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

Lots of middle earner families where both parents work and earn above the national average in wages can't afford to have often more than one child or two or three etc so why should the government (and taxpayer) support low income or no income people have multiple children?

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.

You can fact check the above. If anything there are too many older people, the median age is 40.

@osbertthesyrianhamster

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.

rubbish. The tax payer hardly picks up anything. The vast majority of families receiving UC are in work. They are still in poverty.

There is no safety net. And it isn't feckless parents choosing to have 7 children on top of their fags and booze habit. It's the woman working in the supermarket, your nursery worker, your TA at school.

@ivfgottwins

Lots of middle earner families where both parents work and earn above the national average in wages can't afford to have often more than one child or two or three etc so why should the government (and taxpayer) support low income or no income people have multiple children?

Yes those stupid people having 4 children and expecting the tax payer to pay.

Jesus Christ . Why don't you read and do some research before spouting your ridiculous, bigoted, views?

I had two kids because that's all we could afford. Now they're both adults , working full time, and I have one grandchild who's twelve. There will he no more as my son is divorced and my daughter can't have kids. They both pay all their taxes so they've paid back more than it ever cost the government to raise them. It p*sses me off to see lots of people I know of, neither working, but driving nice cars and smoking. They're probably working cas in hand, as according to most people, benefits are crap.
I'm not having a go at people who need them, but a lot of them have more than two kids, or work cash in hand.

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.)

Yep, I can afford private healthcare so why should I pay for others? I have an good private pension so can I opt out of paying for others? People need to engage their brain.

I don’t think anyone wants to see kids growing up in dire poverty, but I do think there was a strong appetite for welfare reform, including amongst traditional Labour supporters.

It isn’t entirely true that people have never had children ‘for the money’ - Shannon matthews is probably the saddest and most well known example - but I think more to the point is that money wasn’t a deterrent. If my salary was raised for every child I had, I’d want three or four, easily.

It's non-resident parents not paying up a lot, too, Helen. Nowhere did I cast aspersions on people who have to claim but there is no shortage of NRPs who pay 'the minimum', which is far too low or are allowed to skive out of paying by lax laws regarding paying for your children.

Nowhere did I say only the unemployed claim UC. My post was about NRPs not paying up.

That should always have been the priority when it comes to legislation reform (but won't be because it's usually men who walk away).

It's the right decision.

Unless a child they can't afford was conceived through rape there is no excuse

What about a family with three+ kids where the main earner dies?
What about a woman who has three+ kids whose partner becomes abusive and she has to leave?
Or someone who finds they are pregnant with twins or triplets and doesn't want to terminate?

Because those things are going to happen to families who had kids born after 2017.

People love to demonise welfare recipients as being scroungers, but most are honest people who never wanted to be in the situation they are in.

@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.

🤦‍♀️No contraception is 100% reliable. Are you so perfect that you have never had a scare? Really?

All those things can happen to people not entitled to welfare payments too mousehole

It’s the correct decision. You want children you pay for them

These children are the ones who are going to have to pay for your pension, health and care in old age - its typical short term purely for votes thinking that has typified British politics for years.

They really aren't. If anything they will need supporting as the cost of living is so high and most jobs require loads of benefit subsidies already to live on. Very few people make a net contribution to the state from their employment in terms of tax, NI, schooling, healthcare etc and most of those will be families without children or families with very high earners.

If anything the Government should be paying people to not have children, the environmental impact alone is awful and we certainly shouldn't be paying people who decide to have 3 children, 2 being the replacement rate. However, the Government is neither responsible for anyone's third child, nor is it stopping anyone from getting a job to support their choice to have more than 2 children.

If anything the Government should be paying people to not have children

?

So who pays taxes?

@motogogo

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

Exactly.

Free choice is still there, it’s just parents have to accept their responsibilities for choices they made. No one has to have children.

Having a system where we pay for personal choices be it children, not working, doing a token few hours, living in expensive areas etc seems madness when we need more money in education and healthcare.

Who trains to become care workers, doctors & nurses to look after the elderly?

I am staggered the number of posters here who seem to lack insight or imagination.
Some people set out to have a second child and end up with 3 - ever heard of twins? Some people’s contraception fails and they end up with 3 even if they’re careful. Some have 3 when in stable relationships or jobs then stuff happens…redundancy, illness, divorce - no one plans those things, and sure everyone has buckets of savings set aside for such eventualities
And yes rape is an exepction, but you have to report the rape- have you seen the statistics on rape reporting and prosecution, particularly rape inside a relationship.
Thank good you all have such privileged lives that this will never happen to you

Prior to the restrictions, there was a two tier system of deciding upon whether your family was complete.

Dependant upon benefits: would it be nice to have more? Yes, or no?
Once that decision was made, the state paid for it. Even made a larger property available if insufficient housing existed.

Not in receipt of benefits: can we afford more? Can we juggle work hours and afford childcare to make it work? Do we have room for more? Can we afford a larger house? Yes, or no?

We had a system that significantly discriminated against tax payers, in favour of non tax payers. It was unfair and needed to be addressed.

I know that is a sweeping statement, and each individual's circumstances are different. I know that divorce happens, rape happens. These are exceptions, and I am not talking about those cases.

Children should NOT suffer, but parents ALWAYS need to factor affordability into their decisions at point of conception. This was not happening, and something needed to change.

@MouseholeCat

Unless a child they can't afford was conceived through rape there is no excuse

What about a family with three+ kids where the main earner dies?
What about a woman who has three+ kids whose partner becomes abusive and she has to leave?
Or someone who finds they are pregnant with twins or triplets and doesn't want to terminate?

Because those things are going to happen to families who had kids born after 2017.

People love to demonise welfare recipients as being scroungers, but most are honest people who never wanted to be in the situation they are in.

As I said, if couples all stuck to having 1 or 2 children there would be no problems if something happens such as the main earner dying.

People have countless children because they can afford it are really being rather stupid because anything could happen in the future.

If someone is expecting twins or triplets and they only have 1 child then the twins or triplets will all be counted as the second child.

I think it's fine. But for those that dont, maybe you could set up a charity to recompense parents of larger families and people could donate to it voluntarily ?

@tillytoodles1

I had two kids because that's all we could afford. Now they're both adults , working full time, and I have one grandchild who's twelve. There will he no more as my son is divorced and my daughter can't have kids. They both pay all their taxes so they've paid back more than it ever cost the government to raise them. It p*sses me off to see lots of people I know of, neither working, but driving nice cars and smoking. They're probably working cas in hand, as according to most people, benefits are crap. I'm not having a go at people who need them, but a lot of them have more than two kids, or work cash in hand.

Sand your evidence for this massive population of “scrounges”is..? Compared with all the decent hard working families who have been plunged into dire circumstances and you just want to kick them more as the undeserving poor You are so much more deserving obviously

Haven't read the full thread. There is no human right to welfare benefits. A person can have as many children as they want, but mustn't expect the state to pay for them all. Correct decision imo.

The world is over populated. The government should not be funding people to have even more children.

@Aprilinspringtimeshower for divorce, redundancy, critical illness, etc (things changing in other words) there is insurance. We all know things change and the cost of insuring for this is considerably less than the cost of a third child. So how about child 1, child 2, insurance, then more children as you can afford them?