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

There is no evidence to support this.

The evidence that studies have provided is that it has little effect on family size, but a significant (negative) effect on child poverty statistics.

Houses with two six figure incomes wouldn’t be receiving child benefit

But a bit of extra benefit won’t pull those people out of poverty.

We need to tackle why, a 2 parent household with them both working full time need UC in the first place.

But it will help enormously. All the stats show the effect it has.

Can you link some?

https://cpag.org.uk/sites/default/files/2023-08/Six%20years%20in-%20the%20two-child%20limit.pdf

How do you know they will be paying taxes? What if they decide they don't want to work which more and more people are deciding?

I agree we have an ageing population but how can the solution be to keep adding more and more children? The UK is full to bursting because there are far too many people here

Thank you. But that doesn’t actually say that.

The study linked has no actual data to look at. The links at the bottom lead to surveys done. So based on people’s own opinions. Not studies. And one only looked at people impacted by the cap with children born after 2017. and doesn’t address wether the parents are working or 2 parent families. And only look at 45 families.

and it appears that non actually look at family finances. Meaning that you can’t know that an extra £40 a week will impact child poverty.

This is the problem. It’s a complex situation and we should be looking at why 2 parent households are in poverty. Rather than just throwing more money at it and hoping it works.

There is a lot of "I can't have another child so neither should you". It is a bit childish.

On UC and we can't afford holidays. 😄

Did you even read the article in the OP. Statistics are cited there too.

It’s typical MN tactics. 🙄

“Give me a link”.

“Here’s a link”

”Oh that’s not the kind of link I wanted”

With the greatest of respect, you are reiterating the arguments on this forum are that we need those extra children so we don’t have to import labour in.

well that means these children are required to do the minimum wage jobs. The retail workers, carers etc. they are therefore going to be net takers from the system and not paying towards pensions.

now nothing wrong with that at all. Someone has to do those jobs but the problem is they won’t want to do them. (Understandable when benefits are more lucrative that a full time minimum wage job). We will have to continue to import this labour until those are recognised as important and respectable careers to do after leaving school as they used to be 50 years ago. Without this The cycle will continue as is

also if we are expecting these children to do minimum wage unskilled jobs why such a focus on education? Do you know of any politicians who have the answer to this?

Why? Society operates on fairness to all. We should all be forced to make rational decisions on our financial situation. Treating one group as special creates discord as shown by this thread.

There are more ways on contributing to society than financial @Drfosters. Those care workers on minimum wage make their contribution in other ways. This nonsensical “net contributor” idea that’s become so popular recently smacks of a society that knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. In fact this entire debate epitomises it.

People should have the number of children they can afford and not always expect other people to pick up the bill. Two child is more than generous.

The premise of fairness is not "I didn't so nobody should".

That is exactly what I just said. I said that we need people to do those jobs. They are very valuable but not very appealing to UK born children whatever their circumstance. Certainly not if it is more lucrative to be paid to have more children.

the argument for more children is constantly ‘we need them to pay our pensions’ when actually many won’t pay the pensions and ultimately they will need their pensions paying and so on. It is not sustainable.

No it is we all have to make decisions based on the same criteria

Yes but there’s no actual data. Especially citing that many children in 2 parent, 2 income households are living in poverty or that a bit of extra money a week will solve it.

I am not saying it should or shouldn’t be abolished. I am saying we need to address the causes the of child poverty at the root. Not just throw, a bit, of money at it.

Actually you are incorrect, that’s not a mn tactic. Often people site studies but the data beneath is flawed. People always site ‘studies say’ but can’t actually point you in the right direction OR the study is massively flawed.

I wanted to see the studies to see the data. And nothing supports that a bit of extra money every week will pull huge amounts of children out of poverty. More needs to be done on why so many children are living in poverty. Which is what original point was. That addressing CME won’t help 2 parent families in poverty if they have more than 3 kids. It’s appalling that in a house with 2 healthy parents who both work, that they are in poverty.

and let’s be honest, there’s load of kids who are only children livening in poverty. And loads of house with 3 kids living in poverty. It’s not going to help them.

who would have thought saying addressing the underlying reasons for poverty need to be looked at, because these studies don’t, would be so controversial

That’s not what I said. I said I have to think carefully knowing there’s no financial support for me. You interpretation is childish. Your under standing of the welfare system and society is childish.

There are many, many, many claimants that should not be getting it and taking away from those who do need it. If you took away the illegitimate claims, then more benefits would be available for the disabled, the families fallen on hard time, the single parent families… stop being naive by thinking everyone claiming is 100% in need. £26 does not lift a child out of poverty, but funding of social housing can, for example - that needs more money so we need to stop wasting where there isn’t a real need. I would much rather my tax money went to help the truly in need at a greater extent that to what they receive now.

then it should really annoy you that there are many on UC who don’t register their marriages so they appear as single parents and claim the father is absent, so they receive more benefits. This is rife in the community I’m from. Very few couples I know from my community are legally married for this reason. No one does studies on those people (My community) because they don’t want to be accused of being racist.

It isn't really about being married but not living together. But yes I agree absolutely rife the woman claiming to live alone whilst partner is living round the corner ' at his mams' paying no rent but actually living with the mother of his kids most of the time. I used to work with a colleague who had four kids by four dads and got child maintenance from the other three dads . The father of her youngest lived with her and worked but officially was down as living with his mum. She got hundreds in tax credts ( back in the day when it was paid for all four) plus hundreds a month in child maintainence whilst claiming as single.
I really hope Labour will crack down on this kind of fraud because it is rife.

Ah, thanks - I'm clearly not up-to-date with changes since I got CB! 🤦🏼‍♀️