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

[quote Graphista]@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[/quote]
Someone I know said recently that their savings of £40,000 was now wiped out. They saved for a rainy day and, guess what, it rained.

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

^This

Don’t have a third child unless you’re sure you can afford to raise them without relying on tax credits. By ‘sure’ I mean you have insurance in place in the event of loss of income, death, illness etc so if one parent dies or becomes ill you’re not left trying to raise lots of kids on limited funds. It’s not as if the government didn’t warn everyone the law was changing.

Otherwise just stick to 2 kids? What’s wrong with 2?

Loads of families can’t afford more than 2, including those who work full time and own property and don’t claim benefits.

‘Family planning’ seems to have gone out the window. Isn’t it supposed to be about how you’ll provide for the child and support them financially, budget, plan for changes in circumstances BEFORE trying to conceive? I think these discussions should also include how you’ll support them financially in the event of a marriage breakdown, even if you’re deeply in love and think that will never happen.

Because innocent children should not be expected to suffer, even if their parents have been feckless or irresponsible
But these children suffer, even when the government give these parents more money. Because if parents are selfish enough to have more kids, knowing they can't support them and therefore solely rely on benefits then they will affect their kids negatively by selfishness in many other ways that will rest in their kids suffering.

Sadly, these kids will likely suffer either way. However, its likely that kids will fare better if their parents stop at 2 kids. More chances of their parents going back to work, better ethos, better example of self-reliance, more attention to give to individual kids etc...

This new rule has already shown a decrease in parents on benefits opting for 3 or more kids, how can this be a bad thing?

Graphista, the problem is you are trying to draw generalities from exceptional circumstances. Women who are in abusing relationships who can't leave, who fall pregnant whilst on birth control they take as should for full protection, who still fall pregnant and don't realise until it's too late for an abortion represent a small minority of the total number of women who end up with three children or more. The vast majority will fall pregnant with a third because they wanted a 3rd and came off birth control.

Of course luck is part of it all. Those born healthy, intelligent, of parents who care for them and can bring them up well will have a significant headstart.

That doesn't take away the significant impact that choices make. The biggest one for women being falling pregnant before gaining some reasonable work experience and then remaining of work for many years, either because they choose to have more children, or they want to be sahm or both.

Most women who get into a stable, decently paid job before falling pregnant, stop at two, and go back to work as soon as kids start school at the latest manage to cope ok, with or without maintenance, whatever their past circumstances.

I agree with the limit. I have more than 2 children, but we work bloody hard to pay for them.....as is only fair.

@Thehop

I agree with the limit. I have more than 2 children, but we work bloody hard to pay for them.....as is only fair.

So nurses don’t work hard? The link between hard work and financial reward isn’t conclusive

@Thehop

I agree with the limit. I have more than 2 children, but we work bloody hard to pay for them.....as is only fair.

So can you tell us all what should happen to the children whose parents don't have enough money to look after them properly?

Having read through the posts on this thread i think that the limit on 2 kids is right - both for environmental, government funding reasons and to discourage people having kids they cant afford.

But there needs to be things like wrap around school care to ensure the kids dont suffer more than necessary - so they are fed etc and have a good a start educationally as possible.

Thats the kids that are suffering because the parents have had more than 2 and cant cope financially....

So can you tell us all what should happen to the children whose parents don't have enough money to look after them properly?

They either stop at 2 children or they will have to spread the benefit payments further and learn to budget just like loads of families with 1 or 2 children currently do.

Currently the UK benefits system pays for housing costs, costs for 2 children, support for parents who aren't working or can't work, disability benefits, support so they don't have to pay counil tax, free prescriptions, free school meals whilst also providing free education, free healthcare, subsidised leisure activities and clubs etc. Just think about that for a minute - that people can live in a country where so much is given for free (or rather provided by other taxpayers), yet people still complain.

What happens to people who can't afford a big enough house. Or afford a better car or buy nice clothes. They have to make do with what they've got. I know folk in this position. They don't expect other folk to pick up their costs for more children.

hey either stop at 2 children or they will have to spread the benefit payments further and learn to budget just like loads of families with 1 or 2 children currently do

I asked about the children that exist, and your answer is that they should go back in time and not be born, or alternatively their parents should just "learn to budget", which is meaningless.

Thanks so much for your epic insight.

Currently the UK benefits system pays for housing costs, costs for 2 children, support for parents who aren't working or can't work, disability benefits, support so they don't have to pay counil tax, free prescriptions, free school meals whilst also providing free education, free healthcare, subsidised leisure activities and clubs etc

Erm….everyone gets free healthcare and education, not just people on benefits. And not everyone on benefits gets everything you mention - I claim tax credits and the disability element but I have never had a free school meal, free prescriptions, have always paid council tax and don’t claim housing costs. Because I’m not eligible…because I work,and pay my taxes.

Is the extra money always spent on the dc anyway?

Currently the UK benefits system pays for housing costs, costs for 2 children, support for parents who aren't working or can't work, disability benefits, support so they don't have to pay counil tax, free prescriptions, free school meals whilst also providing free education, free healthcare, subsidised leisure activities and clubs etc you’re looking at this the wrong way round. Most people who receive benefits work,
Ask yourself why they need propping up by the tax payer when they are earning a full salary..:::

Is the extra money always spent on the dc anyway?

Course not. Every last person who has ever claimed any kind of benefit is as feckless as the day is long. Clad in designer labels, smoking, drinking vodka with perfectly manicured nails and a huge TV.

Jesus fucking wept.

@Viviennemary

What happens to people who can't afford a big enough house. Or afford a better car or buy nice clothes. They have to make do with what they've got. I know folk in this position. They don't expect other folk to pick up their costs for more children.

Exactly. Or they pick up extra hours or a second job etc.

I’ve lost count of the number of posts I’ve seen re people claiming they can’t work as they have children, won’t do more than sixteen hours as benefits will go down, can’t possibly move etc. The system currently allows people to make choices others have to pay for.

@Getawaywithit

Is the extra money always spent on the dc anyway?

Course not. Every last person who has ever claimed any kind of benefit is as feckless as the day is long. Clad in designer labels, smoking, drinking vodka with perfectly manicured nails and a huge TV.

Jesus fucking wept.

You forgot the foreign holidays, nice car and the the sky package

Did anyone print out the benefits/immigration Bingo Cards?

@coulditbecominghome

It’s awful for the children who cannot choose to be born into a small family. Imagine growing up in poverty because your parents made bad choices and you, as a child, are punished? It’s insane.

It is insane & I don't see why the children should suffer. Plus where do you draw the line?

This.

We only had two kids because I knew that I could always manage two no matter what. My own df died young leaving my dm with 3 kids to raise so I know first hand how quickly things can change and it was important to me to know that I was giving myself the best chance to cope without help should the worst happen.

That being said, children don’t ask to be born, so while I don’t understand the mindset of low earners having lots of children, the kids are definitely not to blame and they should never be forced fo suffer as a result of their parents choices. I think the two child benefits cap is utterly wrong because the kids are still here, they just have less support. Where is the good in that?

I asked about the children that exist, and your answer is that they should go back in time and not be born, or alternatively their parents should just "learn to budget", which is meaningless.

The 2 child limit was brought in in April 2017. Any 3rd child that already existed before then gets full benefits as born before the cutoff. The policy change was widely reported and has been since. Any child born after then it is up to the parents to make the decision as to whether they can afford a subsequent child with no extra taxpayer support. Why would anyone choose to have a child they know they cannot afford and will suffer? That's child abuse.

Two children is more than enough if the parent/s can’t afford to be financially responsible for their first or second child
without assistance from the Welfare State.

2 is enough. The world is hugely overpopulated as you know.

Will this affect children looking to be adopted?

I’ve lost count of the number of posts I’ve seen re people claiming they can’t work as they have children, won’t do more than sixteen hours as benefits will go down, can’t possibly move etc. The system currently allows people to make choices others have to pay for actually what you’ve lost count of is the number of people who can’t find 9-3 work in school time that pays enough to live on, what you’ve lost count of is the number of people who can’t afford the crippling costs of childcare in this country.

@Willyoujustbequiet

Will this affect children looking to be adopted?

Adopted children can be exempt from the limit. www.gov.uk/guidance/universal-credit-and-families-with-more-than-2-children-information-for-claimants

I think some of the problem is the language used.

It is (of course) terrible to think of children in "poverty". However, "poverty" is defined as 60% of the median wage. As the median wage is ~£29k, that means that any child in a household with less than ~£20k income is in "poverty" by definition.