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

@TheTallOakTrees

So people can have more than 2 children but not have extra help after the first 2.

the 'additional' children still get free schooling and NHS entitlement?

How is it a breach of human rights? People can still have as many children as they want. And having children us not a right. If it is, then my human rights have been breached more than anyone’s as, despite TTC for 20 years and numerous rounds of “assisted conception” in various forms, I’m still childless. Where’s my compensation?

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

You could have train as something else, or progressed at what you currently do. There are very few at the top top top of their ‘level’.

Ultimately I don’t think anyone wants a society that watches someone else suffer, that’s why we all pay taxes and the likes quite happily. But it must be remembered that they’re a crutch for when the shit hits the fan, they’re not a new set of legs so you don’t have to walk anymore.

I think a better way of working ‘the system’ is not limiting at some arbitrary point how many children someone can claim for, it’s to make sure that they’re supported in other ways to get out of that situation where they can’t afford to look after themselves. So ensuring BOTH parents pay for children, support on education/training/development to move into a more lucrative position, financial advice on how and where to invest both time and money.

I don’t like the narrative that all this stuff just happens to women and we can do nothing but take it because ‘we’re inadequate little females who don’t have a say blah blah it’s all luck blah’.. we can do anything we set our minds to. Even after horrific life events. We don’t need to rely on anyone.

In any case I thought child maintenance wasnt included in any kind of benefit entitlement/assessment.

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.

Odfod!

I don’t like the narrative that all this stuff just happens to women and we can do nothing but take it because ‘we’re inadequate little females who don’t have a say blah blah it’s all luck blah’.. we can do anything we set our minds to. Even after horrific life events. We don’t need to rely on anyone

There isn’t a suggestion there is nothing we can do about it. There is absolutely a need for education and training but saying people should just progress up an ever narrowing hierarchy in the workplace rather than rely on state benefits, ignores the very real obstacles women face in the workplace. Because it is women it hits, way more than men. 24 hour quality, subsidised childcare, lots of different ways of obtaining qualifications, obligations on employers to provide time for training, flexible working, work from home etc etc all need to be the norm. It is difficult enough to progress as a mother with a supportive partner, you should try it as a single parent.

You suggest people are somehow lazy because they don’t progress further but in some professions, the additional responsibilities can mean having to do stuff out with normal working hours so there is no childcare, or an expectation of breakfast meetings, or the need to travel overnight. In my experience, smashing the glass ceiling means long hours, unsociable hours and a lack of needing to be off for sick children. I’ve just got a long sought after promotion but I’ve had to wait up till the point my youngest has gone to high school to get it. I can do it now because I am no longer bound by childcare.

@Viviennemary it’s not. But if one parent isn’t financially contributing to their children, and you only get benefits for 2 of them, then that has a massive impact.

In any case I thought child maintenance wasnt included in any kind of benefit entitlement/assessment.

Not now - it used to be.

When I was first a single mum it was deducted from benefits - even if he didn't actually pay it.

I went without food, clothes. Would spend days in local Library in winter to save on heating home when dd wasn't home because of this.

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

Geez talk about WILDLY missing the point!

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

Damn straight!

What have we come to if we have stopped caring about this?

Heartbreaking and disgusting isn't it?

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.

Makes no sense whatsoever

We need solutions, proper, human solutions

Hear hear

Are people really so unaware of how a large section of the population lives?

Apparently so - what's worse is they don't care!

@CounsellorTroi you are correct. More accurately it means a resident parent but as we're all aware usually resident parent = woman and non resident parent = man. Resident parents have the cap applied to them, non resident parents don't, they can have as many kids as they like and as long as they only live with 2 of them they are not affected by the cap, so in theory they can be living with kids numbers 9&10, 11&12 etc but still get state support - whereas the resident parent of his previous kids if they have a 3rd child the cap applies to them.

With the rape clause - it's only applied if the rape is officially reported - an act which certainly in the case of DA could well put the victim at MORE risk! It's a nasty, sexist, vile piece of legislation

Those who claim for five, six, seven kids are very much in 'taking the puss' territory'.

Do you apply that thinking to the non resident parents doing so legitimately?

I wouldn't see that as being my problem. Anymore than an employer would give a pay rise to somebody with more children.

@ExitThisWay I am so sorry you're going through this

That they assume that people who have somehow fallen on hard times may inevitably be to blame because they haven't worked hard enough or because they haven't planned carefully enough or because they have made poor decisions.

Exactly - there but by the grace of...

You never know what's around the corner for you and your family

I certainly couldn't have predicted the numpty that hit me while texting, my relative who's partner died in his 30's from a rare and not known prior medical condition couldn't have predicted that, nobody predicted the impacts of COVID fully...

people are just fucking unlucky.

This is very much what's usually happened

Out of interest, would all those who agree with this policy be happy for us to scrapallchild- related benefits? On the basis that people shouldn't have children that they can't afford? So no CB, no CTC, no subsidised childcare etc for any children? Because that's surely the logical conclusion of your argument?

Even if they claim otherwise I think they'll shit themselves if this happened. Cos the majority of people are getting some kind of state help and most aren't high earners/independently wealthy

instead of engaging with and learning from people on this forum who have real life experience of it.

Disgusting isn't it?

Indeed, I have seen plenty of threads over the years on just how awful it is someone unexpectedly unemployed experiences being on benefits.

Yep!

There were a rash of threads at start of lockdown by posters suddenly finding themselves at the whim of dwp rules after years of I guess looking down their noses at those on benefits, trying to argue that the SAME rules (mainly those applying to capital/savings limits) they were more than happy to have applied to others, SHOULDN'T apply to them cos they were "different" cos COVID "wasn't my fault" cos according to them EVERYONE who'd been on benefits prior to covid was "feckless" but everyone on benefits due to COVID wasn't. One poster I recall was adamant that £30k in savings should be disregarded as she and her dh had been saving for a house deposit. Completely oblivious to the fact she was damn lucky to have that much of a buffer!

@5zeds we can but wish - will never happen under even a remotely right wing govt

The policy has everything to do with keeping poor people poor

So short sighted. Nobody is an island. What benefits others ultimately benefits us all.

So true

Op it must be so disappointing how the thread has gone

Income support was a much clearer description.

It didn't replace income support - that was still around for most of its life span for different circumstances

I don’t know if widely available to everyone (employment protection insurance)

It's not - not least because those with chronic illness and disability they were born with tend to find it the hardest to get a job that pays decently enough they could afford this or indeed not be precluded due to pre existing condition clauses.

The fact we shame people for the fact our government was to offer cheap labour incentives to Amazon and the like is ridiculous.

Absolutely

Though I have to say while Amazon is the most commonly cited the worst offenders in terms of number of employees in this country? Retail and hospitality, especially supermarkets

and I'm as far from Tory as you can get.

You're really not if that's what you think is right

and if you need assistance for heaven’s sake feel no shame in asking

Anyone needing such help will quite likely from reading this thread think it is shameful to the majority of people

@Graphista thanks I’m ok. Thanks to the benefits system. But it feels unfair that as I don’t get benefits for all my children, they all miss out. As do I, because the benefits I receive for myself and the ones that qualify, is stretched to cover the cost of another whole child.

@Viviennemary

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

It's kind of called society - the idea that we all support more vulnerable members of our society.

It's not her fault her ex won't pay for his kids, and it certainly isn't the children's. The CMS system is just not fit for purpose in this country. But even if it was, the level of maintenance that is assessed as an amount that a child is meant to live on, is just wrong.

And by not paying for these children, the state is just storing up problems for later, and potentially even more expense.

I really don't know where mumsnetters get the idea that there are millions of mums blithely having children in order to get more benefits. Do you have any knowledge of what the level of benefit payment is? What the conditions are that are attached to getting benefits?

This is just one in a whole range of completely abhorrent policies.

Anyway, so the 2 child limit is meant to lawful. Millions of children are living in poverty. They don't have enough food to eat. There are more and more working families using food banks, using credit card to buy food, living in unsafe and unfit housing. Their children are struggling at school. They do not have enough food to live on. . And the majority of people on this thread, think it's ok?

Living costs are directly related to life choices.

They more directly relate to LUCK!

Whether I live in a new/old property. - generally speaking new properties are more expensive slightly older are cheaper, those who can afford to can make a choice, those who can't are left with what's available to them

Whether I live in rented or purchased - i cannot seriously believe you think it's a CHOICE whether to own or not. Barring a lottery win or an unexpected inheritance from an as yet unknown wealthy beneficiary I will never have the chance to own because i cannot afford to even save a deposit

Whether I have the latest tech or repair old again only those who can afford a choice have the choice

Whether I cook from scratch or buy ready made. This is a slightly unusual one as poor families living in accommodation where there are no cooking facilities, no fridge, no freezer have little choice but to eat cold or prepared food. There is also the aspect of time poor impoverished families where they're working 2, 3 or even in a recent case I learned of 4 jobs just to make ends meet. They don't have the time or energy to be cooking from scratch

Whether I make an effort to switch suppliers/insurance products every year or sit and accept what they offer. Again being better off (not just financially) means more choice. People with certain genetic or medical history factors can't get health insurance or employment insurance as the insurers won't touch them or make it prohibitively expensive

Whether I have one, two or more children - not always a choice in the case of a woman in an abusive relationship or even where they don't know they're pregnant until far on - I've known a few women who that's happened to. Contraception doesn't always work (my first pregnancy was due to a contraceptive failure despite taking pill correctly and no known affecting factors, ended in mc) hell even abortions don't always work! I know someone that happened to as well

Whether I chose to prioritise a holiday or paid for TV packages. Very much a choice mainly available to better off people

Whether I have a lease car or bought a banger and keep it running. Again the privilege of a choice here applies to those better off. Most poor families are dependent on increasingly expensive and unreliable public transport. I walked miles and miles when did was little in order to save money to use on public transport when I had dd with me as her little legs couldn't have done so - and I appreciate more now than ever that I'm disabled myself I was LUCKY I was able to then

Whether I chose to educate myself or not you're really reaching now! Poor families are stuck in poor areas which usually means not the best schools, so that even if the family is positive about education the children don't have the same education as others and are therefore less likely to be able to attain well to access uni

Whether I chose to use contraceptive until in a position to take care of a child.

Again - contraception and abortions fail, women are abused and controlled, circumstances change

Where you live is largely determined by where you're born. London is one of the most expensive places to live in the uk, are you really saying that poor Londoners need to move away? And if so who do you think will be doing the lowest paid jobs needed?

Luck doesn’t always play a part,

Yes it does! It may not be the whole story but it's a huge part of it

I'm from a poor working class background, I left an abusive home at 17 having left school at 16 with few GCSEs cos it was a shite school in a poor area. I "worked hard" in a low paid job and went to evening classes to get more GCSEs and a-levels. A few years later I went to uni as a "mature" student, I had to wait a few years as otherwise the state would have considered my parents supporting me even though they most definitely weren't.

Yes I worked hard, yes I applied myself and improved things for myself BUT I was LUCKY to be able to - lucky I had a good brain, lucky I had good health to be able to work full time and study part time, lucky I had a supportive landlady at that point who saw and understood what I was trying to do and didn't raise my rent and indeed lucky that she could afford to do so, lucky that I had an understanding employer who let me book days off for exams...

There was a LOT of luck involved

Those people you know who overcame disadvantageous backgrounds were also lucky to have the physical and mental capacity to do so - to claim otherwise is nonsense

I hate the "I/they worked hard" bollocks - cos it is bollocks! Plenty of poor people ALSO work really bloody hard - I would say a damn sight harder than most very high earners actually!

if your husband runs off with his secretary he should still be paying towards the cost of his kids though.

Again good luck with getting that to actually happen, the state does precious little to enforce this and it could do so so much more

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

Why are you presuming she hasn't? I spend 16 years doing so with my ex, calculating the discrepancy of what he should have paid v what he did pay is over £20k! I pestered the life out of csa, cms, hmrc, dwp, mps and even his co's on this matter I did not rest on my laurels! The fact is there is fuck all done or legislated properly or enforced on this matter. Go read one of the MANY threads on this subject including the web chat with the baroness in charge of the dept and you'll read many multiple stories like mine- and my ex was relatively easy to track down and garner wages cos he was in the fucking army! Other people's ex's sod off overseas, go self employed and lie about income or job hop leaving their jobs every time the resident parent manages to get an attachment of earnings order or the non resident parents plain don't work or work cash in hand to avoid paying maintenance. Even if/when they are paying the cms/csa don't keep track and notice if they stop paying or don't declare a pay rise, in addition under current regs non resident parents can have payments legitimately reduced (and trust me the amounts calculated are pathetic anyway) for ANY child they live with even if not their child and the child's non resident parent IS paying maintenance.

Do you really not see the inherent sexism in the whole system?

Men get reductions in maintenance they have to pay

Women get reductions in support they receive

ANY of the posters supporting this - don't call yourself a feminist!

The only positive is that the cap can be broken if the child has been caught up in dv. Example the mother flees to a refuge. Also if you assume the care of a child who would otherwise be looked after it doesn't apply.

Of course I don't agree with the cap it's just punishing the child it's utter bullshit.

@Cocoabutterkim

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

I could accept that if the state forceably prevented those feckless from having children and those that become feckless after children take them into care and then provided permanent contraception. Then by all means make the state responsible for the children.

@Graphista Men get reductions in maintenance they have to pay

Women get reductions in support they receive

The most eloquently I have seen this expressed. It is so true. It's single mums and people in low paid jobs that are shafted time and time again. Whilst it’s socially acceptable for father’s to walk out and stop supporting their children, single mothers are berated for supporting them. And are not provided with financial help to support all
of them. The benefits system is inadequate. It is why we have Pupil Premium payments to schools for the poorest children in society, because they are so disadvantaged. And i’m Not talking about free lunches, I’m talking about the fact they do less well at school because they are poor. The government knows this and tries to ‘close the gap’ through additional funding. But they won’t give benefits for families to actually feed or clothe these children. And they will also take £20 a week away from these families in the autumn.

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

Not always. Many of my wealthy friends came from very disadvantaged backgrounds and fought their way up, as they don’t want their children to suffer the way they did. Sometimes it’s sheer determination, hard work, smart decisions and saving that leads to financial security not luck.

Children from disadvantaged homes may have positive role models at school, access to scholarship schemes, be academic and/or determined, it’s not always a struggle.

Luck isn’t the reason most people make it out of poverty.

By assuming those born into poverty will struggle to break the cycle we’re disempowering them not inspiring them to change their futures. You can’t rely on luck to bring you financial security.

graphista obviously you think you have all the answers but I believe your very long posts will not be read by anyone who really wants to know the facts. Counter productive IMO.

Have as many as you like, if you can support them

Children from disadvantaged homes may have positive role models at school, access to scholarship schemes, be academic and/or determined

All of that? Determined by luck

@bunnybuggs I think that says more about the people who won't make an effort to read and learn about others circumstances and ideas than it does about me and my posting style.

To have an opinion based on nothing but ones own fortunate experience is pretty narrow minded.

I read, I listen to opinions and ideas from a wide variety of sources even those I'm unsympathetic to

People don’t have to have more than two children. If you can’t afford children without having to claim benefits stop having them.
You can even get a vasectomy or sterilisation on the NHS!