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

The thing is that the policy did not work
It does not deter anyone from having another child. It was never going to as 45% of pregnancies and a third of live births are unplanned

You can wang on all you like about 'people shouldn't have more children than they can afford' but people do and this policy has not stopped them as the numbers have not fallen at all since it was brought in

All it does therefore is to increase the numbers of children brought up in poverty which limits their life chances and means they themselves are more likely to claim benefits

So yes this dumb Tory policy should be repealed

It turns out that if you support keeping it you are further to the right than Suella Braverman.....

www.suellabraverman.co.uk/news/it-time-abolish-two-child-benefit-cap

???
I've been trying to get sterilised for years and been refused in case I change my mind about wanting more children. I'm 34.

It's not a straightforward procedure for women. Maybe for men!

No. People need to think before they do something and do you honestly think that extra money would go to the children in many cases? We are taking about setting up breakfast clubs as some parents dont bother to feed breakfast to their kids.

Fuck me a call to sterilise the poor!
I really didn't think eugenics would make a come back

Aimed mostly at men who value money way over children and refuse to pay for them, and those women who have had multiple children of whom they are incapable of carrying for due to complex substance misuse issues.

There are so many children born into care - from parents who have had 5+ children addicted to substances, we give the parents so many chances that we end up giving the children none.

This seems more appropriate.

I think the 2 child cap was imposed many years ago. People do realise when then have children.

Not the poor, giving a percentage of income based incentive will actually incentivise men who work and refuse to take responsibility for their children.

Also those people incapable of caring for children who are substance misusers who value their addiction over children's wellbeing.

Often money is earned from their children - to fund substance misuse- in forms of sexual and criminal exploitation. Children dying of neglect or surviving and repeating the cycle

100% this. I would far rather that men are made to pay for their children and also that there's a social stigma attached to men that don't.

Exactly. there are still thousands of families with a bunch of teenage kids and they are getting money for them all, have four kids in the family and no-one working and you get over 1k a month just in child element. Add into that that very often there is a disabled person in the family so no benefit cap at all. This amount is before you even add in standard adult elements and rent element.
Even if they did lift the two child cap though these large families would still be hit by the benefit cap if no one working.
The help to lift kids out of poverty needs to be geared towards helping parents back to work so they aren't out of the work force for years on end, making absent parents pay for their kids and by targeting money in other schemes, school breakfast schemes, uniform vouchers, free after school clubs for low income families. Make sure the help gets directly to the kids.

There seems to be a presumption that the only people affected by the cap are single parent or non working families. Most benefits are claimed by people in work.

I agree.

Not all people who misuse substances are bad parents btw. But some are incapable and it's devastating

I say this as a child of an alcoholic

There are 2 streams of thought on this, what would happen if we lived in an idealist socialist utopia, and what we can actually afford given our country is in serious trouble financially. The latter will have to win.

But the baby/child will suffer for it? Despite what you think of those parents decisions

This isn’t true.

60% of people claiming UC are unemployed. The remaining 40% may work part time or full time.

Paying more does not guarantee it is spent on the child and sadly I talk from experience. I see one / two child families being neglected and not for want of money and child poverty is a far bigger issue than paying benefits per child. The whole system needs reform, state childcare, absent parents not contributing.... the benefits pot is running at more than any of us can afford.

@AllIThinkAbourIsKarma The baby/child suffering 'doesn't matter'?

I'd rather see improvements to the NHS and schools which would indirectly benefit those children.

We need to stop benefits as a lifestyle choice and we all know that happens

I would support free holiday clubs and free school meals at primary and secondary

And lots of support to help people back to work. Maybe free or cheap after school clubs

I agree, I would back virtually anything that directly benefitted children (free meal clubs, dentistry, fruit at school to take home, free books… you name it), but I cannot support cash handed over to people a large % of whom would spend it on beauty treatments, vapes, weed, takeaways and other junk.

My views aren’t ’taken straight from the daily mail’ sadly they’ve been developed through years of encountering the sort of people mentioned above on a near daily basis. Anyone who works in a public support role can confirm this.

I'm in two minds about this. I'm a strong Labour supporter and support a robust welfare system. However, some voluntary work that I do brings me into contact with families who are constantly having more children, several families where there are 8 kids that they can't afford to feed and are reliant on either regular food parcels or food bank referrals. I really struggle with the utter irresponsibility of these people who are choosing to put themselves and their children in this situation.

I think there has to be better education around this subject with early intervention. The days of "having a baby to get a council house" are gone. There has to be some personal responsibility. What I do think needs to change, and urgently, is the child maintenance system which is not fit for purpose. We need a robust zero tolerance US style system. I intend to lobby my MP about this as my last Conservative MP could not have cared less despite the efforts I made to engage him. If you are going to continue to produce children then both parents must take responsibility. This in turn will reduce benefit dependence. It's a huge undertaking though but one I hope will be addressed.

Child poverty has to end and ending the cap will lift so many out of poverty. However, it cannot be a bottomless pit situation. No easy answers.

Exactly

Well we can partly blame the ‘feminist’ doctrine that practically encourages women to carelessly get pregnant ‘because the man should be to blame, and society should support you’ 🤷‍♀️

No. Having more than 2 children is generally a choice and the parents who make that choice shouldn't expect additional benefits because of it.

Many people choose 0, 1 or 2 children to fit in with their financial position.

Choosing 3, 4 or 5+ children isn't a great choice for lots of reasons and unfortunately some people seem to have multiple children based upon the financial and housing benefits rather than their ability to look after them well.

Before I get flamed - this is a generalisation. It applies to a proportion of the population, not everyone.