Should Labour abolish the two child benefit cap?

[changefromhr]

In two minds about this. Yes for those who find themselves on benefits after having more than two children (job loss, divorce etc) but perhaps not for those who choose to have more than two children when they have never worked (disabled families excepted).

https://www.theguardian.com/society/article/2024/jul/11/uk-two-child-benefit-cap-affected-1-6-million-children-last-year-figures-show

I think an important thing we need to be aware of, is that many people do continue working and supporting themselves even when it is incredibly tough (I know I did as a single mum with a disability and no family near by except my abusive ex, the juggle was unreal but I did it) or when they are ill or disabled themselves (I have very little energy left for leisure after working).

I don't begrudge my taxes to support people in desperate need or to support decent healthcare and education for all but I absolutely uncomfortable with working through illness and disability just to support someone who sees living off benefits as a lifestyle choice

Do people not understand this cap properly let me explain.

The two child cap is only on the child element which is £287 per month.

If you have more than 2 children they still give you child benefit for all children. They still pay for childcare for all children even if more than 2.

So to highlight the two child cap is only for the child element of £287 per month.

I think it does need pointing out, and I've been guilty of forgetting it myself here, that an awful lot of families in receipt of benefits do work.

I agree.

Budgeting needs to be taught in PHSEon school. It's a skill that some don't have.

and the reason for that is because Sen support is denied and denied until it hits crisis point, money is “saved” by putting highly complex children into mainstream with no support and making it so their parents have to effectively gain the equivalent of a law qualification to get the support in place, children’s needs escalate such that the only place that can take them is a vastly expensive specialist independent. Every one talks about the importance of early intervention but that’s what’s cut to save fund and the powers that be can’t see why it ends up costing more in the long run

YES!!!!

I would also add @Morph22010 that not just children in poverty don’t get to eat properly either. There are plenty’s of comfortable and well off families who neglect their children, don’t feed or care for them properly. So a basics for ALL children that meant they are clothed for school, have a decent pair of shoes and get a decent meal or two in them would be supported by me. All children deserve the same basic treatment, their parents wealth isn’t necessarily an indicator of their care. I was fortunate enough that my parents went without during our very difficult times, but many parents do not do the same, no matter their income.

As am I, but I can’t help thinking about the idea of a woman who wants to have her baby but is forced to terminate due to financial reasons. A “forced” abortion is a dreadful thought, as is a forced pregnancy.

Call me a cynic but for a lot of children they will not see any benefit of that money. Need to stop certain people having babies in the first place. A child is a massive privilege.

£287 is potentially the difference between being able to pay the rent and becoming homeless.

If that family becomes homeless, does it cost the taxpayer more or less than that £287?

People who are irresponsible with money or decision making aren't just going change that mentality for £287 are they? The idea they will is ridiculous. That money does mean they are less likely to spiral into debt and homelessness and be better able to take responsibility for themselves... Oh wait.

I agree. We thought long and hard about having a second child. In the end, we decided not to risk it. Having the first nearly pushed us into massive debt. My OH had just given up his job to start a new business. I was self employed so lost a massive chunk of income as self employed maternity allowance is pitiful. We spent about six months putting everything on credit cards as we had no money in the bank, including food, petrol, household bills, etc., and taking advances on one card to pay the minimum payment on another. Never wanted to go there again!

We crunched the numbers and decided it was too much of a risk to have a second child.

Yet, some people who live on benefits just pop out another sprog without any such consideration.

Bloody hell!
The benefits/tax system is completely fucked.

By providing children health filling meals in schools - not the small meals full of upf’s and no fruit and veg would support children in poverty, and by changing the income for children receiving free school meals.

ensuring children have support in school, qualified staff, access to NHS dentist and able to see a Gp, health visitor. To give them what they need.

lots of ways of supporting children.

I am one of 2 children from a low income, non benefit claiming family. Small home, no garden, only a few caravan holidays ever, unable to afford school trips or extra curricular etc. However, I had a good education, good nhs care and was able to get myself out of that low income poverty trap. I have chosen to only have 2 children, as that is what I can afford.

Thing is that it's punishing children for the parents decisions.

Sure in an ideal world people won't have kids if they can't afford them but that doesn't happen and kids suffer for it.

I think the cap should be removed. Also what if you have more children and then something happens and you have to rely on benefits for a while?

Because they have a different value set and priorities which you won't change with the cap. You might change their risk of being an even bigger burden on the tax payer though with no cap.

It's paradoxical but this is about values and priorities, not forcing responsibility onto people who aren't bothered about taking responsibility.

Eugenics again! This thread is a mess

@HappiestSleeping what are you on? No they do not 🤣

@Puffinfoot yes, most families impacted by the cap are in work, I think it's 6 out of 10.

And on the Chicago point, I read recently that Illinois (in which state Chicago is) is actually planning to increase tax credits for families quite significantly, so it can't have worked that well.

I wouldn't be happy with a system where a child that was born into a two parent family, who later divorce, is seen as more worthy then a child that was born to a single parent from the start.

Feels a bit trueborn vs bastards

Yes the benefit cap should be lifted. Honestly, the cost of living in this country is insane! And surprise, surprise the levels of child poverty are at levels that are completely unacceptable. Do you know what this means? Food is limited/omitted, homelessness, poorer health outcomes/limited opportunities/poorer educational outcomes. The list goes on.

you know, these children are future tax payers, the ones who will be paying for your retirement/providing you with care, should you need it. This site is full of scrooge types, unable to see the bigger picture.

And another thing,no one wants to be on benefits, that’s a myth. Benefits are needed because greedy people in this country have turned essential parts of life into a commodity, like housing, to make huge profits, to fund their luxury lifestyles or fund their retirement plans.

perhaps you should blame the governments past for making life so unaffordable they have to prop poorer people up, all the while lining the pockets of the rich.

Exactly. There are so many ways that children can be kept out of poverty without putting more money directly into the parents pockets.

There is no 2 child child benefit cap

All of this. The bitching and moaning about people “choosing to live off benefits” and how there isn’t any money.

Meanwhile the tories have been chucking money and contracts at their friends for years. There’s plenty of bloody money, it’s just been given to the wrong people.

100% agree with that. Even parents who "can" afford to properly clothe and feed and supply their children with everything they need, sometimes don't, maybe not because of "neglect" but because they simply don't understand the needs. I regard myself in that group. My parents could afford to, but didn't really understand what a healthy diet looked like, nor appreciate the importance of school clothing, school equipment, etc. I wouldn't call it neglect as such, but more a lack of understanding. An example etched in my mind was when I joined an after school guitar club - I took home a piece of paper with the name of the practice workbook required, gave it to my Mum, who, a few days later, produced a practice book, but it was the wrong one. Mum simply wouldn't accept that I couldn't use it and refused to buy the right one. So I ended up trying to learn the guitar on my own, because I couldn't do the after school club as I didn't have the right book so couldn't join in the class group playing and couldn't do the practising between classes. As I say, that's not really "neglect" but it's something similar. Same with school lunches, Mum didn't want to pay as she thought they were too expensive (even though she could have afforded it), so I was sent with packed lunches - fair enough, but it meant I couldn't sit with my friends at lunch time. Packed lunches were rarer back then, so the few of us with packed lunches had to sit in a separate classroom on our own which stigmatised us and meant I missed out on socialising - all for the sake of a few pence per day.

As am I, but I can’t help thinking about the idea of a woman who wants to have her baby but is forced to terminate due to financial reasons.

So many people want to have another child but limit the size of their family because they can’t afford to support more children. That includes women who find themselves pregnant and end up having an abortion for financial reasons. There’s a lot of understandable resentment for people who have multiple children they can’t afford to support and get taxpayers money to do so.