to go back to work as you got at least £80.00 per week per child. With the cut off of 2 it stopped people doing this.

Belledan1 · 10/07/2021 11:45

Sorry posted too soon but as people said its the kids that suffer.

coulditbecominghome · 10/07/2021 11:46

There has to be some sort of healthier middle ground, which I suspect is to be found in pushing to maximise opportunities for social mobility.

But social mobility is in decline.