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

If there isn’t the money there isn’t the money.

Being able to claim child benefit should never be the deciding factor on having another child or not, it’s not exactly a large amount anyway.

I’m more in favour of making reforms to child maintenance system.

Yes both parents have to take responsibility.
Both men and women should use contraception.

I always remember a lovely girl in my year 9 tutor group. She told me her mum was expecting a baby. I replied how lovely.

" No Miss. This will be number 9! Everytime she (mum) gets a new man she wants to confirm their relationship and deliberately gets pregnant! Then we older girls have to look after the babies. Sfter tha sll loved up stage the blokes can't cope and off!"
I tried really hard to get support for her family.
I really hope Rose escaped and the cycle did not repeat itself.

Never understood why people had to have more children with a new partner.

No. I don't think it really does lift children out of poverty. Instead it encourages a poverty trap.

There's no way people can earn the kind of wages they get from large families on the state.

I come from this kind of family. Funnily enough they have found ways to control the babies in more recent years.

The other thing is this seems unfair on the basis labour are not guaranteed to be the government forever. The hardest part is the transition. Why put people through it again.

I do not want to see a return to young girls dragging round babies and toddlers. If you don't think it's changed, you don't live in or come into contact with these places.

I mean they don’t even have to be addicts etc. Many many many people just seem to be unable to understand the concept of money and that even small savings add up over a few weeks in a way that helps. If they have 2 nights before benefit/payday, and £15 to eat, they’ll spend that £15 on a KFC and then complain they’ve no money the following day. Rather than spending it on supermarket food to last 2/3 days.

Yes I’d support that.

We can't afford not to lift children out of poverty, it's impact on health, social care, education, dentistry etc is too huge.

Keeping the two child cap does not make economic sense, to keep it is just playing to the gallery.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/5109354-to-be-shocked-at-the-difference-in-take-home-pay-between-ps30k-and-ps90k

I have looked at the source material and the numbers check out.

This!

So many men paying teeny-tiny amounts of child maintenance per month. Appreciate that both parents need to house themselves after a split and that is incredibly expensive, but we can't argue with the fact that the mother is often saddled with most of the child costs and men pay such laughably tiny sums to the child's upkeep. It needs rethinking entirely.

No. Its different if something has happened to cause you to need benefits for living, or multiple births, but those who choose to carry on having babies knowing they can't afford them, then no.

The analysis was done based on 1500 childcare and 1500 rent.

I'm really torn over this. Of course we should do everything we can to lift children from poverty, but is setting up a life, where benefits is all they know, the way to do that?

I've worked in schools in very deprived areas and whole communities of parents living on benefits with no intention of working is a very real thing, as is single mothers having another child just as they would have been expected to go to work because of their child's age. Enabling these parents to keep having children, doesn't help the children.

But, I absolutely support benefits as a safety net and don't know what the answer is.

But you can’t separate child poverty from parent poverty. Low wages are at least part of the problem.

Of course they should. Finland, Belgium, France, Germany, even Japan spend far more of their GDP on social benefits than the UK. The levels of child poverty in the UK are a disgrace and the consequences for those children; from poorer mental health, lower grades, more likely to join gangs etc to the consequences and costs for our society make it a no brainer.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/unicef-uk-child-poverty-ranking-b2459151.html

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK547371/

You may as well ask should we provide free education for children? Because, if you can't afford to pay privately, you shouldn't be having kids.

Does paying more benefits lift them out of poverty though? It puts more money in the hands of families, but does it change the prospects for the children? I don't know the answer, but from the families I work with, I'm not sure it does.

I think the money would be better spent supporting families not to need benefits. We really need Sure Start centres reinstated, which had a huge impact on all the things you mention.

I think it needs to end because it’s not the children’s fault they exist. The cap might intended to punish the parents, but ultimately it just punishes the children.

Yes they should lift it - the state should support all children equality, regardless of birth order.

They should also reform child maintenance to make it fit for purpose.

No. I've been on benefits as a single parent and I got as much then as I take home now with a well paid job.

Absent parents need to pay.

Those countries also have much higher levels of tax than the UK.

I am the youngest of 6, My father stopped working and then never went back unless it was cash in hand. Additional benefits wouldn’t have touched me though as he made sure he drank and smoked all of his benefits. We only survived because older siblings worked and paid “board”. More benefits would have meant he drank more every day.

I expect there are many families like this.

Vouchers for school resources, uniform, food and clubs would have been much more useful and I’d have seen the benefit of them.

Throwing money at people is not always the answer.

No. People need to take responsibility for their choices. We discounted the idea of a third based on cost.

I think it should stay.

Agreed. Decent cheap childcare, decent health and dental care, free good quality meals in schools and good quality education. Good quality play areas and decent quality social housing.

Not endless cash handouts and vast rent payments to private landlords

No. We don’t have the money. We have the highest taxes in decades but everything is broken.

Agree that vouchers are a good idea for things that directly benefit the children, that would mean that children will always have the basics they require no matter what their background.

Is there any research into whether it has reduced the number of children that people reliant on benefits have? I suppose the danger if it’s scrapped is that you get a small minority having multiple children just for the extra benefit, im thinking along the lines of the Phillpotts, although suppose they are luckily a minority