Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Two Child Limit

705 replies

MobilityCat · 09/07/2021 16:00

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

OP posts:
IlonaRN · 11/07/2021 14:27

@Belleoverandover

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 had thought this too, but actually do agree with the blanket offering.

It is quite often those parents who don't work whose children are most disadvantaged. Granting them access to the early years settings (i.e. nurseries) means they learn things that they won't if they are at home with their parents. It is therefore a potentially massive help for the children that they can access the childcare.

Seymour5 · 11/07/2021 14:47

I have mixed feelings, why people have to or choose to claim benefits isn't simple. I believe in taking personal responsibility for our choices, we had two children, and on a lowish income even with both of us working (no qualifications, left school at 15) we knew more was not feasible. We were eventually able to afford a three bedroomed house, in a reasonable area, and after one short spell of unemployment in the very early days, never got any means tested benefits again.

I met families as a housing worker who expected to be rehoused into bigger properties simply because they'd had more children. A bit like this:

www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/uk-news/mum-says-family-10-living-20987938

I think generally the attitude that we can have what we want without working for it is handed down through families, as is personal responsibility and a work ethic. I also meet quite a few women who haven't worked for years in my volunteering role. Their reason for not working is often 'I have children'. Then the children grow up, and the benefits reduce. it's a huge shock to some.

Lastly, I agree with all the posters who feel strongly that both parents, whether together or separate, have a duty to support whatever children they create. The UK is very lax on enforcing child support, and often its a pitiful amount compared to how much contribution a working resident parent makes.

Dervel · 11/07/2021 18:26

I agree enforcement on child support is terrible, but the problem is the cost of enforcement often way eclipses the sums recovered, so in those instances what would be the point?

There should be a social safety net of some kind, but probably not to the point that it disempowers people from improving their own circumstances. Where is that line precisely? I don’t know, if we look at it problem by problem, if there are children literally starving would a food stamp policy be appropriate?

OnlyFoolsnMothers · 11/07/2021 19:38

@Dervel

I agree enforcement on child support is terrible, but the problem is the cost of enforcement often way eclipses the sums recovered, so in those instances what would be the point?

There should be a social safety net of some kind, but probably not to the point that it disempowers people from improving their own circumstances. Where is that line precisely? I don’t know, if we look at it problem by problem, if there are children literally starving would a food stamp policy be appropriate?

If you don’t contribute to the financial upbringing on your child the penalty should be simple: jail for neglect!
Thelnebriati · 11/07/2021 19:56

Did Dervel just suggest food stamps for mothers if their partners default on child support? Because benefits 'disempower' people?
FOTTFSOFATFOSM. Benefits are all that's between you and being on the street. Its not having the pittance that disempowers you, its the red tape.
You sound utterly clueless.

In a society run by people who were not complete sadists, the State would pay the child support, and recover it from the defaulting parent.

Hertsgirl10 · 11/07/2021 20:22

People don’t want these kids paid for but complain when the crime rates go flying up. Including knife crimes.

Look how much this has all gone up since this has become a thing, not saying people should just have kids and get paid for them, I don’t know what the answer is honestly. What I do know is child poverty is happening all over this country and it isn’t those children’s fault.

People on benefits have never been living it up believe me, they was just about getting by and it is showing in society how bad it’s got.
And I don’t think people consider a lot of things when it comes to issues like this.

Since the Conservatives have been in power, the poorer children are who have suffered.
I mean it shouldn’t take a football player to make sure poor kids can eat lunch.

Thelnebriati · 11/07/2021 20:24

It costs more to keep a child in care or in a young offenders institution than at home and in education.

IceCreamAndCandyfloss · 11/07/2021 20:31

If you don’t contribute to the financial upbringing on your child the penalty should be simple: jail for neglect

If there were harsh penalties for not financially supporting your own children rather than tax payers doing it, resident or not, I wonder how many would limit their family size and think ahead to ensure they still could afford choices made should circumstances change.

OnlyFoolsnMothers · 11/07/2021 20:39

@IceCreamAndCandyfloss

If you don’t contribute to the financial upbringing on your child the penalty should be simple: jail for neglect

If there were harsh penalties for not financially supporting your own children rather than tax payers doing it, resident or not, I wonder how many would limit their family size and think ahead to ensure they still could afford choices made should circumstances change.

No not for people on benefits - for absentee fathers!
Hertsgirl10 · 11/07/2021 21:33

@sleepygnome

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.

You made a statement here but you didn’t actually answer the question that was asked.
Getawaywithit · 11/07/2021 21:45

if there are children literally starving would a food stamp policy be appropriate?

My ex hasn’t paid maintenance in 14 years. You think I should be punished for that?

woodhill · 11/07/2021 22:01

Are the CSA able to take money directly from wages like a student loan

Terrible that those men able to pay for their dc shirk their responsibilities in some cases

pam290358 · 11/07/2021 22:24

Getaway with it. Don’t talk fucking crap. I worked most of my life despite being profoundly disabled and eventually retired on medical grounds.I claimed disability benefits which topped up a low wage (par for the course for disabled people) and enabled me to get a car which helped with journeys to and from work. We’re not all feckless, far from it, so do your research before you post. There are some shitheads on this thread.

FTEngineerM · 11/07/2021 22:49

Relax Pam, it was sarcasm from Getawaywithit

stuckinarut86 · 11/07/2021 23:12

Definitely a difficult one. I agree you should have as many children as you like and as some have said accidental pregnancy or unforeseen circumstances are not under some people's control. However I personally believe as longs as the benefits a person receives doesn't go above the average wage (not sure what that is) is what they are entitled to receive.

Gingerkittykat · 12/07/2021 01:41

@woodhill

Are the CSA able to take money directly from wages like a student loan

Terrible that those men able to pay for their dc shirk their responsibilities in some cases

Yes, they can but rarely do. It took me a couple of years and complaining to my MP for that to happen in my case.

The CMS have the power to seize bank accounts, take passports and driving licenses but almost never use those powers.

Dervel · 12/07/2021 10:07

@Getawaywithit forgive me if I’m being dense, but how is being given food stamps to ensure children get some form of food a punishment?

Of course your ex should have being contributing for those 14 years. That isn’t in any doubt whatsoever.

Getawaywithit · 12/07/2021 11:40

forgive me if I’m being dense, but how is being given food stamps to ensure children get some form of food a punishment?

I am not feckless because I claim Epsom’s benefits. I have a degree, Masters and a professional qualification. I know how to budget. I don’t need to have my money ring-fenced to ensure that I spend it ‘appropriately’. I am capable of assessing my children’s needs and acting accordingly. Food stamps suggest otherwise.

Getawaywithit · 12/07/2021 11:40

*some benefits.

Epsom’s?!!

Getawaywithit · 12/07/2021 11:41

Don’t talk fucking crap

Sarcasm.

Dervel · 12/07/2021 16:13

@Getawaywithit I wouldn’t dream of claiming you were feckless. I’m not wedded to the notion of food stamps either, I just know it seems to be a policy they have in America so presumably it benefits some children somewhere.

I genuinely do not have a strong view here, I’m not a social scientist, and it most certainly not my area of expertise. It just seemed a logical suggestion. Apologies if it was a stupid or ill-thought out one! I’m just as keen to learn around these wider issues as clearly there is a problem.

I will say this though is protecting the ego’s/pride of benefit recipients really of greater significance than getting food in hungry children’s bellies? I would have thought that was the bigger priority here? Again I may have this wrong but isn’t it broadly speaking accepted that people get vouchers towards nursery places up to a certain number of hours? I don’t believe there is any insinuation that people who avail themselves of such are feckless, so I’d challenge that anyone requiring food stamps should any more aggrieved than that.

I’d suggest means testing or whatever to ensure it got into the hands of those who need it, but unfortunately that just adds cost and hassle and takes away from the limited resources we could distribute as a society.

The view I currently hold is I really don’t agree with notions of deserving/undeserving poor. In fact I’d even go so far to say I’d like any social safety net to insulate people even from the worst effects of their own bad decisions.

The sticking point or the issue that worries me is that by sliding too far into pathological altruism, whenever we subsidise something we get more of it. There is something called the tragedy of the commons, which basically states that any shared resource a community has access too can be consumed up to and including to the point of rendering the asset incapable of producing any further benefit in future as people rush to utilise this resource to maximise their own personal benefit. This regrettably produces the effect that the rational action of all individuals is to take as much as they can get before it’s rendered useless. Hastening it’s decline.

Just in closing if you felt I was insinuating you or anyone else was “feckless” I unreservedly apologise. I really don’t know you to be at all placed to judge your personal circumstances. I’m just trying to sniff out whatever policy might work on a macro level to combat the problem of malnourished children.

I’m even open to looking into a universal basic income, if there was some realistic method of making that work without running into the tragedy of the commons issue I outlined above. Really you’ll get no judgement from me you work the system as you need to for your family it’s what 99.99% of the human race would do in your shoes including me.

AudacityBaby · 12/07/2021 16:55

I'm childless and infertile and a higher-rate taxpayer. Countries with high tax rates and quality provision of services are where we should be aiming at. More than happy for my tax to go up to facilitate this. I don't mind if it benefits kids that aren't related to me.

Any child who is here needs to be provided for. Of course ultimate responsibility lies with the parents, but children can't eat principles. My preference would be for the state to pay the necessary support and if applicable reclaim from any parent not paying proper maintenance.

As for the inevitable "why should I?" - I'm not going to appeal to emotions here because that's clearly not the right level. I'll appeal to the wallet - because it costs a lot more to clean up the mess that ensues, decades down the line, when you have neglected children. Same reason why you throw money at climate change measures - it costs more in the long-term not to spend the money.

vivainsomnia · 12/07/2021 17:33

I just dont get the notion that the reform is pushing children into poverty.

Any women without a decent job and experience, or married to a man with a good career, where there is provision in case of divorce is inevitably putting herself at risk by having 3+ children. Why make that choice in the first place but just assuming everything is bound to be fine.

Even with 3 children, you only need to work 16 hours to be able to claim for all 3 children. only a bit more than 3 hours a day, surely that is feasible for most. The difficult time therefore is before all children have a free nursery place/school. Under 3 though don't cost massively, so even though it would mean tigtening the belt, it doesn't have to mean that the children don't get to eat properly. And that's for those whose nrp doesn't pay a penny.

There will be exceptions. rp who genuinely cannot work at all not claim ill health benefits for themselves or their children. Those who despite very good budgeting will struggle to make ends meet. However, the very vast majority should be able to get out of the trap, if they care to put the investment into doing so. Someone mention that it is hard. It is. Some people without a doubt have it harder. Does this mean that we should provide things easy to everyone so they don't have to try hard. What message is this giving to the young generation?

Thelnebriati · 12/07/2021 17:41

Does this mean that we should provide things easy to everyone so they don't have to try hard.

You haven't understood the benefits poverty trap at all. When I say 'its hard to get yourself off benefits'' what you hear is ''I cant be bothered to work as hard as you''.

In fact, the way benefit regulations are written means its hard to get yourself off benefits.
For example, you are working and are paid every 4 weeks. You claim UC to top up your income.
If you are paid on the 'wrong' date you will lose your UC in every month where there are 5 weeks in the month, because of the way it is calculated.

HandlebarLadyTash · 12/07/2021 18:30

I agree with it.
I made decisions regarding family size, home size, how I & live, what I spend relating to income.
I have had an abortion that was in part a financial decision.
We went to work only to spend the money on childcare, dropping at school, always rushing to work. It was stressful and hard & a slog.
I worked through lockdown & home schooled at the same time it was a 7 day a week nightmare (had to cry in the shed a lot when it got to much)
Money should be a consideration when choosing your family size.
I'm sick of seeing the benifit parents get the free clubs, school trips, housing & still go on holiday.
It's only now my kids are older I have spare money & guess what I'm now worrying about pensions & I'm putting money into that. I wont get pension top ups but I will still have a shitty pension.
If more people took responsibility then we could look after the people who need help.