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.

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.

The majority should be punished for the actions of the few? How does that work?!

We’re not talking about child benefit, which doesn’t have a limit and can be claimed even if your household income is up to 60k now I believe? So not sure who you’re having a go at here…

Child benefit was phased in from 1977 to 1979 by Labour, replacing family allowances and child tax allowances. Child tax allowances were first introduced in 1798, though they were abolished again in 1805. They were reintroduced in 1909.
<a class="break-all" href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=revenuebenefits.org.uk/child-benefit/policy/where_it_all_started/&ved=2ahUKEwi1zt333a2HAxX2QEEAHSL_C9UQFnoECBIQAw&usg=AOvVaw1AkDuT0DYAO3khiUSJtFmR" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://revenuebenefits.org.uk › child-benefit › policy

However, I will answer the question of what it was like before 1997 because i grew up under Thatcher's administration so I'll tell you what I remember.

I remember the poorest children at school who were very obviously poor and they stuck out from the rest of us, had holes in their clothes, clothes that were too small and not enough food. They relied upon charity to get what they needed. I remember my mum giving away my outgrown clothes.

They also grew up underachieving. There was one girl in particular who should have been able to go to Oxbridge but because of all her health problems from poverty she wasn't able to.

I think people assume that Tory governments encourage social mobility and Labour don't but that's actually rubbish. When Labour were in power the last time they introduced lots of programmes in schools to encourage social mobility. And Sure Start centres.

Some very badly informed folk on this thread. Or brainwashed.

Those few would soon increase to many. We need to do more to get people to support themselves and eventually come off universal credit, sort out affordable housing, reduce council tax, put in place sustainable affordable childcare so parents can work.

And depending where you grow up its not a small number of people. I grew up near several council estates. When I was at school there was a large number of girls who's aim in life was to get pregnant to get a council house. Then another child each time there were told to find a job.

@Gingerdancedbackwards good - you know how to google. And proved my point with what you found.

This is for those PPs who are vexed that CB is being referred to as something different to UC.
But also as a demonstration that people had children without being paid to do so

I was in primary in the 90s. I remember the most obvious distinction was the ‘poor’ kids not having a school uniform to wear, they often came in home clothes. Kids who were from very disregulated families or in the care system were often sent to special needs schools (can’t even get my child with high needs autism into a specialist school these days). It was certainly not a time of ‘every child deserves an education’, there was absolutely a feeling of an underclass of people.

How much would you like? Would you like the state to pay all that £1000 or would you be prepared to pay some of it?
What about a bag of free groceries for your third child every week and a direct payment of £400 from the state to your child care provider? You pay the rest of it.
Would that satisfy you or would you need more?

The government can't afford to remove it

Genuine question if taking out changes of circumstances such as relationship breakdowns, illness or death of a parent Is the cap really such a contributing factor to child poverty? Does not even a grand a year make that much difference?

When I was at school there was a large number of girls whose aim in life was to get pregnant to get a council house. Then another child each time there were told to find a job.

When were you at school? For as long as I can remember, nobody got given a council house for being pregnant. Certainly not since the early 90s. Council housing has been on an ever decreasing decline.

Nobody actually knows what child benefit gets spent on within each family. Some families will squander it on crap and others will use it to budget carefully for nappies, formula and nutritious food. Some that don't need it squirrel it away in a savings account (I know someone who has saved thousands over the years).

I think that the cap is fine, as long as poverty and cost of living for those most vulnerable and disadvantaged children is addressed and dealt with properly so the children directly benefit.

Things like funded places in breakfast clubs with good quality food, decent filling school meals, plenty of snacks available in school and after school clubs etc. And making sure the children that need these things are accessing them.

That is more valuable and chucking a hundred odd quid at parents who might not make good choices for using the money.

Yes, I remember things getting better in schools from the late 90s and early 00s

Why do I limit myself to have a small family only to pay for another one via taxes? Going into detail they are not even families but young women who have children with different partners and the fathers leave them. We need to make the fathers accountable with jail if they do not pay for their kids. Then you will see the numbers decreasing. There is so much defending the inconceivable in this country.

It’s not about ‘satisfying’ and individual. It’s about recognition of the cost of living and the hard choices some families have to make about if it’s actually affordable to work. A ridiculous situation to be in, and one the previous government refused to recognise (and this one seems to be going the same way).

As for a bag of groceries for the third child - would that be age specific? So a one year old would be entitled to formula, but could the parents choose which one in case of dietary restrictions? Or would it be a random bag of whatever was left over in the Tesco stock room? I mean it would be useless to my family anyway as my children are restricted eaters, but they get DLA to meet their needs regardless. A random bag of food would just add to the food waste crisis.

Yes we do need to make the fathers more accountable. That I do agree with. At the moment, the state has powers to make men pay which they don’t use.

self employed men can claim to earn pennies so that their income isn’t touched by the CMS.

Statistics are no more needed for that than the fact that we would need statistics for the knowledge that people put one foot in front of the other in order to move.
People use the evidence of their own eyes-just as we use the evidence of our eyes to know how the system can be abused.

You don't need statistics for everything-some things are just known. Start living life through your own experiences, not through some set of statistics -which are almost always provided by some group with an axe to grind. It is silly to think that because there might be no statistics, then it can't be real.
"Find statistics"-don't be a fool trying to sound like a scientist!

So bring back the fuel cap, cap all utilities, make it better for all instead of even more taxes on those that are taxed to fuck already. Make it hit companies in the pocket. And go after the shiester fathers. Stop feckless people that won't provide for themselves popping out unlimited kids and stop sticking grabby fingers into my hard-earned money. MY money should be for MY family, not wasters that won't provide for their own.

We can all spout made up nonsense. You're being asked to back up what you're saying with facts, not more spurious claims.

But you are talking rubbish. What you happen to see through ‘your eyes’ (ie, lens) is merely your interpretation of a value judgment that you’ve made.

This reminds me of when David Cameron’s administration claimed that it’s common to find that three generations of people have never worked. They later had to admit they had no evidence to make such a claim.

If you want to demonise and spread propaganda about poor people, then I for one am going to challenge you to provide evidence of those claims. And if you can’t then the reality speaks for itself.

Random bag from Tesco. It wouldn't matter if you ate that and then spent the money saved on your food on food for the child who is a restricted eater.
You would still have groceries for nothing.

It demonstrates nothing of the sort.

So bag of random weekly groceries for third child and a childcare payment from the government to childcare provider-say about a third of the cost.
That really is ample but of course, much always wants more.

As for David Cameron having to withdraw-did he- that there were families in which no-one worked for three generations-he simply had to get off his arse and walk around some of the estates around here where he would have found plenty of examples. Examples that several on this thread see every day.

Anyway, it seems nothing will satisfy some until every need their child has is paid for by the state and under this new government, I imagine they will have their wish sooner than later.

What about dietary restrictions and allergies? Vegans and vegetarians, ARFID, autism, diabetics. A random bag of food would be a complete waste of money.

The uc system as a whole prevents people being able to ‘pop out’ as many kids as they want, it’s not just the child element. But some people do still have children in poverty/low income situations and that’s not going away. There are many reasons for it other than ‘too selfish to use birth control’, that such a lazy narrative.

I do agree men need to be more responsible though. Whenever we see a single mum with too many kids, it’s always asked why she didn’t do enough. Why are boys/men not told that birth control is equally their responsibility, that if they don’t want kids they must wear a condom? And yes, men should be made to pay a decent amount for their children - that goes for when they’re in a relationship with the mother as well. Too many stories on here about how the mother’s wage is the one that covers all child-related things.

However, housing is a bigger priority in my mind that benefits. Good, affordable housing with little risk of eviction unless evidence of antisocial behaviour would help more than fuel caps or a bag of food (which is no different from food banks or the healthy eating vouchers already available).