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

And when they keep asking for more money do they stol to think it isn't fair to ask for more from other people who have every right to want to spend their money on their own choices? No and there is always post after post saying they should get more help, more childcare, more money.

When do they think do you know what it isn't right that other people can't pay for their lifestyle choices anymore or cutting back cos we keep taking more

You don’t believe there’s more than a handful of parents who have addiction issues. Or don’t understand the value of education , sports or a good diet. Or are in abusive relationships so do not have the resources to provide a safe and stable home for their children. It isn’t that these parents don’t care about their children. It’s that they haven’t got the skills to provide a good childhood for their children. Child benefit will not fix that.

As a mum of 3 I would say no. People can't keep having kids and expect the tax payer to pay. Both me and DH work and do get some help due to having a child with significant complex support needs but I don't think it's wise to encourage people to keep having kids they can't support. I do support men having to pay child support for there kids. No exceptions at all including those on benefits.

It isn’t that these parents don’t care about their children.

That’s what I said. 🤷‍♀️

I mentioned this - circumstances can change. The replies were too bad for the kids.

Nobody needs to be having more than 2 DC.

If you choose to do so, pay for them yourself. It's not complicated.

Does anybody "need" any children? Should we stop paying for the first 2 as well?

Straw man isn't it?

Myself, I think supporting people to have children is no bad thing, but there should be a limit and 2 seems fair.

🙄

Interesting that nobody can actually answer this question.

No one needs children on an individual basis but it would be an issue if as a nation we all decided to stop having them on mass, who would be working to pay our pensions

It’s easy to answer yourself - how did you get here? There’s your answer. No children would be no future people.

So just a handful of people that neglect and/or abuse their children? Just a handful of people that social services are involved with? Oh if only that were true

cpag.org.uk/news/has-two-child-limit-affected-how-many-children-families-have
Interesting read

If people conceived a third child or more would you enforce abortion? Would you deny special care after birth? Would you deny maternity care? How far would you go to enforce two kids?

This policy has made things worse for some children. It has not stopped children being born, they are just poorer. Your argument is illogical. If you really cared about children's welfare you would oppose the cap.

Relatively speaking, yes.

Thanks for the link @flipflopsandsun, it’s a very interesting read.

My argument is that people who don't care enough about their children are not going to use any extra money for the benefit of their children. Not that difficult to understand.

Two children are enough. Why the need for 3, 4 or more?

Well not sure that we need so many social workers if they are only having to deal with a handful of people. They must be imagining that they have such large workloads.

No, no one is suggesting forcing abortion - just that the parents need to pay for their choice to have another. It is not taxpayers responsibility to pay for someone else’s choice. Anyone can have as many children as they like as long as they do not then rely on the state to pay for it. I believe the state should support people up to 2 children as that keeps the population constant but after that an extra child is a luxury. All the other services are universal and are not benefits so fall outside the discussion.

Maybe the money would be better spent on services like The Freedom Programme and courses on self esteem/stress/fear of being alone (I know that would never happen).

The point is to address the current need for people to have a child with every new partner to "cement" their relationship. It's so tedious; someone who has kids already meets a new partner, in the rush of "love" they have a baby because of course they need one together, then it goes sour and they split up leaving another child in the world. What's wrong with meeting a new partner and just being content with the kids you already have?

Good points raised.

No. Many couples with well paid jobs have to make the decision on how many children they can afford. Parents should be responsible for bringing up their own children it's not for the state to support others family choices.
There is an abundance of free contraception and support out there to make informed decisions about raising a family.
The U.K has become a State where Personal Responsibility has been lost to the ideology of entitlement and support from the Government, ultimately the tax payer.
The tax burden on those working is the largest it's ever been.
You can't keep taxing it just stunts economic growth.

The evidence is pretty much conclusive that this policy has made things worse for children. So evidently most parents were spending at least some of it on the kids actually. Remember this policy has been in place for a while now, we can measure the impact.
Whether 2 children are 'enough" or not isn't really relevant. Cold, hungry children don't tend to become productive adults. It is counterproductive. And again, nobody "needs" a single child.

No one ‘needs’ a single child but morally as a society we accept that having a child should not be confined to the rich. I consider myself centre right politically but I would never suggest that someone should ever be deprived of a natural biological desire to have a child. But with having a child comes responsibility and parents should do everything they can to raise their child without assistance. For some people that just is not possible so the state is there to provide that safely net. But once you have gone past 2 children you are no longer relying on a safety net but expecting the state to pay for your children and that is where I think the line gets crossed. No one should get extra benefits for those extra children but I accept that the government should be pouring money into other things such as breakfast and after school clubs to allow their parents to go and earn more money to support them while ensuring that those children do get a level of support.