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

So, understanding that a few more quid makes a difference, why would you want to deny that to children in poverty? Are old people more deserving than children?

This thread has really cemented my belief that the general public despises benefit mums. I must look very young to some (mistaken for 18 and 21 recently) and I have three kids, and I hate going out because I feel like a pariah. Everyone is so horrible to me because they assume I’m a young, white benefits mum I have to put up with glares and tuts and general anger everywhere I go.

So if the absent parent is giving the child a good standard of living why does the state pay again through child element of UC?

I am very much in favour of bringing children out of poverty and support money being spent on better school meals, breakfast clubs, school uniform, trips, enrichment activities, SureStart and other forms of parental support and education.

I don't think more benefits and encouraging the cycle is the way to bring children out of poverty though, and the children who need the help most are the ones least likely to see any benefit from it.

I imagine that some of these larger families carry on having kids for religious reasons.

@Puffinfoot that's how I feel too -

@Chickenuggetsticks I'm not prepared to pay for someone's beliefs, religious or not.

Their church/religion can start paying them if they want to help them.

@Drfosters , I appreciate your input, and broadly agree with you. Round here, too many of the employment options are largely paid at NMW and are seasonal, so even with a longer tourist season you still aren't working between November and February. I live in Cornwall where being a newly qualified Band 5 nurse automatically makes you better paid than two-thirds of the community you work in. The public and local government sector jobs here are very hotly competitive, and we generally have good public services as a result.

@IntoTheMild Are they wrong?

How old are you? Did you plan your children? Are they financially supported by yourself or your partner? Are you on benefits?

If they're wrong, then you can ignore them completely.

In what way are they horrible?

What's given them the idea to assume that about you?

If its a reportable offence then you can always report to the authorities.

@Beezknees I agree and I'm very pro decent child maintenance being paid by fathers - but I don't see why it isn't counted as income for the purpose of assessing the child benefit aspect of UC - to me this looks like fathers are paying and then the state paying as well- my issue with this is that many full time working mums who get no help or next to no help and little maintenance can easily be worse off than someone not working or doing few hours but getting a fair old chunk of maintenance - plus full benefits on top- that's not rewarding working.

Why do you feel you'd be able to have an unlimited amount? You'd have less money than you have now (unless you're currently eligible for universal credit and choosing not to claim) so you'd have the same choice to make about finances, just with a lower income than now.

People need to start taking more accountability of their actions, just like those whose children aren't funded by the tax payer do

what utter bollox. My ex walked 15 years ago when we had 3 under 5. I am still waiting for the CSA/CMS to get maintenance out of him. I have been entitled to Tax Credits until quite recently - whilst working full time as a teacher, exam marking and tutoring. And yes, one of m pay children receives DLA which increases our entitlement. My eldest child is now at uni, working pretty much full time around his studies. The other 2 are set to follow. Why do you consider it reasonable to say that because I have been in receipt of benefits, I am not taking responsibility?

The reason CM is not counted as income for UC is because the non resident parent's circumstances can change so the resident parent still has the UC (which often includes rent) to fall back on and doesn't have to wait 6 weeks to get the first payment or take an advance. This means whatever happens money is coming in to support the children. The children have already been born so don't deserve to suffer due to parents circs changing.

Also some men will go to great lengths not to pay their CM.

I agree and I'm very pro decent child maintenance being paid by fathers - but I don't see why it isn't counted as income for the purpose of assessing the child benefit aspect of UC

• pre-2010, a particularly savvy ex partner could cause a whole host of problems for his ex and children, including temporary cessation of benefits.
• the system takes up to 6 weeks to make decisions. So your ex stops paying - you await 6 weeks for reassessment with no payments whilst you wait. Your ex changes job - again - another 6 weeks….
• children left in abject poverty as a result
• decision made to disregard child maintenance.

@IntoTheMild , just asking, straightforwardly, why do you have three children? Were you married or in a stable monogamous relationship to conceive three DC, and abandoned? (My SiL was, and it was shit). I am nearly 70 so the ground rules have changed since I was capable of reproduction, but I would not have even considered taking a pregnancy to term, much less having a child, without full support and engagement from the father. But I wasn't that bothered about having DC in the first place (and of course, I adore my now adult duckling).

Because, as many others have said, far too often the money is not used to help or benefit the children. People who have more children than they can afford are not thinking about the children's wellbeing are they? Far more likely they will use the extra money for their own benefit

People who have more children than they can afford are not thinking about the children's wellbeing are they? Far more likely they will use the extra money for their own benefit

says who? Please find me an academically sound study that demonstrates people on benefits with 3 or more children spend the benefits money on themselves.

I am slightly confused here. When the two child cap came in, I thought it referred to what was then child tax credits/family tax credits, which were later rolled into UC. Yet people on this thread seem to be talking about Child Benefit, which would usually be a much lower amount.
I can't see £20 per week being much of an incentive to have a third child.

It's quite interesting that male very high achievers often seem to have dads who died younger than normal, leaving young widows to cope. I can't find stats attesting to this, but there seems to be something that makes a fatherless lad, who had a good dad, between 8 and 15 years old step into adult mode and go into overdrive to fill the gap.

I disagree (though you are right to say that, on average, children with fewer siblings have better educational outcomes).

Even if the primary short-term driver for high (and increasing) net migration in the UK is to fill low paying jobs, long term, we cannot meaningfully reduce immigration without either increasing birthrates.

Japan is a good comparison. Japan has a lower birthrate than the UK but both are well below the replacement rate of 2.1 children per family.

The UK's population has continued to grow, despite its low birth rate, because of immigration (with net zero immigration, our population would have been dropping for many decades now).

Japan opted against high immigration, so has experienced significant population decline (and, if trends continue, the population of Japan will halve between now and the end of the century).

Both countries have aging populations but the problem is even more acute in Japan. Not only is Japan's population shrinking but it is aging (as is the UK's), meaning that the proportion of working age people is reducing, and the number of retired people increasing. You cannot sustain a society (certainly not one with a state pension or with affordable healthcare) if there are ever-fewer taxpayers.

Japan is now investing billions of pounds in financial incentives to try and increase birth rates, by making it easier for people to afford to have children, to try to prevent societal collapse (without resorting to immigration).

Making it more affordable for people to have families will not, in and of itself, solve population decline but it is a necessary step.

Unless people in the UK start having more children, we will need to increase immigration, not cut it.

Personally, I don't really mind which way we go (though I would like to see child poverty addressed regardless) but I think people who want to cut immigration need to accept that this will necessitate significantly boosting birth rates - which is not going to happen if people cannot afford larger families.

And, again, this isn't me trying to trot out a left-wing "gotcha" argument, it's an argument being made by right-wing, anti-immigration policians (like Braverman) and is the reality for some countries (like Japan) who have had kept immigration levels low.

The 2 child cap is only on UC and not child benefit. So many posters don't seem to realise that!

As I said, if they have had more children than they can afford then they are hardly responsible people who care about their children are they?

@ClawedUkelele That's the clearest explanation of the reality I have read. BUT
It really doesn't pay quite enough attention to cultural homogeneity. I suspect more people prefer to live in a society that feels familiar than one that is financially well balanced.

What’s the relevance of that? If there are people who don’t care about their children - I’m not buying that - surely that’s all the more reason for society to look after them?