Two kids benefit cap

[Youllhatethis]

Good or bad? On the one hand, yes, of course we need children to fund the future or on the other, don’t have more kids than you can afford.

Good

I agree there needs to be a limit but wish the government would do more to solve child poverty in other ways.

Good.

We would like another child. We earn over the benefits threshold so receive no benefits. We have made a decision to stop at 2 children as 3 will stretch us too much financially. It is absolutely bonkers that those entitled to child and other benefits can rely on the state to fund their growing families whereas those of us who can’t have to limit our families.

Child poverty isn't good for the children involved or society. If we don't invest in families, we spend more elsewhere, health, the justice system etc. Austerity was a punishment on the poor, we haven't saved any money, we've just made life miserable for many and our services have gone to shit. There was a shocking report out today that an election had to be called because of the prison crisis. We also now know that there were pools of available funding for lots of projects, one being green energy, that deliberately sat unspent. The two child cap achieved nothing.

I get the 'we have to be responsible for our choices bla bla bla' but it's not a choice the child made. how can childhood poverty ever be 'good'?

I think that ultimately and unfortunately it’s more about the choices of the parents than the children. Obviously no child chooses to be born into poverty; but parents do have a choice to bring children into that poverty.

OP, there has been a few threads on this inmthe last few days, so prepare for a mauling from some for starting another one!

Saying that though, I find it interesting that the most recent one that to date is up to 35 pages long, and this one doesn't have voting enabled.

Another interesting thing is that there isn't much mention of recent polling on the issue. Apart from a one saying that about 39% or thereabouts are in favour of scrapping the Universal Credit two child limit for claiming the child element, whilst another said 50% were in favour. But no mention that 50% or more were in favour of keeping it.

Seems strange that public opinion is being conveniently ignored by those saying it should be lifted, saying it is unfair to punish children for the actions of parents on Universal Credit, whilst conveniently ignoring a third or fourth child of parents that are earning a fraction over the threshold for claiming UC who won't receive help from the state or their employers for their extra children.

Why reward one group and ignore another group who may be just as much in need?

It's far too easy to propose spending other families money, which is exactly what lifting the 2 child cap would do. At the moment there is an uneasy balance between parents who are funding child benefit for others by not being entitled to it themselves at higher income thresholds.

If we take away incentives for people to work more by increasing their taxes to fund others who may even have a better quality of life on benefits, everybody loses in the end.

I also don't buy this is the solution to child poverty. Breakfast/after school clubs, cheaper childcare, free school meals, restrictions on school uniform costs (or grants), cheaper school transport for kids are more direct short term approaches. And longer term increasing employment and wages, cheaper and better housing and lower energy bills will help.

I wish everyone would stop calling it child benefit. Its the child element of universal credit or anyone left on child tax credit.

I agree with partially lifting it. Maybe give it at a lower rate after 2 children. Its over £50 a week per child for those extra children. Maybe give half the amount or up it to 3 children. Personally I know someone with 6 kids and itd be too much money otherwise.

Well obviously only have the kids you can afford. People who have additional children to gain benefits are unlikely to be 'producing' productive members of society unfortunately as statistics show, take a look at other countries who don't have this. Also does anyone care about the children being born into this? Not fair on them. Terrible idea!

Absolutely agree with this, it's vital to invest in children in the early years. Incentives for people to produce children for money is not the solution for obvious reasons, rarely is the money spent on the children and they're the ones who suffer

They also have a choice on where they spend the money they DO get. Too often it goes on drugs, alcohol and cigarettes rather than the children.

I wouldn't say good or bad. I'd say it's an understandable policy to have.

It just won’t happen. The economy is fucked and it’s just not afforadable. People should not be having kids they can’t afford. Of course not the child’s fault, but the two people who brought them into the world, and if one of them isn’t contributing, then that’s where the shortfall and the accountability for that child’s situation should lie.

Christ! Do people believe this crap?

Lots of generalisations on here.
Drugs and alchohol indeed?!
What about those parents who had 3 then their dh or do buggered off/ died etc leaving mum holding the baby?

Considering I've known people like this and seen it with my own eyes, then yes, I don't just beleive it, I know it as fact.

You might also be shocked to know people used to spend milk tokens on cigarettes or in the offy, too.

What about those parents who had 3 then their dh or do buggered off/ died etc leaving mum holding the baby?
Although I am sympathetic in these examples. Life is difficult enough bringing up our own family. Just do not have the extra to solve someone else's problems.
The wider view is that as a country we need to stop expecting someone to bail us out. The state cannot do it. In my view it should not even try. We need to take more responsibility for solving our own problems.

edit. Especially the errant husbands/fathers need to be found, their first family must take priority over the 2nd.

A bag of extra groceries delivered a week-just enough to feed the third child.
There you go, the child won't starve and the parents can provide anything else it may need or is it actual cash money they want.

An actual living wage as minimum wage would be better.
Plus more secure and sensibly priced rental homes.
But until we have that......
Sigh 🙁

I think that when a claim for UC is first made the cap should be on how any children there are already. E.G if a claim is made by someone with 3 children then that's it, nothing if child number 4 comes along. Likewise those with 1, or 2. If there are no children then the cap should be 1 child only. But that's just my opinion.

No we should use other methods to reduce child poverty including better money education including debt education in schools so they don't get into the mess in the first place (most families in extreme poverty have substantial debt repayments which means their benefits aren't being used for purpose intended), also raise the free school meal threshold through secondary school to a much higher level (get rid of universal infants btw, parents on £200k can pay!) vouchers for healthy food in school holidays, mentoring programmes again to break the cycle.

Adding a set amount sends the wrong message, a third child should be planned for just like for everyone else, and i stopped at 2 for financial reasons like so many posting here

@Dontcallmescarface so does that mean you would insist on forced vasectomies or sterilisation?

I thinknsny money spent needs to go directly to children-vouchers for fruit and vegetables, breakfast clubs, surestart or equivalent etc. Not handing money directly to parents. Also agree with more aggressive pursuing of absent parents for maintenance. We are skint. We need to make sure money goes directly to children where we are spending money we don't have.

No, does the present system insist on forced sterilisation or vasectomies? Anyone who wants more children than the cap can have them it just means, like now, the parent/s won't get extra money for them.