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 don't think existing payments remotely 'pay for' 2 kids. Literally no one is having kids because they think 'Oh, at least I'll get the benefits' - even a total moron knows that benefits never pay enough to support kids, it's just a totally made-up idea that anyone sets out to somehow profit from having more children.

Contraception is free

I had a v large family back when there was no cap on tax credits . I do feel very privileged that I was able to make that choice

I thought the world was over populated because life expectancy has gone up and people are living longer, in many places birth rates are pretty low?

DH & I have death in service benefit of 5 x our not insignificant salaries. We have benefits that include private health insurance. That alone is a security blanket before you even look at insurances.

Are people on low incomes & zero hours entitled to these?

@Pinuporc yes that's correct

The cap is correct in my opinion. Large families living off benefits and not working were significantly better off than families with 2 or 3 children in lower income (but above minimum wage) jobs. People were making a career out of having children.

In Britain I think over 65s already outnumber under 16s. And that figure is set to surge.

@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?

But surely the families qualify because their income is much lower than the ‘middle earner’ families and, even with the tax credits, they are still worse off. The middle earning families don’t qualify because their income is a lot higher anyway

@coulditbecominghome and so? The world is full of young people. Because what is the alternative? We keep growing and growing our population until this island bursts at the seams?

I don’t agree with it

The number of people having over 2 is relatively small. It may affect 1 million children but probably 600k of those children will be the first and second borns. It seems like a lot of faff and bad feeling for not much. I don’t think the sums are enough to act as incentive.

I really, really dislike the way it’s essentially women whose children are capped at 2, but men can get benefits for infinite numbers so long as they don’t have more than 2 with one woman.

The whole rape clause thing. And the way it feeds into the narrative of only affecting the feckless. In the 20+ years it takes to raise 3+ children to adulthood a lot can happen. It hasn’t happened to me yet but I like that the safety net is there all the same.

I think most people getting the extra money are on income levels that mean it would pour straight out into the local economy.

I think it helps alleviate child poverty but agree there are very effective ways of doing more such as better child maintenance system and fathers being forced to contribute appropriately and easier and cheaper childcare and wrap around care with well funded after school and holiday clubs. I also think we need a more rigorous corporate tax system rather than getting het up about a relatively small number of less well off families getting a bit more money which they will undoubtedly spend. Even if they spend it on booze and fags it puts clothes on the back of the shopkeepers children.

@coulditbecominghome

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.

Me and DH chose not to have children because even 40 years ago we knew the planet was overpopulated

Surely this is a small amount they'd save in the scheme of things (and may even end up costing more in the long run)....why can't they go after all those corporations that don't pay their taxes first? This will be popular but I don't think it'll help, it'll just mean the child poverty rate rises.

@BarbarianMum
So? 😆 It's a huge issue, I'm not sure we can afford to be so blasé.

How would you tackle the issue of an ageing population, less taxes & massive social care deficit?

@lynsey91 so you don't have this unicorn insurance then? I'm shocked!

How come your own parents weren't so enlightened?

@coulditbecominghome. Easily solved by immigration.

I agree that child benefit should be restricted to 2. Having large families is one of the worst things that can be done for the environment and whilst it must be awful having irresponsible parents who cant afford to look after you because they have had loads of kids I dont see why the taxpayer should pay. And surely paying money to the parents would just encourage this situation.

Agree shadedog

@Psychonabike

A lot of people of this thread who can't imagine life circumstances beyond their own.

The 2 child cap is unfairly targets women and children.

It targets women who can't afford to pay for their children or provide adequate insurance for a change of life circumstances which should be a proviso of having sex (or risking getting pregnant). I am very happy with this ruling people should be responsible for life choices they make and that includes having sex (i.e a planned or unplanned pregnancy). If the state is going to pick up the tab then I would be much happier about it being involved in reproductive rights and actively stopping high risk individuals (who may need financially bailing out) getting to a position to procreate.

I fully support it

Easily solved by immigration.

Ha, I literally said upthread someone would say this!

Immigration isn't particularly popular at the moment, in case you haven't realised.

So having more babies makes us burst at the seams but immigrants to replace the lack of babies is ok?

Most people aren’t career parents.
Most people who need benefits for more than 2 children accidentally find themselves a victim of circumstances.
Accidental pregnancy, loss of jobs, one parent becoming a widow, a life changing illness or injury.

I DONT UNDERSTAND PEOPLE SAYING DONT HAVE KIDS YOU CAN’T AFFORD EITHER. Like what are you going to do, will a crystal ball and see into the fucking future for goodness sake.

Yes I get the people could only have wjat they can afford but everyone can be a victim of circumstances
What if Susie and Jim, who once brought home a six figure salary in their thirties and decided to have 5 kids when they were fiscally stable between the ages of 36-43. Bang on - couldn’t have done it better.
They were in a tragic car crash. Jim and 2 of their kids got life changing injuries, one with an acquired brain injury, one a quadriplegic and the other lost a leg. Jim, with his brain injury could no longer work as a GP partner, but at set up they didn’t factor in anything for this.
Susie gave up work as a band 8 nurse deputy director because she couldn’t get carers that could meet the needs of all her now sick dependents and having 3 groups of carers was intrusive and scary.
However because Susie and Jim had their children in December 2012, august 2015, April 2017, January 2019, and November 2020 they will only be able to get social security for their youngest 3 despite paying into the pot via tax and NI for 25 years. They were also higher rate tax payers

MISFORTUNE DOESNT DISCRIMINATE

@Essentialironingwater

Not on any benefits, not even child benefit as we are very fortunate, but I feel for those who fall pregnant accidentally and can't terminate due to religious or other reasons, are in abusive marriages or whose circumstances change. Ultimately I think it's the children who will suffer and it saddens me. Whether or not having many children is responsible, once they are here I believe we should be ensuring they're all safe and provided for. I shudder at the Dickensian direction we are going in.

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.

Absolutely. See Marcus Rashford's response to Katie Hopkins. I'm with Marcus 100%. Too many Katies on this thread.

Good. Don’t have kids if you can’t afford them.

Daily mail logic:
Struggling to support your family , the state shouldn’t help even though they allowed 0 hour contracts, haven’t provided affordable housing for decades and cut all provisions meant to help poorer people succeed
Sitting on a big family house, the state should pay for your care because your well provided for children want inheritance!