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

How will this help parents pay bills and keep the roof over their heads though? Presumably if benefits money can be spent on cigarettes and booze according to posters here, then it can just as well be used for mortgages or rent, and electric /gas bills. Fruit might be nice for some but not everyone needs money for the same thing.

You are so right, children having enough food and clothing or LumiB having that extra week in Lanzarote. It's a no brainer.

The media and government since 2010 have really done a number on the psyche of the nation haven’t they? There seems to be this deep belief that everyone living in poverty is just a feckless scrounger. Probably teen mum, multiple dads, low slung joggers and a Croydon facelift- yes?
Fuck me. Of course these stereotypes exist- I know a couple of them, but even in those cases the reality is far from “ wahey let’s get knocked up and sit on my arse rinsing the taxpayer”.
And if it was, if one person in 100 does have that attitude so what? For the greater good of society, for better outcomes for ALL children, so they get educated, are healthier, put less strain on the NHS, don’t commit crime, put less strain on the justice system etc etc etc.
Anyone actually knowledgeable about public funds should know this so if Starmer has said no to removing the cap that’s very disappointing.
In reality the average single mum is 37 years old. The vast majority of people brining up children on benefits are women. ANYONES husband can leave them in the lurch, even yours. ANYONE can find themselves long term sick or unable to work. ANY woman can plan a second child and end up with twins! Poverty can happen even to naice, hard working, deserving women…
If people focused on the bigger picture instead of curtain twitching and worrying their neighbour might be getting a bigger slice of the pie this country would be a much nicer place to live.

I would much rather labour worked on the root of the problem and lift people out of poverty so that benefits are not needed so much. We need housing, food and energy to be more affordable, we need to stop selling social housing, we need to be kicking people out of their three bedroom council houses once they no longer need them and giving them to families in need, we need to stop allowing private landlords to charge stupid money, we need to maker home ownership achievable for more people, we need better public transport, better education so children can aspire to more, it's just so much deeper than the benefit system.

But if throwing more money at people so that people do not starve is what's needed until any of this happens, then so be it.

No

I don’t know how I feel about this is at all. However, I have just heard on the radio that Starmer said we can’t afford to abolish the cap.

So the news / media are a bit confusing about this policy. Let’s see what happens when it happens.

No point wasting a thread trying to mind read and argue over something that may or may not happen

I've been a single mum. A single mum on a low income with disabilities and no family near by who worked very hard. I didn't want benefits I wanted to support myself.
Cheap or free childcare, decent health and dental care, decent infrastructure (public transport etc) were far more important to me than handouts.

Through those things I was able to improve my own life.

I believe in strong state support but through infrastructure not cash handouts.

Maths is not your strong point is it. You really think that UC and child benefit for two children is £5000 a month?

Undecided. Child poverty does, in my view, urgently need to be tackled, but I am not convinced that giving the extra benefit would do enough, in regard to the cost to the government, to address child poverty. On the other hand, I also don't think children should be punished for the mistakes of their parents. What 100% MUST happen by any means possible is clamping down on shit fathers who do not financially support the children they have created.

As far as I am aware, Starmer has said that it is Curren;t unaffordable ... so ...

Yes, as a country it's not acceptable for children to go hungry. But we need to support in a way where we can ensure the money goes to the children.
But even that has its flaws.
A few weeks ago stood behind a mum in Tesco, she used government vouchers to pay for all her food shopping, mainly cheap value very processed food, no fruit and veg. And I'm not the food police, my girls eat the occasional McDonald's, sweets etc.
But she then put through a load of booze which she paid for on her card totally around £100. She had the money, but rather than spending it on better quality/variety of food for her children,she chose to spend it on booze.

So giving either money or vouchers to her family isn't helping the children's health.

I would prefer the money was ploughed into funded childcare and holiday playschemes to enable families to get back to work, and also make sure the children are having a good healthy meal at least once a day through the holidays.

I don't have a strong opinion and sympathise with both sides of the argument. I wonder if a compromise would be to provide breakfast clubs to ensure all children have a good start to the day.

But genrally better pensions, less deprivation, higher social mobility, less infant mortality, better educational outcomes, higher average wages, better public services, less wealth inequality etc they also have more disposable income amongst their middle classes than the UK.

(I'm excluding Japan, which has a lower tax burden than the UK btw)

@Thepottingshed I do agree with some of that- I also agree with doing good school dinners (like the French kids get) and making them free all round at all ages - plus WTC that incentivises people to be better off if working. Vouchers for uniform and shoes would help and a biggie to me is upping good social housing - a lot of lower income people are in poverty through private renting and needing to use money that's intended for food/ utilities towards topping up rent allowance as local allowances and particularly outside of London are well below what rents actually are. A damn site more effort required too with feckless non/low paying fathers- especially ones 'hiding' their income

@Newmum738 I believe Labour have that in their manifesto

I agree with all the first paragraph.

Unfortunately, I have no faith that Labour will tackle any of it. If they're anything like the Blair/Brown era, they'll just increase benefits and throw money at benefit claimants, which is the easy/lazy option, but just makes the situation worse in the long term. Just look at how Brown's tax credits flooded the economy with "new" money which drove up costs, including housing costs due to basic economic theory of supply and demand.

We can only hope that Starmer/Reeves have researched what Blair/Brown did and will actively find ways of tacking the core problems without the easy/lazy option of borrowing to throw money at the problem. I'm not holding my breath!

Of that list, less social mobility, less infant mortality, better educational outcomes, less wealth inequality would be an outcome of reducing child poverty.

No, I think a 2 child cap is completely reasonable. That tax money would be better spent elsewhere as there’s no guarantee what that extra money for someone’s 3, 4, 5+ children will be spent on as it’s just given as cash to a parent. It could literally be spent on anything. Better spending the money on new SureStart centres, better postnatal care, breakfast clubs, or even healthy start vouchers/children’s clothing vouchers.

Do you possess a dictionary?

They do. There’s no cap on child benefit based on the number of children you have.

There are some schemes that can help children on FSM/UC- free nursery hours from age 2, free childcare during the school holidays, free musical instrument tuition at primary school etc. but people on here STILL get upset over that even though it doesn’t involve giving benefits as direct money 🙄

You need to look at everything, i.e. what other benefits they UC claimant gets, free childcare, etc

I've just done some number crunching.

Total benefits for that person would be around £2.7k per month plus their net wages which would be £1.5k so total £4.2k.

Net wages on £130k would be £5.4k per month.

So working their arse off, not only in a job paying £130k but also in the education and training to get themselves there, to come out with only £1k more than someone basically on not much more than minimum wage.

Hang on a second, what are you suggesting here? Are you suggesting that people
on minimum wage don’t work their arses off? Don’t work long hours? Haven’t paid for their education? That may not be your point, but your tone suggests that those of us stuck on minimum wage do fuck all and then reap loads of rewards - it’s absolutely not true.

No. I would rather see them tackle the child maintenance service and give it some real teeth to go after people who father children and then think it is ok to walk away.
Also the state already provides for two children. If you want more then you should be planning how to finance three or more and have savings/life/health insurance in place.
Whether you like it or not the cost of living has changed and it is not fair to keep asking people to shore up more money. Due to rises in utilities/mortgages/rents and after taking off tax/NI/student loans/childcare/travel/food and factoring in low pay rises, working people simply do not have the level of disposable income to fund other peoples lifestyle choices.

When I decided to have another child, my income didn't change, and my costs went up massively. Why should someone else get a free ride? Why should having babies pay so much? Bigger free house, more money, and only a small increase in costs? Sorry, but that's just not fair to the people who are paying their own way as well as paying for others.

I do think it's a fine balancing act between making work pay and making sure that all children get the basics - there is always a lot of emphasis on food but as I said in a previous post the reasons many families are struggling are complicated. In some cases it's poor spending choices, in others it's debt acquired through divorce, separations, redundancies etc, in others it's 'topping up' private rents with money that is meant for food/utilities, it's paying for cars that are really needed to actually be able to work due to poor public transport and non convenient housing- there are so many reasons - and no it's not all controllable either- for instance as I saw in another post people perpetuating the idea of just stop paying debt and get CCJs- now I understand the reasoning but one issue is if you need to rent and have a load of CCJs you simply will struggle to rent- Even if anyone wants to do shared ownership, you have to have a totally clean credit record. Maybe we should look at bringing down the validity of CCJs to 2 years if fully paid off- 3 years if not. so I think it comes down to controlling things the state can actually help on , free and better meals, ( in my view across the board) vouchers for uniform and shoes (named and ID needed so can't be sold on) - better access to GPs and NHS dental, surestart , more affordable housing , I would personally place a specialist mental health worker in school too- plus a social worker. There is far more preventative stuff that could be done- and we need to get rid of the idea that I think has crept in that it's not cool to be clever or educated.