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

We're not having enough children as a society. Not all women want children which is fine. I think we should be prepared to support those that do want children. To have a birth rate that keeps up demographically we need those women who want children and would like more than 2 children to be supported by all of us because those children she is having will be paying our pensions and pushing our wheelchairs.

I am not keen on an opened child benefit system. But I can't see why the 2 child cap could not be extended to 3 or 4 children. It could be made so that the extended benefit would reward those families with at least one parent in work and only if the children's sttendnace at school is high etc, etc if you want to make sure the rest of us were not being taken for a ride. Essentially though we should support women who want 3 or 4 kids.

Not looking for a handout.. not once did I suggest that. Looking for affordable childcare where I’m not subsidising someone else who’s not deserving.

and it’s a supply issue too.. I have the money to pay for my kids childcare, and for the proverbial weed heads kids too, but here’s the kicker, there’s no spaces available in my areas, or vicinity of my work, on this side of 2026 because said weed head and their ilk have taken all the spaces. That’s what nursery’s have said to me, in slightly less colourful language.

Yeah, maybe we do need workhouses for the feckless.. get some societal good out of them.. aside for the amazing job they’ve done providing tomorrow’s ‘potential’ workers to fund tomorrow’s pensions - I’m eternally grateful for that “potential”! 🙄

but maybe you didn’t read my other posts (don’t expect anyone to have read everything here so that okay) - but just wanted to make clear that I don’t begrudge anyone for being on benefits, I just detest those fraudulent few who, unfortunately, seem to be the not-so-few around me.

i support increasing the cap to more kids if we could take the fraud out of the system)

Yes it must be frustrating especially if they don't need the childcare as they don't go to work

Ooh at least the poor dc have some time in a pleasant environment hopefully

We have already had this on this thread.

If 2 parents are working full time and they are still ‘in poverty’ there’s a deeper problem that needs looking at.

and giving £60 a week won’t fix it.

It also won’t fix it for those families who only have 2 kids, but both parents work and are in poverty.

One thing such as the 3rd child policy will not lift the amount of children out of poverty that is suggested.

No. I think the only exception should be those having multiples for the first or second births.
this was announce in 2015. Anyone with two or more children pre 2017 were exempt from it and anyone having more than two children post it were aware it existed.
there will always be exceptions such as DV but most children are conceived consensually.

Don't you think we should also support women who want kids (even just 2 kids) but are slightly higher earners too? I'm not talking really rich, just a £40k salary, so too high for benefits.

A entire £40k salary will be taken up for childcare for 2 preschool kids in the SE - even with 30 free hours and the 4k you're allowed to not pay tax on. Not £4k subsidy, mind - just 4k you don't have to pay tax on... Not much help against the £34k nursery fees.

Even a mother on £70k would only be left with £19k total left over after childcare. Not much to live on if she's a single mother who has to live in the SE to access that £70k job. Actually, she'll only get £15k a year to live on, since on such a "high" income she'll have to pay back £4k student loan (which again, she needed to get the £70k job). That includes her child benefit BTW. It's not really an option for her. Unless she stops working and goes on benefits...

Don't you think the 2nd kid that university-educated, £40k or £70k earner would have loved to have might better support our future economy than the lifestyle-benefits person's 3rd kid?

You are almost certainly right @strawberrybubblegum because intelligence is proven to be an inheritable trait, but don't expect a flurry of support.

Don't you think the 2nd kid that university-educated, £40k or £70k earner would have loved to have might better support our future economy than the lifestyle-benefits person's 3rd kid?

100% this.

Given that more than half of households are a net drain on the country, assertions that we need these extra kids from people choosing to live on benefits when they could be working, or doing more hours, in order that they'll pay our pensions doesn't fly for me.

This 100%

No. Force the deadbeat parents to pay child support. Our current system is pathetic.

Perhaps look at why CC costs in the UK are the highest in Europe?

& why even with support, parents cannot access CC because there simply isn't enough staff? staff who of course will be on or near the NMW, claiming in work benefits, subject to the 3rd child rule.... and in the vast majority of cases, will come from parents who will never earn 40k let alone 70k, heck some of these parents might even be on benefits and out of work..... but their poorly educated children then do the jobs you clearly think are beneath you and your children.

So before you say the 3rd child of a higher earner is of more value, you might want to consider the millions of workers without whom we could never have the lifestyles we do have but who earn a pittance?

I never get this argument as maintenance isn't taken into account for the purpose of benefits and there will be plenty of poetple who do pay their child maintenance but due to low wages it won't be all that much.

I'm comparing the 2nd child of the £40k or £70k worker to the 3rd child of the NMW worker or lifetime-benefits parent.

Having 3 kids as a high-income single mother is completely unimaginable!!

After paying £51k nursery fees (or at that point getting a nanny, since it's about that cost - although then you have the risk of being an employer), then even a £99k salary only leaves £10k per year to live on. For everything: including housing, bills, food - all with no discounts for being low-income and zero top-up benefits. Not sure anyone thinks that's possible for a mum+3kids. And if her salary goes higher, she even loses her child benefit, 30 free hours as well as only getting to keep 38p from every extra £1 she earns.

Why do you think the NMW mum is more entitled to children than the person paying her top-up benefits?

but their poorly educated children then do the jobs you clearly think are beneath you and your children

You've completely invented that.

I am absolutely in favour of children of any background studying and accessing a brilliant, well-paid job. That's exactly what I'm arguing for: that when they do get that job, they're still able to have kids themselves!

What I'm against is only supporting low-income families to have more children, when it's out of reach of anyone who doesn't get benefits. It's unfair and it's unsustainable.

& why even with support, parents cannot access CC because there simply isn't enough staff

That is a very good question - when 25% of our working age population is economically inactive.

Can't you see that's a problem?

And it's caused by the perverse incentives of our current system of taxation and benefits, which makes it not worth working for far too many people.

Most of these people are students, early retirees, stay at home parents, the numbers of long term unemployed in this country is quite low.... and many of whom i would never want near my children or parents, we shouldn't be pushing people who want to stay on benefits or who can barely read or write to look after the vulnerable just because we don't want our children to do these jobs.....

JSA for a single person is around £80pw, you'll also get £300 rent support per month, so £620 each month, NMW would pay almost triple that.

There is plenty of financial incentive for young people to work in low paid employment.

No i didn't... You clearly stated that the 2nd child of a higher earner is worth more economically, than the 3rd child of someone on benefits... yet it will be from this pool of potential workers that we use to do the jobs we do not want to do nor will pay well.

We need a huge variety of workers, from the higher earner to the low paid worker.

Without the child carer or shop worker, your higher earner cannot work, as you ve explained, we are all interdependent, regardless of the taxes we pay.

They won't want to do those jobs though

Isn't this why we have never ending immigration in the UK? We keep being told no one will do the menial jobs etc

Why can't we push people off benefits

I agree.

Whilst we do need "more" people, we need the right kind of people, those who are going to work and contribute to society, whether they're born here or immigrants.

We certainly don't need "more" people who will sponge off the state, have a high incidence of unemployment, replicate their own underclass upbringing etc.

Quality, not quantity, please!

We need to remove the choice. People should have benefits reduced/removed if there are jobs they "could" do, but they choose not to.

Yes, I never understand how the claimants get away with not working for such a long time

In the case of my 2 neighbours they claim depression and anxiety which, obviously, is more less impossible to prove or disprove.

One neighbour claims he cannot leave his house due to panic attacks and anxiety so therefore cannot work. The Job Centre did try to find him a work at home job but he failed the literacy test.

He actually leaves his house every day to do his cash in hand work, walk his dogs, go shopping, go out with his friends/girlfriend etc etc. I have reported him but nothing happens.

Thats a ridiculous suggestion.

Many of these people are totally unemployable, they have no skills at all to offer an employer, many have never worked, they are in effect useless, then chuck in MH issues, lack of education and addictions & no business that needs to make a profit will employ them.

How will get them to be a care worker or be suitable to work in a childrens nursery or become a courier?

The only thing that could work is create a job for them, a meaningless state provided one, if they don't attend 9 to 5, they lose benefits, then perhaps its possible they will gain some work ethic, though most will not, they'll do the scheme, then go back to their usual life on benefits.

I'm writing this thinking of a 26yo i know, imho he will be 50yo, still living at home and would never have worked, he has zero interest in life, work, girls or anything really, he is on a waiting list that is over 4 years for MH support.

This idea he could work in sectors we have shortages in is a joke.

The probability of someone whose single parent has never worked becoming a working, productive member of society is lower than the probability of someone whose single parent is a higher-earner becoming one.

That is partly because intelligence is heritable as a pp said (but wasn't my point), but actually more because generational worklessness is a very real problem. When someone deliberately has a child every 3 years in order to have an extended state-funded maternity leave, it's unlikely that many of her children will escape the trap of state dependency.

It's you who invented that lower paid - but productive - jobs were beneath me and my children: I never said or implied that.

Additionally, I have said that someone who is on benefits or NMW should not be more entitled to have children than a higher earner. That if they are supported to have 2 or more children then so should the higher earner.

Why do you think they are more entitled? You still haven't answered that.

I think it would be profoundly unfair to expect someone to fund 3 children for a low earner when they can't afford even 2 themselves. And there's absolutely no way the higher-earning single mum could afford three* *children. How do you justify that?

Of course, she could give up her job and go on benefits herself. Do you really think that's good for society?

Answer my questions instead of telling me off for wrong-thinking.