Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

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:
vivainsomnia · 20/07/2021 12:14

Sod all protection
I see that you do have quite a bit of protection. You have assets you can sell. You have a house that you can sell and move to a smaller property. You have an ex who is earning well and so should be paying a decent amount of maintenance. You have assets you can sell and you have work experience that means you should able to find another job.

I wouldn't think that your family would fall in the poverty trap under these circumstances and the reduction in UC is not going to be a massive hardship in the longer term.

To me it sounds exactly like the protection you need to have in place.

monotonousmum · 20/07/2021 12:16

I was raised on benefits. My Dad always worked full time, apart from a brief period when I was in my 20s and already moved out - the experience was extremely stressful, and benefits were threatened to stop once when he was 6 minutes to the job centre, when it was snowing! He was totally humiliated, and what he really needed was help filling in application forms...it had been over 20 years since he'd last had to do it.
For reasons I won't go into here my Mum hasn't done much paid work, only partially because it wasn't financially viable with us kids.

I knew we were poor. Holidays were camping, and I don't recall them being every year - best holidays ever though. You couldn't help yourself to food from the fridge because everything was accounted for, but we didn't go hungry. My parents did sometimes.

Those benefits enabled us to eat. Get to school, continue education (to college level, not uni - I did that myself in my late 20s). They housed us, somewhere that I can still go back to if I needed to (although they don't claim income related benefits now, home ownership has always been out of reach for my parents).

Those benefits gave a life to myself and my 4 siblings which means none of us have to claim benefits ourselves. I've never had to claim. I drive a reliable car and live in a nice house, with two kids (and would love a third but haven't fully decided yet). I'm in a very fortunate position and still only a few months unemployed from losing it all - income protection not available in my industry.

Money management was not my parents strong point, but it's hard to be good with money when you're poor. Buy cheap, buy twice doesn't mean much when you can't afford the quality to start with. If benefits for my parents had stopped at two I doubt they would have stopped having kids, but my life now is likely to be vastly different.

vivainsomnia · 20/07/2021 12:20

It's in no one's interests for children to be in poverty
Of course it isn't. Noone wants to see children in poverty. Everyone wants these children to have the same opportunity.

The issue is whether giving more money is the way to achieve it. If you are a low income family, the extra you use to get for having more children didn't mean more money for the individual children. Statistics seem to show that the introduction of the 2 children limit has indeed seen a reduction in people on benefit having more than 2 children. These two children are likely in a better position than they would have been with 2, 3, 4 more siblings, even with the increase in benefits.

The issue is when families decide to have more despite the limit. What is wrong is that the limit should only apply to families already receiving benefits. Those who didn't need to claim when they had more children, but suddenly finding themselves needing to should be exempt from it at the first time of claiming.

dreamingofsun · 20/07/2021 12:29

helenhighwater - not sure about your logic on lower income earners paying more tax. My point was that if your earn under about 30k you are a net taker and not a money generator for the country - taking into account the cost of things like healthcare, education etc. So from a budgetary perspective, if you increase the population of under 30k earners you are actually going to make the public sector funding situation worse

missymayhemsmum · 21/07/2021 22:10

Love the contrast between this thread and one on whether taking a third maternity leave is taking the piss.

Do those who support the two-child rule think that maternity pay/leave should also be restricted to two pregnancies? If not why not? In the UK statutory maternity paid is reclaimed from the state by the employer

Ju11tne · 23/07/2021 16:27

@missymayhemsmum

Love the contrast between this thread and one on whether taking a third maternity leave is taking the piss.

Do those who support the two-child rule think that maternity pay/leave should also be restricted to two pregnancies? If not why not? In the UK statutory maternity paid is reclaimed from the state by the employer

So what's your point about mat pay exactly?

The 2 children rule isn't about about stopping support in every area... it's just stopping some people taking the full on piss. As you can see some people would have 2+ kids without a second thought of the costs.

ChunkySloth · 23/07/2021 16:40

[quote 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]
Well it doesn't affect their rights, does it?Confused they are free to have as many children as they like, so long as they pay for them.

Viviennemary · 23/07/2021 21:39

A good way to stop child poverty is for folk not to have more children than they can afford. And yes I would support maternity pay being restricted to two children.

anxiouscrazymum · 24/07/2021 06:58

There should be a an contingency for special circumstances, like losing your job, family bereavement, new illness. However this must be for people that have worked.
For those that do not work then they shouldn't not get any additional money for more than 2 children.

Drivingbuttercup1 · 24/07/2021 07:17

I always wondered how this works if a man has two children with a women A, she then claims benefits but then man goes on to have more children with women B. Will women B be able to claim? As man is already claiming benefits for his two children

sunglassesonthetable · 24/07/2021 07:24

I always wondered how this works if a man has two children with a women A, she then claims benefits but then man goes on to have more children with women B. Will women B be able to claim? As man is already claiming benefits for his two children

you hit the nail on the head.

Drivingbuttercup1 · 24/07/2021 07:36

If women b can claim benifits then this is a law just for women and unfair. Man can have as many children as he wants.

If women cant claim it's still unfair as she wont be able to have children as she wont be able to provide.

Whether we like the cap or not it's very, very unfair.

sst1234 · 24/07/2021 09:03

@Getawaywithit

What about taxpayers rights

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

Yes everyone knows. And it’s not relevant. Net contributors is what people are talking about here. You know that too. Net contribution is what funds the system, simple math.
sst1234 · 24/07/2021 09:08

@missymayhemsmum

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.
Only if handing out free money could create stable homes, eh? I think we know how that worked out, the years of benefits for limitless children in the early 2000s created a underclass where it actually became a trap for people who let it become a lifestyle choice. When any form financial assistance goes from being safety net to a comfy mattress, people are not going to try to lift themselves off it. Human nature.
blissfulllife · 24/07/2021 09:09

@Drivingbuttercup1

I always wondered how this works if a man has two children with a women A, she then claims benefits but then man goes on to have more children with women B. Will women B be able to claim? As man is already claiming benefits for his two children
This....with bells on
Getawaywithit · 24/07/2021 14:17

Yes everyone knows. And it’s not relevant. Net contributors is what people are talking about here. You know that too. Net contribution is what funds the system, simple math

Yeah, only net contributors matter. I’m a teacher. And a single parent. According to people like you, I’m not relevant. There are a lot of essential workers out there who have deemed ‘not relevant’. I am at the point of jacking it all in, you might have just lost the education system yet another decent teacher.

Not fucking relevant. Jesus wept.

SomethingOnce · 24/07/2021 15:58

Yes everyone knows. And it’s not relevant. Net contributors is what people are talking about here. You know that too. Net contribution is what funds the system, simple math

Let’s not forget though, the numbers people are assigned to represent their narrowly defined ‘value’ (salary, income), that then determine their ‘contribution’ (tax), aren’t necessarily reflective of anything meaningful.

Many people, whose real value to society isn’t at all clear Hmm pull in big ‘value’ numbers (while efficiently minimising their ‘contribution’), and get to tell the rest of us we’re not worth nearly as much.

Fervent belief in the existing system goes a long way, of course, but it is a bit made up.

Dervel · 24/07/2021 16:08

Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t it the resident parent who get the benefits? So if any man had two children and was the main parent, he too would run into trouble in terms of having two more if he was relying on benefits?

Ju11tne · 24/07/2021 17:52

@Dervel that was my thought process too.

Spanielstail · 24/07/2021 19:37

I always wondered how this works if a man has two children with a women A, she then claims benefits but then man goes on to have more children with women B. Will women B be able to claim? As man is already claiming benefits for his two children

Don't have two more children if you couldn't afford the first two?

Viviennemary · 24/07/2021 21:11

Goes on number of children in the household claiming I read. So a man can have two children each by multiple women and they can all claim.

Drivingbuttercup1 · 25/07/2021 00:23

So doesnt this enable men to have children carefree with multiple women but women to only have two.

Booboosweet · 25/07/2021 00:31

I think the cap is a great idea. Hopefully it will discourage people from having more children than they can afford. I'm hoping they'll bring it in in Ireland where I live. At the moment child benefit is unlimited here.

pam290358 · 25/07/2021 12:26

If women b can claim benifits then this is a law just for women and unfair. Man can have as many children as he wants.

If women cant claim it's still unfair as she wont be able to have children as she wont be able to provide.

Whether we like the cap or not it's very, very unfair.

Surely the benefit is paid to the parent with care in a case like this. Woman A is unlikely to have custody of woman B’s children so where’s the problem?

ChunkySloth · 25/07/2021 12:30

@pam290358

If women b can claim benifits then this is a law just for women and unfair. Man can have as many children as he wants.

If women cant claim it's still unfair as she wont be able to have children as she wont be able to provide.

Whether we like the cap or not it's very, very unfair.

Surely the benefit is paid to the parent with care in a case like this. Woman A is unlikely to have custody of woman B’s children so where’s the problem?

Maybe those women could plan and save before having children, so that they are able to provide?