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

This. I see it so much on here. That those on high salaries are always there because they work so much harder than everyone else.

Im not denying that many have worked hard- but so do those in lower paid jobs!

I wonder how many of those on high salaries have been born into very comfortable circumstances anyway and been heavily supported through education and further study and had numerous opportunities not afforded to less fortunate kids. Im guessing the percentage is quite high.

No.

Point 1. Once you get into the benefits system (which shows you're struggling, whether you're working or not, disabled or not, ill or not), then having more children while in that condition is selfish and irresponsible. Why make more when you're already struggling to cope? Children deserve much better than that and it starts with the parents, not the government.

Point 2. Perhaps, a bit of leeway for those who've already paid into the system but circumstances have led to claiming (more) benefits. All children at the time of claiming should be taken into consideration but no more after that (See point 1).

We can't have another wave of people choosing to pop out 5 kids in 6 years (4 of them on DLA, one after the other) while "struggling" on benefits (working or not). It really makes no sense.

(Edited to fix the numbers manually. It keeps automatically adding 1 to each).

Yep, but not on its own.

4 disabled children would be a struggle for anyone, they would require a parent to be a full-time carer.

And?? Not everyone sits on Mumsnet all day so they can see every post you know!

No, it should stay as it is. PM has said previously that there is no money to facilitate that change so it won’t be happening, I really hope he continues to follow that through.

No they shouldn't. Personal responsibility should come into play. However, I do think their should be a safety net for those who's circumstances change such as divorce, bereavement etc for a year. Free childcare and breakfast clubs for all. I grew up in poverty but it wasn't poverty, it was neglect. My father spent money on himself whilst my siblings and I starved. Handing money over doesn't work. Child costs should decrease as you can make use of the hand me downs. Food bill and formula is the expense. First child costs a bomb. Separated parents need to start paying properly too.

Child benefit isn't capped

Wwll lanzorote isn't where I'd choose to go anyway but how much money do u think I should keep giving then to pay for someone else's choice? Shoukd I just hand over all my disposable income?

Exactly that. I paid to be educated but have struggled to earn a decent wage since due to various reasons. It makes me so angry when people suggest it’s down to hard work as it isn’t. I used to work in the charitable sector and put in very long hours, for just above minimum wage. It’s ridiculous when people suggest that work you put in equates to earnings out.

Some people in low wage jobs work harder in some people in high wage positions and vice versa. Unfortunately I think a lot of people have this idea in their heads, that people on low wages are lazy and feckless.

What are the odds of having 4 disabled children?

Actual data please, not a link to another mahoosive thread.

But when there was no cap , there were still millions of children living in poverty.

This may shock people who don’t move in particular circles and so do not know many people on benefits but sometimes the money does not get spent on the children or their needs.

You're just as able as any "people on benefits" to cut costs and have another. The cut off for not qualifying for any UC or childcare support is high, so let's not pretend you're on a low wage having to scrape by.
You're making lifestyle choices which are obviously consuming a lot of your wages.

Justcallmebebes · Today 08:01
No, but they should clamp down, US style, on absent fathers who don't support their kids

Agree with this. The policy has been in place for a long time now so anyone having a third child is well aware of it.
I don’t know whether twins are exempted? Perhaps they could be?

Child benefit should be given per child as it’s for the child. Housing is provided per child so why is child benefit capped at two kids? Imagine if housing was stopped at two kids! That obviously would be wrong,

Because many of the feckless dads are on benefits themselves and don’t have any money! How many more times.

Oh and if I can just say 'hard work' is a very subjective thing- I worked for a guy earning £200k a year - I'm sure he told people he worked hard to get there and at one point yes he did-but not now and not for at least 20 years- there are a fair few on100k plus in that position. He certainly did way less these days than a nurse or a teacher.

That's a simplistic response that ignores the massive costs down the line of not removing it. What's the point in them paying private providers to reduce NHS waiting lists but adding to its pressures by keeping hundreds of thousands of kids in poverty? Or our mental health services? Or our skills shortages? Etc.

It's this short term policy making, combined with this ridiculous obsession with paying down debt, which has left us spiralling down the drain.

I agree with it. No child should have to live in poverty.

No I don't think they should increase it.

Most people that don't qualify for any benefits can't afford to have more than 2 children these days, some can only afford 1 child. It shouldn't be the case that people that qualify for benefits are given the means to afford more children than those that don't qualify. I'm sure a lot of people would like a third, but finances mean that they chose not to. That should be the same for everyone.

I posted a link to the evidence earlier in the thread.

💯 No. Having children is a lifestyle choice. It's not down to the tax payer to fund large families.
You get help for 2, anymore then it's down to the parents l.

Pretty low- in which case the PPs example of somebody having ‘5 kids, 4 on DLA’ is a bit pointless as it’s very unlikely 🤷‍♀️

Rainbowsponge
Because many of the feckless dads are on benefits themselves and don’t have any money! How many more times.“

With respect, if that’s the case why the hell would you have another child with them? Contraception is free.

If we're classing autism as a disability (which can qualify for DLA depending on the individuals care needs) then it's fairly high given its genetic.