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

Agreed. Yeah, it’s not about marriage. I was just mentioning that in my community, people have massive weddings, and claim to be single parents with absent fathers. No shame in the lying at all, despite the religious marriages, and the big song and dance weddings in the community. This fraud is so deep and is taking away from kids in poverty.

(Anecdote - my ex best friend, super religious, holier than thou, had three kids a year and a bit apart, claimed the father was absent each time for the benefits. He hides when midwives make home visits, and never picks up the kids from school in case someone sees. She ridiculed me when I got legally married, and told me I’m an idiot for doing so and that I shouldn’t so I can get child benefit and UC.

Reality is how much money would need to be given to these families to lift their children out of child poverty?

As said life can change in the blink of an eye, but I don’t for one second believe that every child living in poverty is living in a family where money wasn't an issue one day but a financial change in circumstances threw them into it the next.

Isn't the very cause of a lot of child poverty due to children being born into families that can't afford them due to not being able to financially support them at time of conception let alone after?

What a life to lead - screwing the country day in day out - surely there should be a bit of naming and shaming

It is absolutely rife. Nothing is done even if people do report others because unless the partner has a tenancy in their own name there is no way of proving her lives elsewhere. Most just claim to live at their parents. It's very hard for dwp to prove.

Yes there is. It is linked in the article.

Can people please read the article and understand the topic before commenting.
The cap is on benefits for children. Not Child Benefit.

Even a journalist on a programme I was watching the other day was talking about the ' cap on child benefit'. unbelievable !
The child element of Universal credit is £333 a month for an eldest child born before April 2027 and £287 a month for second child. There are already rules put in place meaning that if the second child is a multiple birth you can get the child element for both and if a woman has bene coerced to have another child or raped then that child can be paid for also. There are generous work allowances for families that have children meaning a generous proportion of their earnings can be disregarded before their benefit amounts are affected and then the taper rates are generous. Then child benefit on top, help with rent, uniform grants, household support fund, cost of living payments, free dental and prescriptions .How much money do people think these families should actually get ? I'm honestly quite baffled when we already have a generous system.

Oh yeah I am very cynical about the "we work better living separately" when they get married and hope it is toughened up. I still think most recieving it can't afford regular holidays. If they do have them it is on the never never or that is what I like to comfort myself with!

You do realise most UC claimants with children aren't entitled to free dentist, free school meals, etc? It is a myth.

What these threads often miss is that there are real families behind the statistics. There are all sorts of scenarios. Some tragic, some infuriating and probably a lot of larger families who could cope financially before the cost of living crisis, but were caught out by double digit inflation and food costs rising to a 50 year high.

No it's not. The findings are there, thats not the underlying data. Theres a link to charity who has no findings that relating to 2 parent families, where both parents are fit and healthy and work. Which is what I was talking about.

Saying 1.6m are impacted by the 2 child rule. Isn't the same as all living in poverty. That's simply looking at how many families have 3 or more children.

Saying that 7 out of 10 children living in poverty, have one parent working doesn't mean they work full time or that the other parent can't work. Which is what my original comment was about.

The 300k children that will be lifted out of poverty does take into account many things. Because the underlying data isnt there. Like families where the additional amount won't be spent on the childrens welfare because the household is dysfunctional or because they have so much debt it won't make a difference. That's just 2 examples.

At the beginning of the pandemic when schools closed teachers were hugely concerned about thousands and thousands of children, being locked at home when home wasn't a safe space. It's likely that alot of children living in poverty are in these homes. Do you think an extra £40-£60 a week will make a difference there?

In non of these studies have they actually looked indepth into people's finances (understandably) and so they have no idea if the extra will mean all 300k will be brought out of poverty.

For me they can remove it the rule. But It's likely to have little to no impact on child poverty. No impact on child poverty where a house has 1 or 2 kids. Likely to have little impact where children are neglected, parents have addictions, severe mental health issues, physical health problems, high debt, domestic violence, emotional abuse, live in places where rents and mortgages are high and wages are low and so on. Non of these studies disregard these groups when measuring whose life it will improve. Or they arent sharing it.

Back to my original point if a household has 2 healthy parents who both work and they are still in poverty this small won't solve the problem on a large scale. The underlying causes need looking at.

Back to my original point if a household has 2 healthy parents who both work and they are still in poverty this small won't solve the problem on a large scale. The underlying causes need looking at.

I agree. It should be possible for two working adults who are raising two children together to be able to cover housing, food, energy and other basic costs without needing UC. The UK economy has been left in a huge mess, and scrapping the two child limit is a sticking plaster that does nothing to tackle the underlying economic problems.

This is one of the many dilemmas that Labour are facing. If they scrapped the limit, it would help some children in the short term, but if for example, inflation went up again, we would be back to square one, or worse.

Please do some research before saying all this. I am a single parent getting UC and do not get any of the things you listed.

Yup. I'm definitely not!

Of course the cap should be lifted.
I’m ashamed to live in a first world country where children go hungry.

So many refugees from the DM btl comments on this thread.

Interestingly, the most upvoted comments in the Guardian article about this were also not in support of lifting the two child limit.

I’m fairly left leaning but I don’t think it’s a good solution to scrap the limit.

The most upvoted comments on many of the Guardian’s articles are contrary to those you’d expect in a liberal media outlet. It’s almost as if right wing voters comment and vote. Unimaginable of course.

Definitely not, if you decide to have children, you need to make sure you can afford them. It's the parents responsibility to pay for them, not the rest of society. Parents need to make sacrifices on their own priorities like smoking, gel nails, tattoos, hair colourings, silly eyelashes and brows. Priorities children, then if there's anything left, maybe have a treat.

It's the parents responsibility to pay for them, not the rest of society.

I take it you don’t claim child benefit, then?

If they are supposedly religious how does that sit right with them.

Are they legally married under British law

So dishonest

Yes it needs cracking down on

🙄🙄🙄 these comments are so boring, cut and paste.

Nope, not cut and paste, my own words. I've seen it first hand.

Like others I’m 50/50, if you are claiming UC for two children and you choose to have another then no, the cap should not be lifted. If you have more than two and circumstances change and you need short term support then yes I’d be in favour of lifting. Welfare was always meant to be a safety net to provide short term support to help people get back on their feet, it shouldn’t be a lifestyle choice. Children are a long term commitment, you need to be ready and able to support their needs for 18 years. I don’t buy the “this means only wealthy people can have children line”. We would be considered “wealthy”, we like most people we know in similar circles have one or two children. We waited until our mid/late 30’s, financial planning was part of the decision, we could have had ours 10 years earlier we didn’t because we wanted to know as far as is ever possible that we were financially stable for our child. That said even the most prudent planning cannot cover every scenario, life throws huge curveballs and that’s where the state should absolutely step in. What I cannot fathom is having a child, finding yourself unable to support them, and then continuing to have more assuming the state will pick up the bill. It’s not about who pays for me, it’s about not putting your child’s welfare first, our one job as parents is to provide and protect if you are not putting the needs of your child or children first and not considering the long financial commitment then you are failing in your parental role. All children have rights to be fed, loved, housed and to be safe, no one has the right to have a child for their own gratification.

Don’t be silly.

Why would left wing voters automatically support a particular policy? We aren’t a homogenous mass.

There wouldn't be anything to lose by making housing free would there ?