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

Maybe make benefits only available to people who have paid into the system. Thats what other countries do.

there are those who just come here because they see our benefit system as the path to easy street

They must be really disappointed when they get here if that’s what they’re expecting.

Personally I think it's a disgusting rule. Screams eugenics to me, however they want to frame it.

@Blossomtoes. Prepared to accept that, but not so sure on re-reading the post.

@LusciousLondoner

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.

God there's some cunts on this thread

@pam290358

Maybe make benefits only available to people who have paid into the system. Thats what other countries do.

This. I’m all for genuine asylum seekers and for those who come here to work and find a better life. But - and I’m probably going to be handed my ass for this - there are those who just come here because they see our benefit system as the path to easy street.

😂😂😂😂 as if.

They must be really disappointed when they get here if that’s what they’re expecting.

Why ? Our benefits system has been taken advantage of for some time now.

@pam290358

They must be really disappointed when they get here if that’s what they’re expecting.

Why ? Our benefits system has been taken advantage of for some time now.

Because our benefits system is complete rubbish. I couldn’t live on it.

They would be disappointed mainly due to the little "no recourse to public funds" on most visas...

Even eu couldn't just rock up and get benefits in 99% of situations

@Blossomtoes. I agree. The way the benefits system is configured you’re not meant to be able to live on it comfortably or otherwise. But if you’ve come from a country where there is absolutely no support at all, our system is generous by comparison.

It’s not generous if you can’t live on it.

If you’re used to living on next to nothing, you have a different mindset.

@pam290358

If you’re used to living on next to nothing, you have a different mindset.

Do you? Poverty is probably worse if you live it in an affluent society.

Mindset doesn't override "no recourse to public funds"

Can we stop.this now into being a side slide into benefits and immigrant bashing? No need, guys, no need.

@pam290358

They must be really disappointed when they get here if that’s what they’re expecting.

Why ? Our benefits system has been taken advantage of for some time now.

yeah they would be as our society is so uncaring, divided, unsupportive and shows a massive lack of compassion. (and has crap weather)

They are most likely settled here, proved residency and paid into the communal wallet. We really cannot just rock up and get free houses on arrival no matter what The Scum tells people.
There are VERY few situations when that can happen early on.

@Lilymossflower. Maybe educate yourself as to what Eugenics actually is before putting it forward as a rebuttal. We’re talking about limiting child benefit, not limiting the reproductive capabilities of certain races/ breeding out ‘unfit’ characteristics. Don’t confuse the two.

@LusciousLondoner

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.

You obviously have no actual feeling for the children. Instead of a small payment to feed them you want a traumatic separation from their family, a greater cost and further damage to the children's emotional and psychological wellbeing. To make a point?

Then people who may or may not have spent their lives paying tax and NI, building the country to make it better for you are cast off at 70 to fend for themselves. What is your solution for disabled and vulnerable people?

I'd rather the government focussed on a) getting money off absent parents who don't contribute and b) ensuring childcare is affordable for low wage earners, than simply subsidising large families. A 2 child limit is generous.

Doesn't care cost more anyway

Yes, the people over 70 have mainly paid into the system for years'

Child benefit was introduced post WW2 to encourage birth rate for many socio-economic reasons that no longer exist.

If you had a child since the new rules, you accept you won't get benefits for that child. Why SHOULD the tax payer fund kids people can't afford?