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

Yes, because the children don’t choose to be born into whatever circumstances they arrive.

Yes. Because it has not deterred people from having more children anyway, and it's FOR THE CHILDREN. Not the adults.

No. It also helps control the housing crisis. Where will they put all the families in 1 or 2 bed flats who have extra kids to get a 3 house? Because that's what they will be entitled to.

I honestly don’t know, it’s really hard.

on one hand I find it frustrating because there will always be people that take the piss. The evidence is there historically. And it is annoying. Will the same people probably keep having kids to get a bigger hose or because they just can’t be bothered? Probably.

but should the kids be punished for it? No.

Figures please?

Address child poverty as a priority but not by taking away this cap which will lead to people having more kids without thought or in some cases just to obtain additional payments.

Spend the money instead on breakfast clubs, after school clubs which serve a meal, hobbies and activities for kids living in poverty. Even trips away because these are the social aspects that underprivileged kids lack.

No.

People need to take responsibilities.

Most people consider their finances carefully before having more than 2 kids and everyone needs to take more responsibility for their actions.

There is so much money needed for the NHS and social care and that should be the priority, not financing people's lifestyle choices when it comes to having large families with different partners.

If anything needs to change it is:

• for the law should be tighter when it comes to men refusing to/getting away with not supporting their kids financially

-for employers to have to offer flexible/remote working for single parents and carers in general and stop discriminating against anyone who can't do a rigid full time, 9 to 5 routine

-address the cost of living (utility bills especially) so people have more money left to spend on their families.

Yes.

There are millions of families and children living in poverty and this will help.

If some well off families benefit then so be it. They will spend it and some will come back in vat.

It's not about people being on low incomes ,it's about people having more children then they can afford,child benefit isn't capped, universal.credit is

Yes shit happens in life and i myself didn't plan to have a severely disabled child
But to choose to have more children knowing full well you can't support the two you already have is highly irresponsible should people have no responsibility for their actions?

I agree with this. The cap wouldn’t need to be lifted if men were held accountable for the children that they father. Far too many get away with fathering multiple children to multiple women and never paying for their maintenance.

However, I don’t think children should be going hungry because of the poor decisions of their parents. I would support free breakfast clubs at schools

Yes they should. Children need to eat and be clothed, regardless of whether we think that their parents are to blame for their poverty or not.

That is utter bollocks. SOME might in London and the south east where rents and childcare are the highest but most people absolutely do not, and as a single parent myself with a full time job and UC top ups my take home pay is the equivalent of a £30k salary (I earn £26k and the rest is UC).

I understand the comments about feckless parents who keep having children that they can't afford. Though I don't think it's always quite as simple as that, I do see the logic in saying that the state won't just keep paying out for as many as you choose to have - many people who are not on benefits also choose to limit the size of their families for financial reasons.

However, I just can't get past the fact that innocent children are the ones who end up suffering in all of this. Children who didn't ask to be born, or for their siblings to be born. Children who are growing up in poverty through no fault of their own.

I don't honestly know if lifting the benefits cap is the best approach to this, or whether there is some other solution that could be implemented. What I do know is that it is an absolute disgrace that innocent children are living in poverty in one of the richest countries in the world, and we absolutely need to do something to fix it.

Lifting more children out of poverty is definitely only a good thing.

As gauling as it is to be seen to have to pay for others irresponsibility, I think I'd rather that than not do what is required to try and improve a situation for a vulnerable child. We can't let children suffer for something they've had no choice or control in.

No. For the reasons people have said.
Also I don't accept that extra money automatically 'lifts children out of poverty'.
Poverty isn't just about money, it's about the quality if housing, the environment, education, services. An extra £50 a week doesn't change the structures of poverty.

I think we would better of putting any extra money into that stuff, than just handing it to parents, who can spend it on anything. Quite possibly nothing that benefits the child, even stuff that's harmful (alcohol, tobacco).

I'm a Labour voter and I feel strongly they should stick to their guns on this, and argue there's nothing progressive about 'hand-outs.'

No.

No, I think the extra money should go into schools and be used to improve the quality of school meals and provide funded breakfast club/after-school club and holiday clubs for children in poverty. There should be also be a uniform fund so children in poverty can have their uniform for free/reduced price.

There needs to be a way to get the money directly to the children and not just keep paying for families to have multiple children that they can't afford (and often don't have room to house).

When asked Starmer said no anyway

Sorry I know it's not the point of the thread but I have to take exception to this statement, which has bizarrely gained more and more traction over the years.
A band 5 nurse, which is the starting point for nurses, pays a minimum of around £28k. That is the least money a nurse earns and it is a starting salary for newly-qualified nurses. Band 6 starts at £35K+.
By no stretch of the imagination is this 'poverty'. I would say it is a pretty average wage and the sort of level most of the population earns (outside on MN!).
Whether this is enough and whether they deserve more is another argument. But to claim these wages are 'poverty level' is ludicrous and I have no idea why it is not questioned more often.

Invest in schools, school lunch breakfast etc instead

This. There’s no excuse for leaving children in poverty in a first world country. The cost of removing the cap is small in the great scheme of things but the benefit would be huge.

I think there should be financial
Incentives for sterilisation- a percentage of earnings so everyone benefits and it would not be geared just towards lower income.

No. We’re not entitled to any benefits so have made a decision to not have a third child as it would be too expensive for us, even though I really want one. It’s a bit ridiculous that those who work and earn over the threshold have to make such decisions whereas those who earn under can rely on the state.

What on earth for? The birth rate is falling to dangerous levels. We need people to have more children.

This.
Fund centres for parental education - advice on budgeting/child development and make breakfast clubs for all children the first part of the compulsory school day and early -eg 7.30 so there is no excuse for people to say they can’t work as have to get the kids to school and fines for parents who can’t be bothered to get their children there.