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

Circumstances can change. That one child family saying proudly that they have the one child that they can afford can lose their income, their house, their health. They would then find themselves in poverty and what would happen to the child they could not now afford? The orphanage? What do you suggest?

They will get universal credit.

But now you are paying for kids they can’t afford.

before we had children we discussed What would happen if something happened to one of us. We also discussed what if we had a material change of circumstances. One of the reasons we only had 2 was because of the funds at the time but also because we felt we would struggle if we only had one income coming in whatever the reason. When you have children you have to plan for all eventualities not just your current situation.

You can apply for UC if your circumstances change but this is giving CB to every child whose parents’ income is under the threshold regardless of their circumstances.

If that were the case barely anyone would have children. You'd need a large income to be able to bring even just one child up as a lone parent if you're factoring in things like full time childcare costs.

Anyone who decides to have more than 2 children should think about the possibility that something could happen to change their circumstances.

No, they should not abolish it. As mentioned upthread there are concessions currently re multiple births, guardianship situations etc., and it does only apply to children born after April 2017. As someone who worked in that sector for many years it used to stagger me the number of people who produced a child whenever the youngest approached age 5. (at that time youngest child being 5 triggered the mum’s requirement to be available for, and look for work). No, it was not every family. But the numbers were significant. I’m not saying those people were “having babies to claim benefit” but they may have fancied the idea of having another baby and didn’t have to consider the financial impact in the same way as other families - they weren’t currently working so no loss of income, and they’d be paid an increase for child - also out of jobseeking for another few years unless they chose to look for work.
I agree it’s hard going on newly unemployed families with more kids. They probably never anticipated claiming benefit. But, if the rule was “paid for number of children at the date of claim” those who were claiming and added a new baby during the claim who was not paid for would simply have to break their claim for a short time and reclaim to get round any rule.

Working couples make a choice about adding kids and money is a huge factor. They may really want another but choose not to because they simply can’t afford it. Why should it be different for benefit recipients?

Absolutely not.

Of course we should.

I'm surprised there's so much opposition to this on here.

It seems like one of the few issues where those on the left (for the sake of reducing child poverty) share a common policy objective with a lot of people on the right (those who want to reduce immigration).

If they stuck to having 2, as any sensible person would, they will get benefits for the 2. If they chose to have more and not consider that their circumstances could change then they are pretty stupid

If they aren't born they can't be in poverty. 2 children being paid for by the state is plenty

Absolutely this 💯

Shame more parents are not as sensible at you. To have 3, 4, 5 or more children because you can afford them without realising that circumstances can change is shortsighted and stupid

You speak for yourself. Me and DH only get the state pension (not entitled to anything else) and a few more quid a month makes a difference.

This happened to my cousin and her dh. They live in another country where my parents come from and where state benefits really are only a safety net for the poorest. They know this might happen at some point in their lives so they made sure they had savings and lived modestly. My cousin was also adamant she would only have dcs when married for the legal protection for her and dcs and her dh would be an hard working like herself.

Wow. Absolutely despicable.

That’s what critical illness/income protection insurance is for.
Plus life insurance should be essential when you have dependant children.

This.
Most people don’t realise quite how perilously close they are to poverty. For many it would only take a little bit of bad luck, an accident, a lost job, a medical emergency.

And what’s the difference in snob and chav.Both just opinions.The poster claimed I was a snob so there you go.

It's not a new thing, it's been known for many years now that 2 DC, except for good reason is the cut off.

'Just because' isn't a good reason as said if people who can't afford one or two DC at that given time in their lives there's no one but themselves to blame for contributing to children being in poverty.

What would happen if a government bought in a no payout on babies, any babies no matter status, born after January 2025.
Would people still choose to continue to conceive DC they cant support financially without a second thought on how they will manage.
Who knows.

But,
It's a reckless idea to have an attitude of "we'll worry about that when it happens" especially if when parents are knowingly setting their own children up to suffer from bad decision making.

Anyone who calls someone a "chav" is absolutely a snob with ideas above their station. Usually also insecure so they have to look down on others.

I don't think people will ever agree on this- I'm social minded and not a Tory but do know people who are happy to work the system, and I'm not sure that all rises would actually benefit the children in some cases.

I'm also quite anti the fact that several women I know are getting really good maintenance (I'm talking close to £800 a month) and yet still getting full UC, rent covered etc and are better off than many single mum professionals on here who really struggle and get next to jack shit from fathers . If child maintenance is consistent why shouldn't it be factored in along with any earnings before UC is calculated- ? Spousal maintenance is .