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

@Puffalicious

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.

No I don't think children should live in poverty but giving money for 3, 4 or whatever children just means more money is being given out.

People who genuinely need benefits should receive a decent amount in benefits. Of course they should be able to feed and clothe their children and heat their homes but there is no guarantee that even with enough money they would all do that is there?

We could up the cap to 3 but still people would moan. Where do we draw the line?

2 children is a good number. Enough for anyone. If the second child is twins or, unlikely, triplets they are still covered so all fine.

The stories of woman who had more than 2 then had some life changing event happen are sad but if they had stuck with 2 children the benefits they would be entitled should enable them to manage.

That is what we need to do, try and encourage women/couples to stick with 2 children and made benefits enough (if needed) for them to be able to manage

@AlexaShutUp 100% agree with you

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

You could accept it if we lived in a facist state and we forcibly sterilised the poor

Thanks lynsey91 but it's still not the fault of the children.

All of that? Determined by luck

Luck or determination? Fate or someone taking action to improve their life?

To say it’s pure luck discredits all those children from disadvantaged backgrounds who made it to financial security through their own perseverance, hard work and motivation to succeed. Sure luck is involved but action is where change begins, and what sustains it.

@Graphista you’ve spectacularly missed the fact I was in a conversation with another poster and that post you’ve so kindly dissected was explicitly about why I don’t think an employer should ‘pay the cost of living’ because that varies so hugely.

But I’m happy to of been assistance in you bolstering your points.

@Getawaywithit that’s exactly the support I’m talking about though, it won’t be uniform for all who get it. Your individual and specific support needs should be met. I haven’t suggested anyone is lazy, rather the opposite, we’re capable.

I am always interested in this question especially when the issue of 'accidental pregnancy' comes up.

Why is it that the financially 'well to do' rarely have large families. ? The conversations at the school gates in the leafy suburbs are not about 'accidental' pregnancy .. or if they are - then why are the decisions of the middle class to abort such a pregnancy so much more prevalent than those living with less means.

As fertility is not governed (thank god) by wealth.. then why is it that 'accidental children' as opposed to pregnancy appear to be so much more prevalent amongst the less well off than the wealthier ? Could it be that this is the reason for the cap in two children ?

That was a very convoluted way of saying - that if you are not going to get any assistance from the state in raising your family then you keep the numbers small.. but if you are in the breadline with 2 and will be in no more of a breadline with 4 then grab the joy that a large family brings ?

Strangetosee noone is discrediting those many people who have fought to succeed, just trying to acknowledge the many who have no luck- abusive/ neglectful/ chaotic/ poor homes with no role models and who struggle academically. I know plenty of those children. Those same children are often absent or move around a lot.

I also know plenty who are bright and are able to utilise the help and advice given from schools/ the community. Celebrating the latter doesn't negate worrying about the former.

Also FWIW @Graphista my mother left to make a new life on her own with 50% of the equity in the house to then completely blow it because she wanted to waste it and have nothing more to do with my father.

I stayed living with my father along with her other child from a previous marriage whilst he worked all the hours possible to keep the house afloat.

She never paid a penny in maintenance. Not once. Ever.

What’s the problem- if you want more than two you have to be sure you can pay for them. Child benefit was introduced to repopulate the country after WW2. Should have been stopped years ago IMO.

@OnlyFoolsnMothers

I love how the older generation think we shouldn’t support those who want children but we should pay for their care whilst they hold on to massive family homes…..

It’s not actually ‘a massive family home’. It’s my home. My much loved home that has much emotional investment in it. Honestly some of the posts on here would not be out of place in The Great Hall of the People.

Your individual and specific support needs should be met

But they are not met under this legislation. Or at least they wouldn’t be if I had split up with my ex after the cut-off. My situation is not unusual. There is a need to realise that if you ignore third or subsequent children, you are going to get people who would work who can’t because they can’t make the sums add up.

You also can’t have a welfare system that looks at us as individuals - because the cost of that would be enormous to administer. It really is one size fits all. So if you cut off the minority with more than 2 children, not only are quite deliberately putting children into absolute poverty, you are denying some families a wwilling, working parent which is what you actually want.

It unfortunately won't affect those already claiming everything in sight and never working a day. Yes there should be a safety net for those that genuinely need it (for those that can't work, redundancy etc), but in general there should be a cap and I wish something could be done about those that never contribute but take everything

I suppose another thought would be is if you meet a man that already has two children and you have a child together are you penalised as that's his third child but your first?

It goes on the number of children in the household AFAIK.

I'm divided opinion on this. Its never black and white. Circumstances can change overnight as I'm sure everyone is now very aware of after this past horrific 15 months. Maybe you could afford 4 children and then bam tragedy strikes and you can't anymore. Children should not be suffering under any circumstances. We need to protect all children. However I understand this to be the £14 per week that families have for each of their children (except the 1st which you get £21 for). Introduced to give to mothers to stop their children starving when fathers drank their wages before they took care of their families. They stopped payment in 2017 but anyone with more than 2 children before this date still get the money. Theoretically no one should be losing out. If anyone wants more than 2 they know the government won't give them more. I don't think its human rights, they're not stopping people from having more than 2 children.

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.

@Whoarethewho you are the pits! You do realise that children who go into care, do not always fare well don't you? There's an unbelievably high rate of children who suffer from attachment difficulties in care which impacts their whole lives. You're honestly saying that you believe children who's parents can't afford to feed them should be taken in to care? If that happened with every child in poverty then the children's social care bill would outweigh the welfare bill tenfold.

Like I said you're the pits.

I agree with this 100%!

@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.

yup. this. the day we stop supporting children (and we do need kids to support the oldies) born in to poverty is the day we turn in to a money-grabbing sexist hard-hearted excuse for a country....oh wait...

However I understand this to be the £14 per week that families have for each of their children (except the 1st which you get £21 for). Introduced to give to mothers to stop their children starving when fathers drank their wages before they took care of their families

You’re confused. There’s no limit on the number of children for whom child benefit is payable. The limit of two is for all other benefits now rolled into universal credit.

@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 👌🏼 You took the words right out of my mouth. It’s not necessarily always families intentionally having more children than they can afford, but those that already had the children then had a change of circumstance due to no fault of their own. I think covid has proved that.

Such benefits are supposed to be a safety net, however there are the few that see it as a career choice.

All benefits should be removed from people with more than two children, and the children should be taken into care if the parent(s) can't afford to bring them up. As a country, we can't afford it.

The NHS should not be available anyone over 70 years old, we can't afford it. If you can't afford to pay for your medical care, then you're on your own.

Your individual and specific support needs should be met

What !!??? What planet are you on ? Disabled people have been campaigning for this for years, and have been met with cuts and draconian measures to cut support which is aimed at the most disabled because they cost the most. In what world do the needs of people able to stand on their own two feet and expect to have babies at the expense of the taxpayer, come before those who have genuine need in order to be able to live.

@LusciousLondoner. So after paying tax and NI all their lives to support their own needs and those of people who can’t afford to pay, you think we should just cut older people loose at the very time they most need the NHS. Don’t talk fucking crap !!!

[quote pam290358]@LusciousLondoner. So after paying tax and NI all their lives to support their own needs and those of people who can’t afford to pay, you think we should just cut older people loose at the very time they most need the NHS. Don’t talk fucking crap !!![/quote]
I think she was being sarcastic.