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.

I'm all for it. It's a deterrent at the end of the day children are lovely but extremely costly! It's parents themselves who are plunging their own kids into poverty the GOV has stepped in and rightly so.

Benefit cap is good.people need yo learn personal responsibility!

Ever? Ever Ever? So no parent on benefits is putting their children first. What a crock of shit.

I don't know about the cap. I can see both sides of the argument. For unemployed parents lifting the 2 child limit will be useless without also raising/removing the benefit cap.

On the point of parents who don't claim not being able to afford a 3rd/4th child, would removing the 2 child limit also raise the the max income you could earn and claim. For eg, let's say you need £5k per person per year. (Picked because it's a round figure only).
So a family of 4 needs £20k. If you earn less than that you'd get topped up to it.
If you earn that much and want a 3rd child you'd then need an extra £5k which would be given as UC.

I'm not saying that solution is affordable just pondering if that's how it would work.

I can't understand this thought process. In life there are rules and as much as people ad saying my DH buggered off.... there's not going to be a rule that suits everyone's personal circumstances.

Housing is a huge issue for a start! I'm a single parent myself and honestly I wonder how anybody affords 3 plus kids!

And what about the circa 1k per month it costs to put my youngest child into nursery so I can go to work?

Or would it be better if I quit my job, stayed at home with the children I've been forced into raising by myself, and relied on the benefits system even more?

A vast proportion of those on Universal Credit are working parents and single parents who are in that position through no fault of their own. Should they have no opportunities to better their circumstances for the sake of their children, simply because they've been forced into relying on a safety net whilst their children are young?

You missed out ‘50 inch tv with Sky’ from your Benefits Bingo list…

Anyway those things are old news now. If you want to go more modern stereotypes, say ‘only buy North Face clothing and vapes’. No one smokes anymore, get with the times…

Don't have more kids than you can afford.

I know plenty of people who stopped at one because if they had more they couldn't give both children the best possible life. The tax payer should not be paying for people who want things they cannot afford - maybe if people lived within their means (children, pets, housing etc) our economy might be in a better place.

Bad because the only people who suffer are the children. The children become adults with health problems who can't actually work.

I'm not sure if anyone saw the Panorama programme recently about the decline in children's health but it's because more children are in poverty.

www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m00215yf/panorama-britains-child-health-crisis

Labour has said that it would be an aim to get rid of it.

Good, I don't think they should ever lift the 2 child cap.
If you can't afford more than two children don't have them. To many big families with no means to support themselves. Not to mention the lack of bigger bedroom housing to house them!

What about those who have children they can afford and their circumstances change? Job loss, disability, bereavement, divorce or abandonment, mental health conditions, caring responsibilities etc

No because why are the taxpayers paying for a man's kids because he refuses to pay maintenance. That shit is his responsibility we need to start going after dead beats and making them pay a reasonable amount towards their children.
I know someone who only pays SEVEN POUND A WEEK to his kids. The taxpayer literally pays more than that with child benefit *(about £20 a week). This country is notoriously shitty when it comes to making dead beats pay maintenance.

*Oh and child benefit is separate from universal credit child element which is more and the one that is capped

Also I get that there are different circumstances and he might of died or left the country and exceptions should be made. Just to clarify before y'all jump down my throat

But you would have a better standard of living than anyone who relies on benefits.

I get benefits because my children come first. Actually a lot of the benefit money coming into my account is in their name because of their needs, and gets spent appropriately. That includes things that on paper seems ‘for me’, but unfortunately due their needs I have to run a car on finance (and because I’m on UC I have shit credit so costs more). I have to live in a shit area because people don’t like renting to single mums on benefits, not my choice again but it’s not like I’ll ever live in a mortgaged/outright owned house again.

Im not sure lifting the benefit cap is a priority over having more social housing that’s with more than 2 beds. I’d sooner see the latter sorted asap over the former if it is a case of one or the other. At the moment neither seems to be on the agenda.

The load of rubbish on this thread , are people aware that normal working people sometimes end up needing benefits ? I have 3 and both me and my husband work but what if he died or became disabled why would they punish us for having had 3 children ? Benefits are meant to support people in need .

Bad. It’s outrageous that 4 million children are living in poverty in one of the world’s wealthiest countries.

Actually, people in higher socioeconomic areas are FAR more likely to be regular drug users. The biggest drinkers are men in the highest income households but you are right about smoking, those in the poorest areas are more likely to smoke. Maybe we should increase the taxes for the highest earners to discourage all the drinking and drugs, it's for their own good.

I agree. Especially when it was ideological. At the same time as giving tax revenue to the most rich.

Jesus, don't say that, you'll create an anxiety epidemic!

‘ only have as many children as you can afford ‘ I can afford my 3 children just now . I couldn’t if I became unemployed . Are people suggesting only the rich with family money have children now ?

Before the cap I saw plenty of families where the extra children were seen as more money and bigger house. Unfortunately there are a number of very selfish people who will find any way to beat/scam the system. If it wasn't for people like that we wouldn't have a cap on children you could claim for. So yes there is a stereotype, it isn't true for all claimants but there are a number of people who do put themselves before the wellbeing of their children.

So whilst I do understand the benefit cap is very unfair to some families where circumstances change outside their control, it is necessary due to a small subset of the benefit claimants who believe its their right to have what they want and someone else will pay for it.

Child poverty is horrible, I see it firsthand in my job but in many cases more money won't help, it won't get spent on essentials in many cases. We need more support and things like easier access to food banks/community kitchens. Budetting or cooking classes to help families cook nutritional food on lower budgets. Provide the necessities rather than the cash payments.

Help facilitate more jobs that can be done from home and within school hours so parents can get back into the workplace.

How on earth did parents cope before child benefit was introduced in 1997? I mean, poor sods, apart from a bit of tax allowance, no-one was paying them to have children
The horror!

Exactly. Especially is this age of zero hour contracts.

I think people can't think outside their own bubble, so it's 'I can't afford any more children so why should anyone else have them'.

Child benefit was not introduced in 1997 🤣

Child benefit and its predecessor family allowance have existed for decades. My mum got it and I’m 70. We’re not discussing child benefit anyway.