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

Yes they should for many reasons including...

It is not the child's fault so they should not be punished.
We have an aging population and we either need people to have more children or we need more immigration.
The impact these policies have on children's physical and mental health and education lead to wider societal issues that effect us all.
I'm not willing to sacrifice a child's wellbeing just so I can feel superior.
Supportive rather than punitive benefits systems have shown to have better out comes and therefore cost less.
Making absent fathers pay will not help those whose fathers die. Or should the mother have thought of that before having children with someone who wasn't immortal?

The money needs to go on(social) housing, education, and health care.
secure housing, well-educated children ( because a child comes from a poor family doesn't mean they are thick!), in good health( including dentistry) will lift families.
Work has to pay, pride and responsibility doesn't pay the council tax, hard cash does.
Target employers paying shit wages, only offering low hour contracts that don't pay the rent, they need taxing heavily. Tax incentives for paying above benefits threshold levels.
No family with working parents should need benefits.
Absent parents need chasing.
Men producing kids with multiple women and, for that matter, mothers having DC with multiple fathers need to be held accountable.
Poverty is relative, not absolute in the UK. Children may be malnourished, but they are not starving( fat kids are generally from poor families, too much of wrong foods)

I would say a better option for parents that are struggling would be things like a discount on gas and electric bills if low income. So say 30% paid by the gov to the energy providers directly. Maybe options for people that are in lots of debt to energy companies /council tax to apply for means tested grants to get their bills cleared to help them get back on their feet. More funding give to schools to support lower income family's/flagged children that are living in poverty. Such as funds to provide uniform, shoes, books, equipment to children. Funds to offer breakfast, lunch and dinner to some children. Maybe after school clubs that offer support with homework, cooking skills etc. Perhaps some facilities to keep school canteens open during the holidays so kids can come in to get a meal a day or food to take home. Or food parcels available to pick up weekly for struggling family's that provide fruit, veg, meat etc. So family's don't go hungry in the holidays etc. These things would help children in poverty.

@wastingtimeonhere

Tax incentives for paying above benefits threshold levels.

This the opposite of what happens now. As it stands, the more an employer pays an employee, whether more hours or pay rises, the "tax" increases because it brings people into the scope of employers NIC, compulsory workplace pension contributions etc. That's one of the reasons why employers prefer 2 part timers instead of 1 full timer, or why they won't give more than x hours per week to casual staff, so they stay under the thresholds for paying employers NIC and/or having to enrol them into the workplace pension scheme.

Yes, it would be good if it worked the other way around and employers were incentivised instead of penalised for paying workers more and/or giving them more hours!

I don’t want to see children punished for their parent’s behaviour.

No one does but there are case where a lot of irresponsible parents know people will think the same, which is exactly the excuse they need.

They care not one jot that they themselves will be bringing a DC into the world that will born into poverty totally due to the fact they haven't got the funds to bring that DC up.

It's the attitude that it's someone else responsibility to pay out....proven by the fact it keeps continuing.

So you're punishing hundreds of thousands of kids, saving no money in the long term and damaging everyone's economic and social security because some people have more children than you think they should.

It shouldn't cost a lot to raise a child in a liberal democracy, especially with free education for life, free healthcare, subsidised school meals and decent wages that don't vanish paying for over inflated housing and heating costs.

Personally, I think more things should be provided directly to the children for free, so taking their parents out of the equation completely, hence free breakfasts and lunches, free provision of basic school uniform and equipment/materials, etc., etc. That way the "benefit" goes straight to the child, which will be especially helpful for children with neglectful parents. No, it's not a perfect solution to all the problems, but personally, I feel it better than throwing money at feckless parents who'll probably spend the money other than on the children!

Back when the benefit cap came in I was suddenly £400 a month worse off. It had a huge impact on my children.

But how can it be guaranteed that child benefit is spent only on the children it's meant for? I've known loads of people over the years who've chosen to spend their child benefit on absolute crap like tatoos,nail extensions,spray tans,booze,fags,vapes etc whilst their kids have been fed a diet you wouldn't feed a dog. I've seen it over and over again so for people like these extra child benefits just means more profligate spending on anything other than the child's needs.

How do we guarantee it's spent on the first 2 kids? Obviously we can't but we give it anyway. Why is the 3rd any different?

Why should disabled people be allowed more children ? Who do you think stays on benefits without a long term illness or disability ?

Not a representative sample, but everyone I know who is earning 6 figures, has a very challenging start in life, and fought tooth and nail to get out of poverty, they wanted better for their children than they had. And that fight enabled them to fight their way up the career ladder to the top.

And all my friends who had reasonably comfortable starts (not rich, but engaged parents, always fed,clothed etc) has ended up in a vocational role - healthcare, teaching, SW. They all understand their privilege and wanted to support others over 'making big bucks'.

Because it's throwing more tax payers money at a problem it's not solving,isn't it?

But why is the 3rd kid different? Why is that the tipping point when all the kids in the household lose the right to a decent start in life? It's a bit arbitrary and illogical really.

No. It's not child benefit that's capped it's child tax credit. People who are not in receipt of the benefit cannot as for a parish because they had a 3rd, 4th or 5th child. If people are that irresponsible it is they that have chosen to deprive their existing children by having more. Not the taxpayer. I agree it should be temporary if circumstances change but nit all the peopke we see all the time making sad faces on the news because they have had their 5th child in temporary accommodation.

Because there has to be a cut off point somewhere. I'm all for making sure children should have the best start in life but it shouldn't fall on the tax payer to foot a bottomless bill to achieve this.

Absolutely not. It would encourage people to have children they can't support or look after properly. Iressponsible men and women should pay for their own poor choices. The world is overpopulated. If anything a carbon tax should apply to a third child.

People do that anyway, the benefit cap has not been a deterrent .

Again, why the 3rd? Why not the 2nd, or 4th?
You are not "all for it" if you think it only applies until a 3rd child is born.

Yes, two things that would be better:

(a) make childcare tax deductible; and

(b) have a proper way of making absent parents pay for their offspring.

And maybe we need cigarette-style warnings on packs of condoms. WARNING: no form of contraception is 100%. If you do not want to pay child maintenance, do not have sex!

Personally, I think more things should be provided directly to the children for free,

Where will all these free things come from?

Will all these free things be genuinely free as in they just materialise, at no cost involved to anyone or will it be at the expense of the tax payers who have to contribute to all things free?

I just think after 2 children the burden shouldn't fall on the tax payer. It's my personal opinion that I'm perfectly entitled to.

There is no magic money tree. Everyone wants more money - NHS, doctors, nurses, dentistry provision, Education, SEN funding, teachers, carers - the list is endless. And we are already at our highest tax burden. If taxes were to go up the amount coming in would be spread very very thinly over those who want/need. We just keep spending more and more.

The NHS has to be reformed it is haemorrhaging money

We really need to take better care of children in this country. For one thing single parents shouldn't be allowed to have their benefits sanctioned