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

I think it's the usual narrative being fed to the outraged of the country that parents only have children to stay home and not work. The same that people on disability are lazy and faking illness, the same that people on universal credit don't want to work and expect to be looked after and given free money.
Of course there are people out there who will have one child after the other to get out of working, we probably all know a couple of people ourselves that do it. Or people who have them because they do want them but can't afford them and know they'll be looked after, but I'd say they're rarer these days than 10 years ago.

It's unhelpful. It's going to put more people into poverty. If you have 2 children and you and your partner both work and decide to go for another knowing you can afford it, what happens if one of them loses their job? Or has to become a carer for someone close to them and give up their job? That child already here and still has the same needs as the first 2, so then what?
If parents are irresponsible then that's one thing, but it's punishing the children who didn't ask to be here. And most of the time charities and food banks do not help everyone.

I think this is mostly a non-issue the government are going to push to look like they're doing something and play along to the "people on benefits are lazy sc*m" who voted the Tories in.

I don’t want to pay for 2 children let alone 3+ So yeah I’m glad they lost.

@IceCreamAndCandyfloss

Some people will accidentally get pregnant and not wish to terminate the pregnancy. Some people will experience a change in circumstances through illness, disability or redundancy etc that mean they are no longer able to afford the family that they had planned

Contraception is free and methods can be used together so there’s really no need to be “accidentally” pregnant if a person doesn’t want to be. Yes job losses etc can happen but it’s not hard to think I can afford x now but could only afford x if I wasn’t working and make a decision that’s financially sound if things change. Or have good insurance in place or savings.

Are you suggesting that only those rich enough to afford not to work should have 3+ children? You may as well just put a limit on the number of children people are allowed to have!

I can understand aspects of both sides, but ultimately its not the kids fault so don't think they should suffer - whether the parents had a 3rd child knowing they couldn't afford it or not.

I do wonder though, especially judging by the number of people in favour of this ruling, how big of a financial burden this actually was on the tax payer and how much it was just a political win.

How many people were actually just having kids for the benefits so they didn't have to work, vs how many kids are now in poverty because their parent(s) unexpectedly found themselves in a bad situation? Who is feeding these kids now? Or if you unexpectedly become unemployed and any savings rub out should you just drop your least favourite child off with social services? Doesn't seem like that would cost the taxpayer less money. Maybe they should just kick the 3rd out on the street or just stop buying enough food and new clothes for them.

I do think the policy may put some people off having more kids, but at what cost?

@Foxglovesandlilacs86
I have 8 children and pay for them myself/ourselves. No help from the government.

Well the cost paid by the state of educating one child each year is £5000-6000. So that’s about £45,000 your kids have cost the taxpayer, just for their education. Let’s not discuss any doctors appointments etc etc.

Perhaps you do pay £60,000+ in income tax annually (salary £140k?). If not then no you don’t pay for them all yourself.

UK child benefit wasn't very generous anyway, was it?

I don't think so although my parents used to get a payment that was universal when I was young.

I think it has a greater effect on women because realistically it means that women can only have 2 kids that are paid tor as statistically it’s women who are the main carers and therefore claiming benefits.

However men can have 2 kids by as many different women as they choose and get all of them paid for

I agree with the pp who said that it’s more important that the CMS is fit for purpose. Too many men get away with not paying for their children. If men knew they wouldn’t get away with non payment of child maintenance it would help save more children from poverty.

I think the idea of. two child limit is fair but it’s unfair when the third or fourth children are already here.

Child Benefit is still paid for as many children as someone chooses to have. It’s child tax credits and universal credit child element which stop at two children.

I have 4 children and receive money for 3. I really can’t get worked up about not getting extra (apart from CB) after I had my 4th. We’re all happy and no worse off. It’s how people choose to cut their cloth.

It’s like people want those with more than 2 children to wallow in it.

@VolcanicEruption

I think they were starting to go down the right route. We stopped at 2 (now 34&31) as even then we knew the world was changing but we did not know how much. We decided to support them through further education and DD is a science teacher 👩‍🏫 abroad. DS is an engineer in food 🥘 production. Even before COVID the education and health systems were struggling and people were unable to get reasonable jobs hence the Gig economy . Yes people can have as many children as they want but stop expecting other people to sub this.

Why should people without children fund the schools and colleges your kids went to, or their healthcare? They don't have kids.

Your kids are ok, but you have no empathy for other people's. So, you are a rich tory.

I find this fascinating because when you read MN, it genuinely sometimes sounds like it's 18% with less than two.

MN is really not representative of the population as a whole. Reading on here youd be forgiven for thinking the average uk wage was about 80k!

If people can't afford to have more than 2 children, they shouldn't have them. Unless a child they can't afford was conceived through rape there is no excuse.

...and let’s not even mention the massive toll an 8 person family takes in the environment. And of course the richer you are the worse that gets (foreign holidays, bigger car, bigger house etc etc ). environmentally, a well-off British family having 8 kids is probably equivalent to a below average salary family have 15 kids.

You can have as many children as you can afford, the ruling is just that you won't receive extra benefits

How can someone "ensure" they can afford kids for their entire future, or even the next 18 years?
You might have a good idea but to "ensure" you're essentially saying you need tens/hundreds of thousands of pounds in savings before you conceive.

No-one can predict whether they will be healthy/able-bodied/able to work at any given salary level for the next couple of decades.

Lots of well-earning people were put at financial risk with Brexit, covid etc - other things they have no control over.

I wish people would be specific about what they actually mean when they say people should "ensure" they can afford kids. Obviously they are expensive so you will probably know if you can't afford them at the moment, but that's not the same thing.

(^ That wasn't in response to the OP but to people saying finances should be 'ensured')

@Pinuporc

I find this fascinating because when you read MN, it genuinely sometimes sounds like it's 18% with less than two.

MN is really not representative of the population as a whole. Reading on here youd be forgiven for thinking the average uk wage was about 80k!

I am aware. Also the Chernobyl chicken feeding 17 for a month 😁

But the concentration is really interesting.

@HyggeTygge
They’re just talking out of their backsides. Some people who are getting crapped on by the system themselves and are just scraping by themselves take a little perverse pleasure in kicking downwards.

@AlexaShutUp

It's a tough one. I do think it's irresponsible to have children that you can't afford to support. I also think there are strong environmental arguments for encouraging people to have fewer children.

However, it isn't quite as simple as that, is it? Some people will accidentally get pregnant and not wish to terminate the pregnancy. Some people will experience a change in circumstances through illness, disability or redundancy etc that mean they are no longer able to afford the family that they had planned. Sadly, some women will get pregnant as the result of rape. Not everyone's lives are perfectly planned. And none of it is the fault of the innocent children who did not ask to be born and who do not deserve to grow up in poverty... even if their parents are feckless and irresponsible.

It is inhumane to deny support to children who really need it, whatever has caused that need.

This.

How can someone "ensure" they can afford kids for their entire future, or even the next 18 years?
You might have a good idea but to "ensure" you're essentially saying you need tens/hundreds of thousands of pounds in savings before you conceive.

No-one can predict whether they will be healthy/able-bodied/able to work at any given salary level for the next couple of decades.

I am also puzzled by this, I don't have hundreds of thousands of pounds in saving.

...and let’s not even mention the massive toll an 8 person family takes in the environment. And of course the richer you are the worse that gets (foreign holidays, bigger car, bigger house etc etc ). environmentally, a well-off British family having 8 kids is probably equivalent to a below average salary family have 15 kids.

But that's ok cause then can afford it 🙄

Personally I think child benefit should stop at 2 children. No one needs more than 2.

It's all very well saying if you can afford it you can have as many as you want but what if circumstances change? If everyone stuck with 1 or 2 then changes of circumstance would not matter would they?

Having 3, 4, 5, 6 or whatever children because you can afford it but not thinking things can change is just stupid.

The birth rate may be going down although looking round my neighbourhood I find that hard to believe but the UK is far too overcrowded.

The majority of my neighbours with children have 3. Some have more. One couple, neither of whom work, are expecting their 4th. The 3rd was born after the cut off date. How the hell are they affording it? They are both capable of working, have a car each but say they don't want to work!

@TheBestPlansAlwaysFail

Prefacing this by saying I don't agree with this logic - but these policies tend to be designed with the intention to stop the "wrong" kind of large families, i.e. uneducated, parents have low-skilled jobs. The people implementing them are well aware that most (not all, obviously) degree-educated parents will be able to afford a third or fourth child. The issue there is that those families often limit number of children because both parents have a career and the women often delay having children. Germany, for example, introduced changes to mat leave that very explicitly benefitted highly-trained/educated women but punished unemployed or low-earning women. Long-term, I think the UK will do something similar.

Well that sounds shit for women on low incomes, how did that work out?

Love it when people say 'we never get any help from the government'. Yes you do, lots of things are funded through taxes. Why should I (a child free woman) have to pay for your offspring? (Because I don't want to see kids growing up in dire poverty, that's why.)

Most of the posts on this thread are utterly utterly depressing.

You do know that children are going without FOOD because of the Tory party policies? That children are in poverty? That children are suffering. Jeez. The inhumanity on this thread.

Need to vastly strengthen the rules regarding non-resident parents paying for their children. So many, usually men, walk away from supporting their kids (and find some fool to procreate further with) and leaving the taxpayer holding the bag.

I think it's the wrong decision.