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

The average household size in the UK is 2.4 that's adults and children. I think the 2 child limit on benefits is just reflecting society as a whole.

We should be grateful for having a welfare state, not knocking it at every opportunity.

(Taken from: www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/families/bulletins/familiesandhouseholds/2020)

average household size is not the same as family size.

Characteristic
Number of households (in 1,000s)
Couple with no children
8,055
Couple with 1-2 dependent children
5,256
One person household (under 65)
4,196
One person household (65 or over)
3,702
Couple with non-dependent children only
1,861
Lone parent with dependent children
1,667
Lone parent with non-dependent children only
1,059
Couple with 3 or more dependent children
936

There are not millions of people having 5,6,7 kids or even 3.

@coulditbecominghome are you suggesting that every single job should pay enough to cover anyone’s life choices at all?

Anyone with arms can stack a shelf, the level of investment into a person to stack a shelf is minimal. It simply cannot achieve the same level of remuneration as a role that requires years of education, professional training and continued development.

The limit is because as always there are 2 types of people. Those that are responsible and live within their means, have the children they can afford. And those that do as they wish and expect everyone else to pay for it, including children.

@coulditbecominghome agreed it is in decline and that is very concerning.

You can all bang on about personal responsibility and "why should I have to fund other people's poor choices?" but the question is: what kind of society do you want to live in?

If you want to live in an improved society with social mobility, low crime, less poverty, lower teen pregnancy, etc, etc then we know (because evidence in other countries shows it) that higher taxes and increased state support (for poor families, for education, for health) is what creates a better, fairer, well functioning society and economy.

So by all means support punitive policies that punish individuals and their children for either bad luck or bad decisions, but don't take the high ground that this is somehow going to change things for the better - it makes society worse for all of us.

@FTEngineerM where have I suggested that? I think employees should pay fair wages which is not the same thing.

@PurpleMustang

The limit is because as always there are 2 types of people. Those that are responsible and live within their means, have the children they can afford. And those that do as they wish and expect everyone else to pay for it, including children.

There’s a third kind. Those who are in a more than adequate position to finance their family when they’re born and then life happens - death, disabling injury or health condition, divorce - and their circumstances change. Presumably it’s all their own fault though because they didn’t buy a fully functioning crystal ball.

& big businesses should pay the correct taxes.

@coulditbecominghome

& big businesses should pay the correct taxes.

If you know of a business not apying correct taxes, you can report them to hmrc

@Thanks @KiwiDramaQueen. That’s exactly the point I’ve been trying to make.
Children growing up in poverty affects all of us. If you can’t find it in your heart to have empathy for these kids, then maybe think about that.

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

So what happens to the children who are born and their parents can't afford to support them? Do they starve? Do they go barefoot? IF you are so sure that they should not be supported by the public purse, what is your answer for those kids?

This isn't an abstract hypothetical, those children are real.

@Dervel & because it is in decline unfortunately I think the family you are born into is more important than ever in terms of escaping poverty.

@SchrodingersImmigrant ha, I soon as I wrote that I knew someone would say that.

Ideally global policies would ensure big companies can not take advantage of all the tax breaks to vastly reduce their tax bill.

If you want to live in an improved society with social mobility, low crime, less poverty, lower teen pregnancy, etc, etc then we know (because evidence in other countries shows it) that higher taxes and increased state support (for poor families, for education, for health) is what creates a better, fairer, well functioning society and economy.

Exactly!!!

A better, fairer society is better for my dc too.

@AlexaShutUp

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.

This.

[quote coulditbecominghome]@SchrodingersImmigrant ha, I soon as I wrote that I knew someone would say that.

Ideally global policies would ensure big companies can not take advantage of all the tax breaks to vastly reduce their tax bill. [/quote]
Exactly. It's not business. It's the law which needs to change. No one sane would pay lot extra on taxes if they don't have to. Never heard anyone moan about people taking whatever they are allowed off their taxes 😁
Law should change, but that's probably just a wishful thinking considering the power the businesses have

There was a G7 global tax policy initiative but I've not read enough about it.

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

Living costs are directly related to life choices.
Whether I live in a new/old property.
Whether I live in rented or purchased.
Whether I have the latest tech or repair old.
Whether I cook from scratch or buy ready made.
Whether I make an effort to switch suppliers/insurance products every year or sit and accept what they offer.
Whether I have one, two or more children.
Whether I chose to prioritise a holiday or paid for TV packages.
Whether I have a lease car or bought a banger and keep it running.
Whether I chose to educate myself or not.
Whether I chose to use contraceptive until in a position to take care of a child.

All small choices made that ultimately get packaged in ‘living costs’. I was just surprised that you’d think it’s my employers responsibility to pay me enough to match ‘living costs’.

Oops, sorry should have tagged you again @coulditbecominghome

I love the comments about "only have children if you can afford them" does that include taking into account if you are left a single parent before you think of having children? The whole point of the original case is that a majority of the time it's the women left "holding the baby" while men are free to go on, reproduce as much as they like whilst benefitting from reducing their cm payments the more dependents they have

@PurpleMustang

The limit is because as always there are 2 types of people. Those that are responsible and live within their means, have the children they can afford. And those that do as they wish and expect everyone else to pay for it, including children.

I agree to some extent and we've had generous welfare with CB for all dc so why hasn't that fair society been shaped already

I will never understand the opinion some people have that children should suffer and live in poverty because their parents have been ‘Irresponsible’. I can’t begin to imagine that children going hungry or having no heating in the depths of winter is ok because their parents shouldn’t have had them