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

It may as well be no children or no one full stop should be entitled to benefits

I agree.
Clamp down on all the non-child supporting paying fathers who just abandon their families without any financial responsibility, this is the real issue.
But until then I don't really want child poverty to continue to rise, it's a public shame and terrible we punish them in this way.

WTF? That's even more of a straw man.

How have you got from a 2-child benefit cap to enforced abortion and denying maternity/medical care?!

Sick.

For one thing single parents shouldn't be allowed to have their benefits sanctioned

There's so many posts on MN regarding benefits that may or may not affect DC..

When I first started work in the 70's it was sold to me that I could retire on a state pension at 60, men 65, yet pushed up to 66/67 for now, who knows what it will be when I get to that age.
No choice was given..Just had to get on with it.

Would it be acceptable if the new government reinstated it back to 60?

It would free up jobs for the younger up and coming working generation.

The policy hasn’t made the situation worse for children, the parents have. The parents chose to have the third child, knowing that they won’t be getting more benefits.

As many people have said on here, working parents cut their cloth accordingly, ie only have two children., knowing they can’t afford a third.

You’re assuming the need for benefits precedes the decision to have a third child. Surely you understand that existing families with three children can have a change of circumstance that means they become reliant on benefits? Nobody knows what tomorrow might bring.

No, of course no one knows what the future holds and that is precisely why if you choose to have more than 2 children you should make sure you have a plan if and when things go wrong such as insurance.

Anyone with a brain knows that you can lose your job, become too ill to work, your partner could leave you etc etc etc.

Why don't prospective parents think about the future and how their circumstances may change?

Anyone with any experience of life knows life can turn on a sixpence. Relatively young people have been known to drop dead out of the blue. We pay our taxes when life goes well so there’s a safety net if it doesn’t. The sanctimony on here is appalling.

@littleapplecottage yes this would help in family income - wouldn't actually save the state money though as if the person can claim - they still claim just the same with maintenance not counted - I know I bang on about this but I do think it's unfair on lower income 2 parent working families who can often claim sod all - I also think it's encouraging people to say they have split up

There is a safety net which covers 2 children so if you have more than that (for whatever reason) you need to have some sort of plan in place.

People need to take responsibility for their decisions in life

I agree. And so much finger pointing at parents, forgetting that it should be about the innocent children.

Safety nets are there to stop people dying when falling.

You land in them and then soon you're back on your feet and walking about.

You don't lie in the safety net for years.

And you don't get out of the safety net and fall into yet another safety net.

But out of curiousity who else is responsible if not the parents?

But not if you fall into the safety net with more than two children apparently. Which is what this thread is about.

No-one has children without considering what may happen in the future. Or at least, they shouldn't do.

Duh circumstances can chnage for anyone child or not, thsts why it's called save money for emergencies and also have at least 6 months salary aside incase u lose ur job and if your on this site how many times has it been said if your married don't depend on ur man make sure u have a rainy day fund.

It's bloody common sense.

Lol that is such a stupid count argument. Change the system! Then you won't need to rely on the generation behind you to pay.

If parents are unwise enough to have multiple children they can’t afford (and yes there are changes in circumstances but I’m willing to bet a minority), what makes you all think they’ll spend the extra money wisely?

Change to what?

Because child poverty has got worse directly after the 2 child cap was introduced - so even if some of it for quite a few families isn't spend on the DC, some of it was and that obviously helps

Again, child poverty has got worse since the cap was introduced

I think Labour have made it clear that they won’t be changing it.

In what way has child poverty got worse?

are there more poor children?

Or are the children that are poor, poorer?

What is your solution?
how is it fair to have a situation that people who don’t quality for governmental support have to make a choice about how many children they afford but those who do qualify have free reign to have many as they like?

yes I appreciate it is not the children’s fault but basically what you are saying is only the super rich (although they often have smaller families due to being time poor) or low income people can have big families

The possibility of having a 3rd of subsequent child reduced by 0.36% . Families did not have fewer children due to this policy. It made no statistical difference to family sizes all it has done is pushed children further into poverty.