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

I don't know what tomorrow will bring so I have life insurance. I own a home I could sell and cash In. I was married 5 years before I tried for a baby to be as sure as I could be that our relationship stood a chance of working. We both have careers where we would get sick pay and redundancy pay.

Life would be very hard abd very different if one of us got sick/ redundant / pegged it but we put a few fail safes in.

Admittedly we only planned on two children but number 2 was 2&3 which was a bit of a plan alterer....

I’m sure people don’t choose to have more children for the piddling amount of benefit paid. And neither can they predict when misfortune may come their way. I’m sick of hearing that welfare benefits must be cut when wealthy individuals and corporations get a free pass. It’s not individuals who benefit from tax credits, it’s a subsidy for employers who won’t pay a living wage. Before the outcry is that jobs would be lost, they said that when the minimum wage was introduced - it didn’t happen. Businesses are not viable propositions if they are reliant on taxpayers to subsidise their workers wages.

No. Point blank - if people want kids then have at it but make sure you have a backup plan for your finances and living arrangements when “situations change”

Make sure you can afford it in the first place.

I don’t care about the argument that “only the rich can afford kids”

Only the rich can afford a lot of things, things none of us will ever have.

The children suffering from these policies wouldn’t be suffering if people took responsibility for their family planning, finances and housing.

It seems the population want champagne service for lemonade money.

Equally, seems some are already receiving it while others feel they're entitled to it.

They all take more vacations than the tax payers to begin with

I'd like to see you prove that@Aloha2024 .

Where are your stats on this?

A lot of the people having kids and being on benefits are young girls from dysfunctional upbringings. Increasing that dysfunction with childhood poverty isn't going to help anything

@noodlebugz pleasure- I've noticed a few people's comments that seem to think it's about child benefit - which is why I thought I would drop it in again- it's a big difference monetary wise too

Predominantly men - women too (some dads have full custody )
Agree with the CMS point though

Ditto .
People need to take personal responsibility for what they can afford including the size of their family - what’s to stop them having 5,6 or even more kids ? !
That said , an alternative (unsure what ) policy should target children in
poverty !

Yes I think they should.
It serves none of us to have children in our country in even more poverty than we already have. No one but those children suffer because of this. There’s enough to go around. Those poor children aren’t taking anything from the rest of us!

And it’s a myth that people on benefits are having ‘champagne lifestyles’. The amounts for the extra child is pathetic.

The issue many have with this policy is they feel hard done by themselves for whatever reason but I certainly don’t think making poor children poorer is the answer to that.

Can’t believe these comments about children. We need more children or we need more immigrants. Which do you want?

We don't need either.

Those third or fourth children will be paying years of taxes paying your pensions. A bit of child benefit seems a good investment. All children are important not just the first and second born.
so I ask again - how do you ensure we have enough population - children or immigration?
Half our population is over 50.
Put your prejudices to one side and make your choice 👍

Oona that isn’t an answer. Make your choice. Who is paying the taxes of the future. We have an ageing population. Primary school rolls are falling.

No.

The same people will be paying taxes of the future as pay them now. A small number of highly skilled, highly educated people doing highly paid jobs. Not people reliant on benefits to raise their children.

No - the £26 odd a week doesn’t lift a child out of poverty for 99% of kids in poverty.. the £26 odd can be saved by the parents in other ways for the love of their children - maybe a few less bottles of wine, cut out the cigarettes, less take aways, do so many in zone 1/2 in London really need a car?? - of course if the economy was better and the cost of living wasn’t so high, that would help too.

At the end of the day, if you want a child, take responsibility and save before, then make personal sacrifices throughout said child’s life - my husband and I have one child and dream of another but have to think really hard as we are just outside of the benefits eligibility criteria and live in a one bed flat as we can’t afford to buy anything bigger. We don’t eat out, we haven’t been on a holiday abroad since before covid, we’ve gone from designer to buying almost all our clothes from supermarkets, - just some of the ways we have changed our lives to pay for our own child.

(I’m rambling a little as it’s 3:10 am, and our toddler’s nappy has just leaked for the second time tonight!!)

The main point I want to make is that kids in poverty are not £26 a week away from escaping poverty, there is so much more to do to get them out of it. In the meantime, child benefits are wasted on soooo many people who should be able to find the money without it affecting their lives too much.

And lifting the cap will drive more into poverty as low income families look to have more kids funded by the state.

No. Point blank - if people want kids then have at it but make sure you have a backup plan for your finances and living arrangements when “situations change

What backup plan do you suppose there is for husband running off with his secretary and refusing to see existing children let alone pay for them? You think you can get insurance for that?!

And please don't tell me it's my fault for choosing the 'wrong' man. I was married, had my own career, well travelled, no children until we had been together 6 years. There is no better protection than all.of that and yet here I am, 15 years later, still waiting for the CSA/CMS to pull out its proverbial finger.

Maybe be part of the solution rather than a massive part of the problem-society that assumes women are the only people responsible for all things children, seeking to blame them when the crystal ball got it wrong. Blame the men who walk away from their children, not the women who married in good faith who are left holding the baby. Punish the feckless by all means but not the children.

The majority of people impacted by this policy are working and claiming UC. It doesn't seem fair that children should suffer if your circumstances have changed and you have to fall on claiming UC. What if one of your children needs care , you have to reduce your hours, can't afford childcare ir your partner leaves you and you had 3 children before the rules changed ? It seems like a false economy to me.

No. Why do you expect other people to pay for your children? What other service do you suggest be cut to enable the funds for this? Would you prefer your direct or indirect taxation to increase?

If you children were before the rules and then later claim UC you get it for all 3 children.

So the only people who wouldn’t get it for a third child are those that had one after the rules changed.

There are lots of people who satisfy themselves that the cap shouldn't be removed and absent fathers should be made to pay, but this doesn't account for the fact all the people and children affected who come from 2 parent families.