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 should come from the fathers though, not from other families who may be struggling whilst still paying tax. Those fathers are the ones who need to pay for their kids. The money should be removed from them before they even get it and it should be a fair amount, not some of the low payments that some seem to get away with

This. If they’re stupid enough to keep having children they can’t afford, they’re not going to spend the extra hand out on the child.

In fairness, surely this is about supporting children. And you cant tell from a household income which children need it.

My step kids mum lives mortgage free in a large house and has a very good salary and savings but a miser like attitude. We step into the breach of course but in another household there might not be that option

Good lunches, good education, good healthcare etc ensures the money gets to the children, which is where it was intended to go

It can be made accessible, even for those who don’t start till 8.45. And yes, as someone with SEN I agree, but I’d happily give up some of my child benefit to know that all children are getting nutritious food. And I say that as someone who is struggling financially as it is.

Devils Advocate question here: how has the two child cap affected behaviour? Who has made different choices based purely on the cap? Would these people have made different choices without the cap?

My feeling is that in reality, the number of people this is, is actually surprisingly small. If anything it probably has changed the mentality of slightly better off families more than the poorest, because this is as much about attitude toward being responsible rather than being responsible.

By that I mean, people who aren't really arsed and don't really take responsibility aren't going to suddenly start taking responsibility if you take a bit of money off them for irresponsible decisions. They are still going to be irresponsible.

Whereas people who would be most likely to change are the most risk adverse. And those who it will financially affect but really want children will prioritise and value the children more than the loss of money and will take the attitude that they will 'cope' regardless. And they would have taken responsibility regardless but wouldn't be in poverty and much more vulnerable.

I think that yes, we should be financially responsible for our own children. But that's my value and my priority in life and the problem here is that different people don't prioritise that. Financial penalties are unlikely to change that mentality and there's no evidence works.

If you look at the aim of the policy - to make parents take more financial responsibility for their children, I don't think it's achieved it. If it had achieved that, parents would be working more hours and be better off financially.

Instead in practice it's put families who are struggling in a more financially vulnerable position - so if they have an unexpected bill - they tip into the spiral of debt that's so difficult to get out of. It's not about a lack of willingness to take financial responsibility - its a lack of ability to and a lack of opportunity to. And it's ultimately made families less financially responsible and more dependent on things like food banks.

The cap leading to more children being in poverty certainly does not looking like parents have been encouraged to take greater financial responsibility or if they have been encouraged they haven't achieved that goal.

So the question is, is it worth carrying on with a policy that's known to be ineffective?

If those families had the extra money what impact would it have? Would it give those children better long term prospects in someway? Whether it be health related or economic.

If so, whilst it may be more costly is the benefit to society as a whole greater than a policy that encourages desperate poverty?

People who do not claim benefits have to make sometimes difficult decisions about how many children they can afford to have. Why should those on benefits be exempt from having to make those same difficult decisions?

@caringcarer I disagree that most people save up to have a child. I state this from what I have seen and encountered through life in general and through employing women over many years. Women are 'sorted' when they have a child. Sorted in that they know the Government will put a roof over their heads and give generous hand outs until their child reaches school leaving age. This is extremely attractive to low wage earners, which means they are often better off (in their eyes) with a baby and £1000+ more than they were used to, in benefits, doing less work.
Those in careers, probably do save for a child, as they won't have heard of, or understand the benefit system, and possibly have higher aspirations altogether.

But also @Morph22010, it should be one struggling child vs another. We should be trying to support SEN kids and impoverished ones, not one or the other. And the right nutrition for all children will benefit the NHS long term, So I stand by my point.

Well bully for you - I assume you think you speak for all 12 million over 65s many of whom live alone (with attendant expenses) with the inability to go out and work (unlike the millions of working age who live mostly on benefits).

The pensioners you scorn pay tax too - income tax, council tax, VAT (unlike many who pay no tax now or ever have).

We spend £10 billion on SEN a year. How much is enough? Tbh children seem to have such a vast array of complex issues now that I’m not convinced we can ‘meet all their needs’ even if we wanted to.

No.

No.

There's loads of evidence (globally) that increasing mothers' income directly benefits children. The idea of 'feckless benefits scroungers' has been very effectively put about over the last 14 years to destroy public support for children. The number of children living in poverty is increasing because you know what? The policy hasn't worked to control poor women's fertility and more and more families are being impacted by the cap. If that was the goal then it should be stopped on those grounds alone- it simply doesn't work.

What's more, we know WTC and other measures brought in in the late 90s and 00s worked- far fewer children lived in poverty, many (including many of the current cabinet) were able to move out of poverty as a result.

Incidentally, we also know that women with a higher income have fewer children, which makes the case for progressive benefits- first addressing poverty and then moving people into decent work that pays. Which is also dependent on housing provision and childcare, both unaffordable.

The idea that everyone in a relationship is able to negotiate contraception use and family planning is also laughable.

But anyway, why let data and evidence get in the way of your prejudices.

Living on benefits really isn’t the cake walk people think it is

I have 3 children to my Husband of 15 years and both worked fulltime our whole lives. Last year whilst on Maternity leave my DH cheated and walked out on me and the children. My youngest are 2 years old and 1 years old. For the first time in my life I'm on Universal Credit and due to childcare I'm back to work part time. I'm not living in poverty.

If they lifted the cap and even provided perhaps gas and electric credits instead of cash it would be brilliant. I would take anything.

Some people end up somewhere which they never ever expected to be.

Sorry I am living in poverty now

Not necessarily I don't think people would say it's a choice if you were born disabled or became disabled or couldn't work due to ill health. Noone chooses that.

Similarly if people need help cos they were made redundant they didn't choose that it happened to them so of my.taxes help support them grtting back on their feet and a new job that's fine

Similarly if u were raped and fell pregnant and kept the baby I wouldn't be against my taxes supporting that person

When when a person actively chooses to do something they cant afford to do and wants other people to pay for it then yes I have a problem with wanting to fund it. Cos why does their choice trump my right to fund my choices with my money that I earn? Why do they deserve my money that I earned more than me? I'm the one who went and earned it.

I believe the child benefit (or the U.S. equivalent) cap at two children was trialled in Chicago a few years ago and did appear to have reduced the number of children born to benefit dependant families.

I don't think it's a cake walk, I think it seems a miserable way of life, which is why I'm not convinced enabling it for repeated generations or whole communities does the children any good.

...

No. I’d love three kids but we can’t support more than 2 so we are sticking at two. I earn well as well. But it’s just not affordable. It seems so unfair that if I was on benefits I’d be able to have an unlimited number of the cap was removed.

I am pro abortion for absolutely any reason at all that the mother would feel the need to have one. Without question at all.

You do fund other people's all the time. That is factual. It is not something you can agree nor disagree with. You can have an opinion on it, but a 3rd child is a drop in the ocean of the choices you are funding (if indeed you are actually paying enough tax to fund a single thing).

How does funded childcare help families who are in poverty?

By facilitating them to have increased access to work/training/other help.

How does providing children with good quality food at school help parents pay the food bill?

That's surely obvious.

Whose job is it?

I would assume that the breakfast, after-school and holiday provision would continue to be provided by the same company that does it now (Aktiva, for example), but that children from very low income families would receive a free place (funded by all the money that isn't going directly to their parents).

Is it good to shift parental responsibility away from the parents?

No, of course not, but you're doing that anyway with the benefit systeml. In both cases the tax payer is supporting the children, it's just a question of how that support is best delivered.

I agree with your exemptions and I'll only abolish it if everyone who's working also got extra money if they decided to have more children.
But they don't so it seems unfair.