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

@Whoarethewho Why do you want to cause harm to children?

@Lovely13

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

It was Family Allowance and it was introduced to support larger families, not to encourage them.

I think this is absolutely right. Having kids is not a right and unless you know you could afford to lose your job and still manage without the child benefit than that's your risk to take

@NoIDontWatchLoveIsland

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.

That doesn't answer the question I addressed to Lascivious Londener

I would have loved more kids but we could not really afford it, maybe we both should have just given up our jobs and gone on benefits. Dont have kids if you can't afford them

When I first saw this I thought that we were discussing a 2 child rule. I don’t think anyone should have more than 2 kids the planet can’t sustain the expanding population. Why should people who have chosen not to have kids have to pay out from their taxes to support other people’s children, just because they are too selfish to realise they can’t actually afford them.

Yep, let's all stop having kids so there'll be no-one to work to pay for the baby boomer generation who are aging and needing care..
For Heaven's sake.. bigger picture here..

Also.. I had a large family. My husband died in his forties. Maybe the government should issue crystal balls so we can see the future.
Count your blessings, people.

Have as many kids as you can afford , I don’t think the taxpayer should pay for them you the parent should and also all those who use it as an excuse not to work your lazy bastards

I have 2 children because I simply cannot comfortably afford more. As in if I had more my other 2 would have to go without some extra things. So people who can not afford it can simply just not reproduce right?!

I'm fully in agreement with this policy. If you want more kids, pay for them. There's lots of contraceptive options to use, all free. Plus there were women using this as a 'career' and many kids are kicked out of the house as soon as child benefit stopped. The shit people ruin it for everyone, but that's the way things usually happen.

@NoIDontWatchLoveIsland

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.

And this too. Actually fix the system that allows parents to bugger off and not pay for their kids.

Celebrating the latter doesn't negate worrying about the former.

Exactly!

Yes some from disadvantaged backgrounds are able to succeed, but not that many - why? Because it's damn hard! That's why. Because advantage literally starts from the cradle.

@FTEngineerM I'm well aware there are a few single resident dads, my brother was one (albeit after his ex passed away) I know a few others too where the non resident parents were women and didn't pay maintenance and didn't have decent contact with their kids - they behaved just as badly as the non resident dads. But they are very much in the minority.

The system and the reality is still sexist and discriminatory.

The vast majority of non resident parents are men, and the vast majority of resident parents are women.

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.

Well said

@Belleoverandover

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?

Nope - what actually happens is this new couple are eligible for tax credits as the child is classed as a 1st child (even though it isn't for him) and in addition he gets to reduce how much maintenance he pays for the first 2 kids

is the day we turn in to a money-grabbing sexist hard-hearted excuse for a country....oh wait...

Well quite!

@LusciousLondoner do I sense a wry smile?

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

Agreed

@pam290358 we may not be there yet but we're edging ever closer!

@Essentialironingwater

Not on any benefits, not even child benefit as we are very fortunate, but I feel for those who fall pregnant accidentally and can't terminate due to religious or other reasons, are in abusive marriages or whose circumstances change. Ultimately I think it's the children who will suffer and it saddens me. Whether or not having many children is responsible, once they are here I believe we should be ensuring they're all safe and provided for. I shudder at the Dickensian direction we are going in.

I feel like we should be going after tax dodging corporations before we start hitting welfare. Most of the welfare bill is actually pensions I believe, but I guess they won't means test that anytime soon given the voting power that holds.

EssentialironingWater "I feel like we should be going after tax dodging corporations before we start hitting welfare. Most of the welfare bill is actually pensions I believe, but I guess they won't means test that anytime soon given the voting power that holds."

Quite. If Starbucks, Amazon etc paid their taxes, we wouldn't need to scrimp on welfare.

Also, the 'don't have kids you can't afford' thing really grinds my gears. I'd be interested to know how many 'welfare' families are pumping out kids as a "career choice", compared to the single mums who find themselves trying to support 2+ children that they could afford when they were in a duel income relationship, but now can't afford because they are suddenly reduced to a single income and whatever pittance the CSA tries to squeeze out of their ex.

It's really not that simple.

@whatthejiggeries

I think this is absolutely right. Having kids is not a right and unless you know you could afford to lose your job and still manage without the child benefit than that's your risk to take

By this logic no one will have children.

They pay their taxes. It's amazing how well politicians managed to turn people into thinking these companies are dodging taxes, not that politicians made laws allowing to pay less. Are you paying more income tax then you legally have to?

Bit catch 22 this. You need to support kida, but not careless paremts, but without supporting careless parents you can't support the kida.
Vouchers would probably work better than cash tbh even from PR point.

Fixing the system would be good, ensure both parents step up and pay themselves for their children whether together or not. More emphasis on personal responsibility, more social workers to ensure parents meet child’s needs etc.

I think if you have the ability to have children, one child is a right, two is a privilege, and three and above is just decadence, particularly in light of environmental concerns. You can do all the recycling you like, but its obvious that having children is just about the worst thing you could do for the planet.

It's not the 50s anymore, in this day and age there's no real reason to end up with more children than you planned for "accidentally". But my preferred strategy would be a system that financially rewards having no children or one child. Maybe making having one child or none literally pay massively is the way forward.

@mamabear715

Yep, let's all stop having kids so there'll be no-one to work to pay for the baby boomer generation who are aging and needing care.. For Heaven's sake.. bigger picture here..

Also.. I had a large family. My husband died in his forties. Maybe the government should issue crystal balls so we can see the future.
Count your blessings, people.

Bigger picture? You mean when this already overcrowded country comes to a standstill because of the amount of cars on the road. Or maybe when the NHS collapses because of the amount of people. Or the education system also collapses because of the amount of people.

Yes we have an ageing population but how can the solution be to keep adding and adding to the population? No, I don't know what the answer is but it certainly is not to keep increasing the population.

No one can see into the future which is why it is pretty stupid to have lots of children not knowing that you will still be able to afford them in 5, 10 or whatever years time

@Kalvinette

I think if you have the ability to have children, one child is a right, two is a privilege, and three and above is just decadence, particularly in light of environmental concerns. You can do all the recycling you like, but its obvious that having children is just about the worst thing you could do for the planet.

It's not the 50s anymore, in this day and age there's no real reason to end up with more children than you planned for "accidentally". But my preferred strategy would be a system that financially rewards having no children or one child. Maybe making having one child or none literally pay massively is the way forward.

At what point would you be financially rewarded…once a woman shows proof of menopause?

@mamabear715

Yep, let's all stop having kids so there'll be no-one to work to pay for the baby boomer generation who are aging and needing care.. For Heaven's sake.. bigger picture here..

Also.. I had a large family. My husband died in his forties. Maybe the government should issue crystal balls so we can see the future.
Count your blessings, people.

I think the bigger picture is we can’t keep adding more and more people onto this planet, where does it end. We need to think of a solution that does not require more and more people.

Just a thought (and I don't mean the free 30 hours as I and others found there were restrictions on how it could be used and the childcare provider I used wasn't setup up for the free 30 hours yet it was the best and closest option to my work), why not make nursery and wrap around care once at school free for parents that work full time? For those that work part time they would get coverage for the hours they work including commuting time instead of child benefit to incentivise parents to work? There's no incentive for the current 30 free hours for parents to work.

I also think it should be retrospective so that the parents out there (and I know a few) who have never worked or paid into the system have to work. But still have a safety net for redundancy, disability etc

Quite. If Starbucks, Amazon etc paid their taxes, we wouldn't need to scrimp on welfare.

That’s assuming, rather naively, that the funds would go into the welfare bill. In reality they wouldn’t because there’s no political will to improve welfare payments.

A poster upthread also suggests that we’re going ‘Dickensian’ and then mentions means testing pensioners !!

There is no need to have more than two kids in today's world. We all need to take more responsibility for the future of this planet.

Sorry, posted too soon !! The basic state pension is around £140 per week. The safeguard of pension credit then kicks in if there is no additional income, or if the person has a disability. So it’s already means tested, but you’re missing the point. Pensions and benefits like ESA and universal credit are income replacement benefits and can be ‘topped up’ to suit individual circumstances . Child benefit, or family allowance as it was originally called, was introduced after WW2 as an incentive in economic circumstances which no longer exist. It should have been phased out long ago, and if there was the political will to do so, we could do so now, because in most cases other benefits would pick up the slack.