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

Reading a novel set in the 60s from Stan Barstow and it does seem that social mobility was more apparent and there were more opportunities for the WCs from 16s with no degrees

I think his housing and rents were cheaper too

Living costs are directly related to life choices.

I disagree.

There is no choice I have made that would have stopped wage stagnation for most of my adult life.

There is no choice I could have made that would have got me on the property ladder sooner if it wasn't for help from my parents.

@coulditbecominghome

Living costs are directly related to life choices.

I disagree.

There is no choice I have made that would have stopped wage stagnation for most of my adult life.

There is no choice I could have made that would have got me on the property ladder sooner if it wasn't for help from my parents.

Sometimes they are. My living costs are low because i picked not desirable postcode. A quiet part, but non desirable nonethless.

@SchrodingersImmigrant I don't think choices are irrelevant but I don't think they are directly related. And in terms of children growing up in poverty they are not in the position to make those choices.

remuneration as a role that requires years of education, professional training and continued development

Which many people are not capable of achieving. And if they work full time they will never be able to independently afford either rent or home ownership with prices the way the are in the UK. And if it weren’t for that, so many more people could ‘afford’ kids.

I believe anyone who works should be able to afford a basic home and it’s appalling that it’s out of reach for so many. But that’s another thread I guess.

In EVERY case it's down to luck!

Sorry but that’s wishful thinking.

Luck doesn’t always play a part, some of the wealthy people I know came from very disadvantaged backgrounds. They became financially secure through sheer hard work and perseverance. They had set backs but didn’t give up. They went back to college in some cases to re-sit exams and worked hard as hospital porters, cleaners and care assistants to fund their study. And they saved money, budgeted, until they had a financial cushion. They lived frugally until then. It didn’t fall into their laps.

Of course luck plays a part in many cases, but please don’t assume everyone who is financially secure got there by accident or chance. Many sacrificed so much along the way, kept fighting to keep their business going or progress their career, put off having kids as they didn’t want their kids to grow up in the poverty they had been raised in.

Much of the current culture seems to be about spending not saving, splashing out instead of investing. We all make choices, whether it’s to leave a dead end job or delay starting a family until we can support our kids.

Luck (good and bad) play a part, but people who believe life is purely determined by luck usually don’t progress, as they hope instead of taking action.

I think people used to go to night school and worked a long houred job as well

@coulditbecominghome I disagree about the family one being born into is more important than ever. Not even 100 years ago it would have been everything. People’s lives including and especially those of the very poor have improved consistently across almost every conceivable metric: Lifespan, universal healthcare, literacy, access to education, the list goes on.

Just over a half a century ago one’s own family and community was literally the only social safety net anyone had access to. It would have been a far bigger factor then than it is now.

What hasn’t changed and perhaps gotten worse is relative poverty. Now I am all for tackling that too, but I think it goes far deeper than the state chucking or not chucking money at people for having children. It’s seems like a simple intuitive solution but it can inculcate attitudes of learned helplessness which can actually trap people, and indeed whole families into the very poverty these policies claim to ameliorate.

That's a fair point, I was thinking short term eg the last 50 yrs. I just think for today's children whether they own a house or not will largely depend on whether their parents owned one & if their parents can help them eg living at home rent free.

Now I am all for tackling that too, but I think it goes far deeper than the state chucking or not chucking money at people for having children.

I absolutely agree it goes far deeper but I'm still against punishing dc for their parents "choices".

Well it all depends where you lay the moral responsibility for those children’s welfare. Is it the state’s or is it their parents?

I’m guessing ultimately you hold the state responsible and not the individual? Which I suspect is the root of our philosophical differences. I would tend towards the view it is ultimately the individual.

I’m not just saying that to be a dick, because my issue with your position (and I do recognise there is a convincing case for it!), is that making the state the ultimate arbiter of moral responsibility is but a short step towards potential tyranny.

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

Many of these people, whilst in the ‘more than adequate position to finance their families’ will have taken out insurance to protect the family financially in the event of death, illness or loss of income, divorce. At least the wise ones. As you say, nobody knows what’s around the corner.

dervel - its called communism isnt it?

Many of these people, whilst in the ‘more than adequate position to finance their families’ will have taken out insurance to protect the family financially in the event of death, illness or loss of income, divorce. At least the wise ones. As you say, nobody knows what’s around the corner

Please show me a divorce insurance company/policy. I have googled and can’t see anything. Insurance for having to pay legal costs, yes, but actual divorce, no.

I wasn’t aware you could get insurance for your husband running off with his secretary and clearing out the bank accounts on his way out. Amazing if that is now the case,

Getaway - if your husband runs off with his secretary he should still be paying towards the cost of his kids though....i as a taxpayer shouldnt. And if paying the legal costs of a divorce puts someone into financial hardship so they cant feed their kids then they must have been nearly on the breadline anyway....hence the argument of not having more than 2.

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

So what am I then? Someone who had three children in marriage who is now in receipt of benefits ? I work full time. I am a professional. One of my children has a disability for which I receive DLA. I live within my means, with the exception of childcare which is catch 22 cos I have to have it to be able to work. I have no expectation that anyone pays for my children other than me and my ex (nothing from him, however). Should I not claim what we are entitled to? And who the fuck do you think you are labelling me irresponsible because I claim benefits?

Nothing from your ex. But strangers are expected to happily pay for multiple children . Thats the bit I don't get.

Just gonna pop this here

Graphista 👍✌

@Getawaywithit just to be clear I have no problem whatsoever with people working the system to survive. People will follow incentives to think otherwise is anti-rational, so no judgement from me for doing what you do. Although I would enquire why wouldn’t you pursue your ex for child support?

@dreamingofsun not just Communism, just any State that sets itself up as the moral arbiters for the rest of us. Tyranny is tyranny no matter whether it comes from the left or the right. Both should be robustly opposed.

@Viviennemary

Nothing from your ex. But strangers are expected to happily pay for multiple children . Thats the bit I don't get.

I'm happy for my taxes to go to support multiple children that need my support. If their fathers won't, someone has to. Because what#s the alternative?

Luck (good and bad) play a part, but people who believe life is purely determined by luck usually don’t progress, as they hope instead of taking action

I don't think anyone is suggesting everything is always luck. But in many important ways luck is vital. If you're unlucky enough to have parents who were poorly educated/ a difficult upbringing themselves who then don't/ can't advise you well you will struggle. If you live with neglect/ chaos/ abuse/ have huge adverse childhood experiences your struggle will be far harder. If you then are not academically bright you will struggle even more. In secondary school we have children who are non-readers or very limited readers with ALL the other circumstances I mentioned too. Their luck is out.

And if paying the legal costs of a divorce puts someone into financial hardship so they cant feed their kids then they must have been nearly on the breadline anyway

You’ve very clearly never paid any kind of legal costs. Nor had a divorce where you had to fight for your children. I am still paying some divorce related debts over 10 years later.

Although I would enquire why wouldn’t you pursue your ex for child support?

Why do you assume I haven’t? And what has it got to do with you anyway? You are aware of domestic violence and how difficult it can be for women who ask for maintenance?

Nothing from your ex. But strangers are expected to happily pay for multiple children . Thats the bit I don't get

Nope. Not a penny. Why is it you think I should be ashamed of that? I pay tax, with my full time job. I’m not the one shirking my responsibilities. Would you prefer I didn’t work so I received full benefits rather than some help with childcare and the costs of my child’s disability whilst I make a contribution to society? I’m a teacher, of a shortage subject, just in case you’re in any doubt.

I have never said anyone should be ashamed. I was merely agreeing with the new systems that limits claims for certain benefits to two children. It's already in place. Not a proposal.

@Getawaywithit well you brought it up in an online discussion, if there are elements of your personal life you would prefer to be off limits I would gently advise you to refrain from referencing them in discussions in future.

Unless it was a rhetorical device where you laid the groundwork of referencing it in the hopes that when some other person brought it up you could scold them with “what business is it of yours?”. Then kudos I appear to have stepped on that particular landmine! Point to you!! 😂

If you meant that question genuinely I guess the response is why is general society more responsible for the welfare of children than say the biological father? I appreciate pursuing child support from recalcitrant fathers is a piping hot mess at the moment, but the point still stands.

Erm…yes, you implied it. You suggested not being in receipt of child maintenance was somehow my problem. So you would be happy for me not to work rather than work and receive top ups as a single parent of three. Seems an odd stance to be taking, if this system had been in place when my children were young, it is certainly what I would have had to have done.