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

Because child maintenance is for the child to give them the same standard of living as the parent enjoys. Not about the mother.

That is actually interesting thought. You are required to have compulsory insurance when you have a car but not when you have dependant children . Perhaps that needs to change

Oh dear you don’t get out much and see how others live do you.You should try looking further than your own little world.

This makes absolutely no sense in the context.

This

How do you enforce it?

It's for the child, not the parent.

It's also a policy that largely impacts children, and therefore women, who are overwhelmingly likely to be lone parents- and not men. It is therefore inequitable (and may fail the public sector equality duty test).

It's in the public good to prevent children living in poverty. You want doctors, care workers, bus drivers, lawyers, IT professionals? You need children who achieve good educational outcomes to do that.

Term life insurance is usually fairly cheap, so yes, I think it should be required to cover the death of a parent (either one) as soon as any parental leave ends.

Unfortunately it's the parents it's handed to not the child, therefore some will spend it how they see fit.
Whether that spend has the DC interest at heart or not.

Incidentally I'd never think I'd see so many parents on a parenting website being so gleeful about children living in poverty. What a world.

Nobody is gleeful that there are children living in relative poverty, that I've noticed, but there are many people who believe the two-child cap was necessary. And any child born before its introduction isn't affected. Two years' notice was served that the rules would change.

Fair play, know where your coming from and its acceptable for you to be able to express an opinion.

So for two kids it’s ok to support them by the tax payer but if more then it’s not ok? How would this work for second families etc?

Hooray to this. Out contingency in place to support yourself.

If you can't afford life insurance & a bit if stability don't have children.

@Papyrophile the policy hasn't worked. It hasn't impacted birth rates, which means more and more children are now impacted by the cap.

So it both doesn't work for it's intended purpose, and has plunged a huge amount of children into poverty. By any measure that's an awfully designed piece of policy.

Unless of course the actual purpose was to further a culture-war attack on the poor. In which case, judging by this thread, it has achieved its intended purpose.

Well I don't actually think that even 2 children should be supported by the tax payer but if you want children 2 is a sensible number. No need for any more except selfishness and stupidity

Yes. Everyone has the right to have children and I am 100% in support of helping those who want to help themselves which includes keeping their family small and showing that they wish to invest their time and money to improve the situation of those 2 children. That is how we improve child poverty- investing in smaller families to ensure they get everything they need.

And no one is entitled to a second family. Why should the government support you if you choose to have more children?

No. People need to think very carefully before having a third child, taking into account possible situations like divorce or job loss. If you're in a financial position to afford a 3rd child then you can take out insurance in case of unforseen financial difficulties. And build up substantial savings, so you can afford to support all 3 if your income changes.

This is a situation where vouchers may work well. In the USA I got vouchers I could exchange at the supermarket for milk, cheese, cereal, juice, tuna, peanut butter and eggs (I know weird combo) but a version of this with utility credits as well would ensure families got adequate food, water and heat and light for their homes rather than more cash that can be misused (not everyone does but I know personally through work that kids are going hungry but money isn't being used wisely, I can't criticise as not allowed but my lip is well and truly bitten!)

Do you disagree with access to schools and healthcare for the third, fourth children etc? When you are older and perhaps will need medical care will you check that the person caring for you isn’t a third, fourth child etc? In your logic you should check this and be sure that you are not helped in anyway by the children whose lives you disagree with. Here’s an immediate problem for you - one of your two kids needs hospital treatment but a third, fourth child is before your child on the waiting list. What do you do? These children whose lives you disagree with is going before your precious child. You can support stopping child benefits but you will be inconvenienced on many occasions in your family life. I support the well being of all children.

You don't think there should be any taxpayer support for children? Like, schools, healthcare, infrastructure, transport?

Who do you think is going to pay your pension and look after you in your dotage? Your dog?

of course not. Those are universal services that every person is entitled to. The children are entitled to them personally

every parent should not be entitled to expect benefits for children they cannot afford but choose to have anyway. The children do not receive the benefits. The parents do and they are responsible for financing their own children.

no one is saying no one can have children. A family with 0, 1 or 2 children is a complete family. No one needs to have more than 2. It is a luxury that some can afford in time and money. I only have 2 myself so I have put my money where my mouth is on this issue.

This isn't the reason that I'd be in favor of removing the cap but since a lot of the objections read as though they are coming from the right (and most polling shows that cutting down on immigration was the most important issue for Conservative and Reform voters in the recent election), I'll try the right wing argument against maintaining the cap.

In order to be able to cut immigration, without having to slash the state pension or significantly raise taxes on working people, we need people in the UK to start having more children. To achieve net zero immigration in particular, we would need the average family in the UK to have 2.1 children (currently the birth rate is at 1.56).

If you don't mind ever-increasing immigration (and that's fine) then obviously this isn't a concern. For those who would like to see immigration go down rather than continue to go up, surely you want to encourage people in the UK to have larger families? No doubt this is why anti-immigration Conservatives like Braverman are arguing for the cap to be scrapped.

A child is a life and they didn’t decide to be born and start getting benefits. All children need to be supported. They are the tax payers of the future but more importantly these kids are the society of the future. A large family has a large part of society in growth and needs to be respected just like an up to two kid family.

Ok I’ll try and give a reply

the reason we have high immigration is because UK born and bred people tend to not want to do minimum wage jobs. There are plenty of minimum wage jobs out there but many people will get more in benefits than if they take them so completely understandably don’t! Also it is very hard to live on minimum wage jobs if you are in one

we want to improve the education system to everyone, no matter the background, gets a good education which is a very admirable aim but once you have worked hard for your A’s you are not going to be interested in being a cleaner for £10 an hour are you?

so ultimately we will always rely on cheap external labour for the low paid jobs . The government will always have to import those roles in. And so the cycle continues .

also having more children per family means you have less time to invest in each child. Not to say people can’t have multiple very successful children but it gets harder each one you have and there is less money to invest for every child you have unless you are rich. I would bet if you tracked average educational achievements you would see a correlation between lower number of children and higher outcomes. (Remember on average - not talking about people’s specific families)

so I don’t think the immigration argument flies in this situation.