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

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.

You .... actually typed this... and presumably think it's correct?

What a compassionate bunch there are on this thread

Not

This policy impacts children. It puts children into poverty. It is not fair or humane to do that to children. End of.
And for anyone who wants to respond, I've seen it first hand, in my line of work. We will see the affects of this policy 20 years from now with the mental health crisis and increased crime rates. Poverty does not pay in the long run!

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

Obviously, it can. But what if it happens to people who subsequently need support? Why is it okay that those children might end up below the poverty line because of this policy?

@Radio4ordie

It has left many children in poverty. Whatever the parents situation (and there are reasons like critical illness that are not due to poor planning) the children surely shouldn’t be in this situation. I think it’s shameful personally.

This sums up my opinion. Child benefit is for children, therefore I don’t see why it makes sense to restrict those payments on the basis of their parents decisions.

All this will result in is more children in poverty.

@MarsandPluto do you think the elderly should have to fund all their own care then?

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.

Wtf!! How can someone be so stupid?

@Aprilinspringtimeshower

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

For a start if the second child is twins then the 2 child limit doesn't apply. You could have course found this out but why bother when you want to slate other posters.

Oh yes the contraception fail excuse. I cannot believe the amount of "accidental pregnancies" that happen.

You have 2 children and don't want or can afford more then make bloody sure you don't get pregnant. If that means sterilisation or vasectomy then so be it.

Yes of course stuff happens which is why it would be best if, no matter what your circumstances, couples stuck to 2 children maximum. Anyone with any sense would

Sorry but I only had one child as a single parent because I couldn't AFFORD any more. I worked full time.
I would have loved more children, but I won't push out 5 of them and expect the state for pay for my decisions.

@coulditbecominghome

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.

Wtf!! How can someone be so stupid?

How is it stupid? It is a fact. Couples just having child after child just because they can afford to are bloody stupid unless they have insurance or something in place in case something happens.

Surely everyone knows anything can happen and circumstances can change suddenly?

@HyggeTygge

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.

You .... actually typed this... and presumably think it's correct?

Yes I do think it is correct.

Totally agree.
Why should the government/taxpayer have to shell out for people who choose to have multiple children they can't afford?
This is why a lot of couples stick to one or two children. They are very expensive unfortunately.

for divorce, redundancy, critical illness, etc (things changing in other words) there is insurance.

@BarbarianMum Can you please tell me who you are insured with? I've yet to find an insurance company that pays well for critical illness.

@Aprilinspringtimeshower, where did I call them scroungers? I merely pointed out that a lot of people who live on benefits where neither if them work ,have more than two kids, but still seem to have a decent lifestyle. People who work at minimum pay jobs deserve to have benefits, lazy scroungers don't.

I think it's the right decision, we plan on having a third but we don't expect anyone else to support them. Child benefit is useful, but we've made sure we could support our kids on what we earn alone.

@Getawaywithit

The problem is shit happens. I have three children, born into a long marriage with a successful business and private schooling. Ex had an affair and a change of personality. I have worked pretty much the whole thing (we are many years down the line), but a lack of support for my third child would have rendered work pretty much pointless purely from a financial perspective and with the cost of childcare what it is in some areas, work simply wouldn’t pay. And the Government has done sod all, despite the CSA/CMS and plenty of legislation, to help us otherwise.

So I can’t agree this is a good thing. We need to support single parents to work and make work pay, not penalise them for choices that were made before life changed for them.

But this is a different issue. Your ex should be paying enough to support your children and pay for your childcare, or at least half of it.

It's outrageous that some men are so flakey that the state has to pick up the bill for those who are earning decent money and should be supporting their children. There should be severe punishments for those that refuse to pay for their kids.

Surely everyone knows anything can happen and circumstances can change suddenly?

No one is disputing that.

My point is it's stupid to think "if couples all stuck to having 1 or 2 children there would be no problems if something happens such as the main earner dying."

So come on @lynsey91 who are you insured with then. I would love to know a mid market insurance product that completely alleviates the financial impact of a parent dying.

I was sterilised after 2. My 2 DGD were born abroad British passports though. They are 5 1/2 & 4. They are being taught at a private school and are learning another language.
Many of the students go on to Universities worldwide. Imagine their CVs
No one can see the future but we hope they have a good one.

@BrilliantBetty

I think they should go a step further and limit council housing and temporary accommodation to three bedrooms. And housing benefit to be limited to three bedroom rate too. If a family can't afford more (securely!) then don't have more. No reason councils should be forking out for unreasonably large properties because of individuals choices.

The majority of Council properties are not bigger than 3 beds anyway. Housing benefit has been capped for some time too it's not like years ago where the government would pay for extortionate private rents. The wait for a Council House is quite long too.. where do you live.

I feel like we should be going after tax dodging corporations before we start hitting welfare. Most of the welfare bill is actually pensions I believe, but I guess they won't means test that anytime soon given the voting power that holds.

^ this

The problem with hitting welfare is ultimately children suffer because some parents simply do not care. I honestly do not know the answer. Give them vouchers, they sell those too. It’s gone on for years.

@ArnoldJudasRimmer so do you get CB?

Main earner dying is something you need to factor in when deciding how many children you have.

@coulditbecominghome Royal London

And no it wouldnt alleviate all financial impact of one of us getting sick or dying but it would mean the mortgage was paid and we could eat (payout for dying better than for long term illness in our case).

No one can ever know the future but it's common sense that coping with change is easier with one or two children to support than with 3, 4 or 5.

I'd never received it until recently (my eldest is 13) we didn't qualify until the pandemic hit and we lost our jobs, I only have two children but what if I had more and our circumstances changed over night as it did for the first time in about 15 years. I don't agree with the cap, I never have.

Well @lynsey91 thinks it would.

And yes we would financially be better off of one died as opposed to becoming disabled but it would still have a significant impact.

I agree with the cap I'm afraid. You have to cut your cloth accordingly like with anything in life if there's no repercussions you will more likely to be lax about contraception as women we could all have an "accident".