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

What do you think then about housing, schooling and healthcare for kid number three and more?

Because they know, no matter what happens, the taxpayer will save them because we rightly won’t let children be homeless or starve. It’s a weird form of societal blackmail

You're telling me that someone on £25k with 2 kids takes home more than £6446 a month net per month? Based on a single person earning £130k with a minimum 5% pension contribution per month.

You're going to have to expand on this please??

I posted the link to the evidence earlier. Check it yourself.

I've been a single parent of 2, working just above minimum wage. In can assure you I didn't get anywhere near that amount of money!

The data is in that thread. And in the very first post.

I did. I linked the evidence earlier in the thread. There was another thread about it recently. I was astounded.

In their defence, sometimes shitty dads don’t start that way. But they meet other women and then become useless wankers.

In their defence, sometimes shitty dads don’t start that way. But they meet other women and then become useless wankers.“

A good father won’t suddenly become a bad one.

You clearly haven't met my ex!

Jesus wept, poor helpless men are forced to become terrible fathers by women? And this is (presumably) the view of a woman?

There really is no hope.

Oh, that 'data', whuch didn't quite make the point folk thought it did.

Yes, yes they do. They create new family and suddenly their old one means little to them.

In which case they were never a good father.

That’s what your garnered from that? Get away. That wasn’t what I was saying at all and you know it.

True.

Im just not sure why a PP used a woman with ‘5 kids, 4 on DLA’ and ‘complaining of struggling’ as an example. Either a child is disabled and entitled to DLA or they are not disabled and therefore not entitled to DLA.

Im not sure why DLA has been brought into the conversation. Begrudging DISABLED children extra money is pretty low even for here.

That’s fair, but they may have once been present and paying. Thats what I’m getting at.

Thankfully DLA isn't capped, and they then recieve the disabled element of UC too even if they aren't eligible for the child element.
It does however not take into account that an autistic child from a functioning family may well be far less disadvantaged than a neurotypical child in a dysfunctional family living in poverty.
Though UC changes alone don't solve that. Social services and family support systems need a complete restructure to become fit for purpose and could benefit children in ways that £200 a month to parents without accompanying support cannot.

@Ritasueandbobtoo9 bang on the money.

This is the only acceptable solution. It's 2024 and I hope that Labour and society in general start piling the pressure on men to pay for the children.

It should be taken out of wages at source.

If single parents want to claim benefits then the maintenance that the non resident parent pays should be taken into account. I understand that maintenance is disregarded because of the unreliable parents who don’t pay, but if those people were required to pay the government, with risk of a fine if they don’t, they would be more likely to pay. Then the resident parent would still receive the same amount of money, it would be reliable and regular and it would save the taxpayer having to pay.

At the moment, we have single parents claiming benefits they don’t really need because they are given cash by the NRP. It’s wrong and we can’t afford it.

Benefits should be vastly higher for a shorter period. The design being it’s to help those get back on to their feet, not for people who take it as a lifestyle choice, hence proper benefits but for only a maximum of say, 8 months. After that the benefits should be low so there is no choice but to work.

Disability exempt, but real disability, not Jason who pretends to have a bad back because his a lazy arse who doesn’t want to get up in the mornings.

What's a real disability?

I mean, I get the kind of character you are driving at.

But the word "real disability" also makes me nervous.

I guess fundamentally benefits probably need to be kept lower enough that work will always be more attractive than feigning illness. But that is obviously pretty rotten for those who genuinely have no choice

You need evidence to get disability benefits don't get me wrong there are many people (and i see it daily of the children's DLA facebook group I'm in) who put in claims for the flimsiest of reasons ,with no evidence but they are the ones that are complaining loudly that their child hasent been awarded
So I think Jason and his " bad " back will struggle.

Removing the benefit cap won't lift people out of poverty...

No. I find it actually super offensive actually. Many of us had to make the financial decision to only have 2 children but would have loved to have had more. Having a child should be costed up the same way that anything else is in life. I’d you can’t afford it you know you will be being your child up in poverty. That is on you. A family is complete whether you have 0,1 or 2 children and it is offensive to me to suggest that I should be subsidising someone else to have something that I was reasonable enough to cost up and decide it would materially affect my current 2 children if I had another.

the money should be invested into better education, better contraceptive advice, better family services, better provision for those 1st 2 children to ensure they have the absolute best chance in life. I am 100% in favour of extensive investment in every person’s first 2 children.