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

This. Address child poverty through universal benefits.

and the women?

Are they?

Because I live in an area where the vast majority of working people are doing low paid work. Many of them don’t and can’t afford to drive. I walk my dog at 5am. There’s loads of people walking to work, cycling, waiting for the buses to get to their low paid job. My dp is one of them.

They can’t afford to commute to city either side. Either financially or afford the time. It’s an hour and a half to 2 hours depending on traffic, each way in the bus that’s a 20 minute drive. But they don’t have an extra 3 hours a day to get a better job elsewhere.

When you say ‘very few’ exactly how many are you talking?

and what jobs are you talking about?

Well if they knew they had to pay for their existing kids, maybe they wouldn't have any more.

And maybe employers could pay fair wages.

I would prefer childcare to be subsidised as in the Nordic countries as well.

For me, public policy should encourage mothers to work so they don't have to depend on men (and/or benefits) and people to have smaller families to save the planet.

The women are the ones who usually end up looking after them while the men go swanning off with someone else and sperm-donor yet more kids.

Lots of reasons such as the cost of living and poor wages. There has been some improvement in wages recently but then the cost of living has rocketed so it doesn't really help.

Keir Starmer has suspended 7 MPs who voted against the govt on this issue so thankfully it looks like the 2 child limit isn't going to be lifted anytime soon.

Yes, it’s not happening.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c978m6z3egno

Starmer did the the right thing.

Removing the cap does no mean money would be actually spent on the kids anyway...

Better to focus on addressing the cost of living and working to lower things like energy bills, transport and so on and improve wages.

It is also best to spend public money on schools and support services (health/social care/free school meals/breakfast) rather than throw money at irresponsible parents.

Harsh, but there is just not enough tax payer money to go around.

Yes, it’s not happening.

Yet. It will when the money’s there.

That's a bit of a generalisation. Do you hate men? Oh wait, it's Mumsnet of course you do.

Increase benefits paid for one child to be equal to those paid for two children. This would serve as an incentive to have only one child while not taking anything away from those with two.

No. Children are incredibly expensive! Only have what you can afford.

so What happens when people have a second child they get an increase? This wouldn’t go down well

No. There is no increase. It is just a set amount for having children. Whether you have one, two or seventeen.

It's a statistical fact.

Show me the numbers of "men go swanning off with someone else and sperm-donor yet more kids". Thanks.

But that whole be portrayed as being a one child cap as it doesn’t go up with the second child

No it will just be a set amount for having children. People with two children will be no worse off than currently.

So what will happen to all the people who had a third child and couldn't claim for them?
Will they get a back payment for what they missed?

Of course not. That’s not how benefits work.

The two child cap was announced two years before it took effect. It only takes nine months to conceive and deliver a human baby. So if you didn't know there would be no additional money for your third child, and then you have a baby for whom you will receive no additional money, unless a twin/multiple birth then you are standing on your own two feet. You had the child; you pay for it.

I really don't think anything more could have been done to signal the change of rules. And, as a tax payer, at the higher rates, who is still paying 35% tax in retirement, actually I think it was the right call.

I know some posters are gentler and more easy going on this point but IMO, if you are going to have children then I think you are responsible for what they cost, and please, BTW, don't forget that the tax payers of the whole country are paying their income tax to the NHS and pensions and social care. The health and social care infrastructure is in danger of becoming larger than the economy.

Asking YOU the question is the opposite of speaking for you?

Oh come on. It was a passive aggressive dig at the pp.

And made pretty obvious..

I knew.