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

There is an exception for twins or triplets etc. So if the poster does not qualify for extra money it is for reasons other than the amount of children.

Also she says "child benefit" which does not have any cap on amount of children

I'm split on this one. I totally agree it needed to be done as some were abusing the system having one after another so they didn't have to get a job. However I also feel that there are people who may have more than 2 children because they can afford them at the time they made that choice and felt confident they could support them. Then along comes circumstances out of their control such as a pandemic and they loose their job or business. After which they may be in serious trouble financially. Unable to meet everyone's needs. They could have been fine for years having their children then find they need support that simply is not available.

@FortniteBoysMum

I'm split on this one. I totally agree it needed to be done as some were abusing the system having one after another so they didn't have to get a job. However I also feel that there are people who may have more than 2 children because they can afford them at the time they made that choice and felt confident they could support them. Then along comes circumstances out of their control such as a pandemic and they loose their job or business. After which they may be in serious trouble financially. Unable to meet everyone's needs. They could have been fine for years having their children then find they need support that simply is not available.

But they know when they choose to have more than 2 children that should something happen in the future (which it of course could) they will only receive benefit for 2 children. Up to them to make sure they can manage if that happens or not have so many children

But they know when they choose to have more than 2 children that should something happen in the future (which it of course could) they will only receive benefit for 2 children. Up to them to make sure they can manage if that happens or not have so many children

But the things that happened in recent years were not things that could have been readily foreseen: the banking crisis of 2008, and the recent and current pandemic. (Or if you think they could have been, why didn't most governments in the UK and worldwide do a better job of planning for them?)

If people didn't have children unless they could be ABSOLUTELY certain of having enough money for them under all possible circumstances - nobody would have any children at all!

What about taxpayers rights.

@dd1 that's not what the poster is saying. You can have children two children at that. If you want to have a bigger family you are now expected to cut your cloth accordingly!

I think its a good thing.

What about taxpayers rights

@Bard6817 You know the majority of people who claim benefits are also taxpayers, right?

@ddl1

But they know when they choose to have more than 2 children that should something happen in the future (which it of course could) they will only receive benefit for 2 children. Up to them to make sure they can manage if that happens or not have so many children

But the things that happened in recent years were not things that could have been readily foreseen: the banking crisis of 2008, and the recent and current pandemic. (Or if you think they could have been, why didn't most governments in the UK and worldwide do a better job of planning for them?)

If people didn't have children unless they could be ABSOLUTELY certain of having enough money for them under all possible circumstances - nobody would have any children at all!

Well of course things can't be foreseen. Anyone can lose their job, become ill, have their OH walk out on them as well as major things happening in the UK or world such as covid.

That is why really sticking with 2 children is the sensible thing to do. If you want more than 2 then you really need to think how you would cope if something happened and not just think you will be able to get enough benefits

If you want more than 2 then you really need to think how you would cope if something happened and not just think you will be able to get enough benefits

People change and are unreliable. My ex said he would dig ditches to support his family. When he decided our marriage was over, that was no longer the case. Other than discuss what would happen if the relationship breaks down, what else do you suggest?

But someone promising to dig ditches is a bit Wooly isn't it?

How about ensure you both paid o to the mortgage so you come out with money towards a new house. Have savings. Maintain a job.

Have critical illness Insurance so the mortgage gets paid if you are sick.

Ensure you are married in a long term relationship before procreating.

None of it is fool proof but combined adds several layers of protection in.

From a purely selfish point of view, I want every child in my child's school and all the families around me to have a stable home and enough to live on, because that way our community is better, we are safer and the school is full of children who are fed, clothed and ready to learn. I want to live in a society where every child is cared for and supported. That's why I oppose the two child rule. Oh and because I had an unexpected third pregnancy and love her very much and am very glad I could have her and pay the mortgage for the few years I needed help.

@Getawaywithit

If you want more than 2 then you really need to think how you would cope if something happened and not just think you will be able to get enough benefits

People change and are unreliable. My ex said he would dig ditches to support his family. When he decided our marriage was over, that was no longer the case. Other than discuss what would happen if the relationship breaks down, what else do you suggest?

Simple, stick with 2 children.

We don't need large families and 2 is enough for anyone. Then if something unforeseen happens the benefits you will be entitled to cover the 2 children

How about ensure you both paid o to the mortgage so you come out with money towards a new house. Have savings. Maintain a job.Have critical illness Insurance so the mortgage gets paid if you are sick.Ensure you are married in a long term relationship before procreating. None of it is fool proof but combined adds several layers of protection

ODFOD.

1. Joint mortgage secured on two full time salaries. Successful business, detached house in south east, new cars on drive way, children in private school.

2.,Thousands in joint savings, plus a buy to let property. Ex cleared out the savings on his way out. Moved into said property.

1. Both working in business. No previous periods of unemployment.
2. Plenty of insurance. But you can’t insure against your husband running off with his accountant.,
3. Together 6 years before first baby, 3 of them married.

Sod all protection.

Some of these ideas are very Victorian. There seems to be a strong element of wishing to punish those who have larger families rather than protect those who fall on hard times. Personally I think everyone should choose how many children they want and then do there best and everyone should expect to support those who need it. We have enough to do that.

@Spanielstail

But someone promising to dig ditches is a bit Wooly isn't it?

How about ensure you both paid o to the mortgage so you come out with money towards a new house. Have savings. Maintain a job.

Have critical illness Insurance so the mortgage gets paid if you are sick.

Ensure you are married in a long term relationship before procreating.

None of it is fool proof but combined adds several layers of protection in.

But this is bullshit. This isn't real life.

Alot of people don't have mortgages. They live in rental properties.
Many can't afford mortgage protection. Many don't have critical illness cover. People don't have savings, because they spend all their money on food, and living, and rent.
Many mothers give up work (see threads on here ad infitinum) because their salary doesn't even start to cover childcare and their job doesn't allow them any flexibility, and their ex doesn't do any housework, or drop offs, or school holidays . So they are left relying on their partner, who becomes their ex.

Most people think their marriage or relationship will last - mine was 20 years
People get pregnant accidentally or they have twins.

And when the relationship ends and the mother (because it's usually her) doesn't have enough money - you leave the third child out of any calculation? So you get no rent for the third child, no UC, no tax credit. How is that right? The family and the child just suffer?

I know you won't get persuaded by my post, but your post exemplifies what is so wrong with society today.

A number of PPs don’t seem to understand that in order to avoid the pitfalls of a rapidly ageing population, we need future taxpayers, and that the current 1.6 birth rate is an average. So, in order to maintain even this dismal 1.6 (predicted to fall further), where some people have 0 children, and there are many more onlies than has historically been the case, some people have to have two or more because that is how averages work.

Stopping at one or two, to be sensible and responsible, is a preoccupation of relatively well-educated, affluent people. It makes a sort of sense in the short term.

Also, great posts by @missymayhemsmum and @HelenHywater, to which I would add that, in the end, punishing children with poverty costs society a fucking fortune.

Perhaps a ‘thanks for producing taxpayers/sorry you didn’t have the child(ren) you’d hoped for/congrats you didn’t have any children you didn’t want’ cash gift, redeemable after age 45 for those with zero/one/two would work? Anyone who fancies three or more loses the cash gift but gains a different gift. This might achieve what the two-child cap set out to achieve, but in a way that works better for blameless children and the society in which we all live.

You already are significantly poorer if you have more children and have the benefits of having them. There’s no need to enhance the way things are.

somethingonce - i'm probably going to get flamed for this.....but if the aim is to produce future taxpayers then you would want lots of higher rate taxpayers - less than about 30k income you are actually a negative drain on the tax system. And stats show that you are more likely to get these from higher educated mothers, and these are less likely to be on benefits anyway.

I think high earners and low earners both tend to have larger families

@dreamingofsun the two-child cap seems to have been intended to discourage particular reproductive choices that PPs have discussed; I wonder if incentivising a limit, rather than punishing those exceeding it, would be better (and cheaper) all round.

Perhaps higher rate taxpayers mightn’t be so cautious and hesitant to have larger families if the safety net was able to function properly as a safety net - when circs genuinely change - and not an incentive (tbh, I don’t know how much the latter has been the case, but evidently some take that view). Higher rate taxpayers who genuinely want larger families are unlikely to be put off by missing out on a cash gift.

I’m sure some policy bod could come up with numbers that would nudge behaviour to achieve the right, erm, balance in a way that feels more positive than punishing children for their parents’ choices and setting up the country for a demographic disaster.

The idea of “nudging” people to do what you want by penalising children is gross.

I think @dreamingofsun although I'm no economist, that relatively speaking there's a higher tax burden on lower paid people once you factor in VAT, tax on fuel etc etc. The higher rate tax payers seem to be more adept at paying less tax.

And if you want to create more higher rate tax payers in the future, you lift families out of poverty. Poverty is the by far biggest cause of worse outcomes for children - more by far than any other factor. Any other factor. It's in no one's interests for children to be in poverty. And that means economic interests if you can't be persuaded by the moral argument.