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 Lord! Do they have all these conditions in war zones where some are forced to eat rats.
What's ARFID?

We're not talking about war zones. And of course they would; diabetes doesn't go away because of bombs. ARFID is extremely narrow eating behaviour.

As I said, it doesn’t affect me. My children get DLA to cover their needs, so the other money I receive can be spent on what I want to eat rather than a sad bag of unchosen food. And being a full time carer I don’t have the time or energy to be making different meals regardless. But your attitude is rather Victorian, ‘have a random bag of whatever and be grateful’. Poorer families aren’t allowed small pleasures…

No, only British kids on council estates choose to have autism. Have you let the medical councils know this? It’s a scientific breakthrough right there…

I would like to see other funding increase to directly benefit children but I agree with the 2 child cap.

I'd like to see more holiday club and weekend club funding so that children in poverty have places to go outside of school to access food.

More control over ridiculous school uniform policies so that parents aren't financially stretched to pay for a logo or purple stripe.

More funding in schools for uniform grants, trip funding, 1:1 support, assessments for SEN and an increased lower income limit for free school meals.

Better availability and quality of social housing to ensure that children are housed in adequate accommodation free from mould, with beds and heat.

Increased funding in social care for more social workers, more respite care for parents caring for children with disabilities and/or SEN.

Ok. You've all persuaded me. I now realise that there is no difference between diabetes and electing not to eat something because of a choice or a behaviour.
I also realise that everyone should have as many children as they choose and the state should pay for their breakfast, their ride to school, their lunch, their ride home and their dinner fro 0 to 21. I also know that the state should not provide anything without first checking that it is the preferred item. This could cause feelings of worthlessness and even trauma,
This is the only correct way and anyone who thinks otherwise is some sort of fascist who hates kids and who has totally and evilly imagined the fact that there a fair few who milk the system.

I have seen the light! Lord be Praised! Off to work now, so that I can continue to pay into the pot and help those who selflessly have large broods. Thank you for reprogramming me.

You don't need statistics for everything-some things are just known

Well, as someone who has been on benefits for years...no, it's not just known. Please find the evidence that shows people on benefits are feckless wasters who smoke and do drugs rather than feed their children. And more importantly, that any children born to the feckless will automatically be feckless themselves.

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

There is a study that showed the generations and generations of fecklessness to be a myth - very small number of families nationwide where this had happened. Which is why I'm asking for the stats to back it these claims.

And of course it is convenient to forget that the many claiming benefits are actually in work.

I am not disputing that there will be of course families where poor choices are made, addictions rule, job skills are non-existent. But I also know that there are many families who claim benefits out of necessity - family breakdown, disability, ill-health, unforseen life situation.

So we bring in more migrants & their families to do jobs we simply don't have enough people to do....

I now realise that there is no difference between diabetes and electing not to eat something because of a choice or a behaviour

What?!

Sorry to hear of your chnage of circumstances, @Tumbleweed101 Your situation is escatly where @Dontcallmescarface 's idea is perfect though. You would still have the support you needed. Here's her post again - I think it makes perfect sense:

Dontcallmescarface · Today 08:34
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.

You’re completely ignoring the fact that circumstances change. Relationship breakdown can lead to some people, usually mothers, having to claim benefits.
Imo there are no excuses for a wealthy country not to be ensuring that all its children are adequately housed, clothed and fed.

If you’re not smart enough to understand restrictive eating because of disability, that’s on you. Imagine thinking it’s a choice or based on poor behaviour, gosh you are silly aren’t you. I hope that tax paying job of yours isn’t too taxing on the brain, sounds like it’s working at peak capacity as it is.

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

Broadly, this probably works. But how will you manage the split family situation? Or is it (mainly) women this will apply to with men procreation with multiple women with no restrictions?

Dontcallmescarface · Today 08:34
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
whilst this in theory sounds fair , it would be a nightmare to implement and then you’d have loads of people claiming it is unfair as someone is getting more than they are .
It needs to stay at a 2 child cap as that is fairest to all

Single Mum of 3, I work full time as a nurse and claim a small amount of UC. The 2 child cap doesn't bother me at all, I think the UC top up is extremely generous! My kids Dad fucked off and left me, doesn't see them and pays a measley £29 a month in maintenance. We're not all scum raising scum here. Most single parents I know are just doing their best. They should crack down on absent fathers and provide more child care places (that are flexible) to allow mothers to work. There are so many health care jobs out there that would be suitable for single mothers if it wasn't for the lack of affordable childcare that could accommodate.

Necessary.
Phoebefail · Today 08:28
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.

This^

The Family Allowances Act was passed into law in 1945, so parents had had it for 52 years before 1997!
Where are you getting your information from?

Of course I don't want the state to pay all of it.

My point is there's a gap between what a lot of single working parents can afford and the reality of the cost of caring for small children.

And in the long run, it's better for both my children and the taxpayer if I stay in work, progress my career, get on the property ladder etc, rather than relying even more heavily on the benefits system for an even longer period of time, all because I had one too many children when I believed myself to be in a good position to make that choice.

Ironically, it was my husband who pushed hard for a third child. But it's me and the children who now suffer the consequences.

Agree with others who say that there needs to be more support and education for those in a long term cycle of poverty. There's no one size fits all answer to this issue. And it certainly isn't pushing more & more children into poverty because of their parents' circumstances.

There are of course a whole range of reasons why a person may find themselves needing benefits but let's not pretend that there aren't people who could work and could make better choices but choose not to.

One of my DDs friends spent a year homeless with her mum, moving to various hotels. Upon finally getting a 2 bed small but lovely new build council house, the mum immediately moved in her boyfriend and his 2 kids so now there are 3 kids in 1 bedroom. They then within a couple of weeks bought 3 dogs and 2 cats and announced how excited they are to be trying for a baby. Neither adult works, they are constantly complaining on SM about being broke and cramped conditions but it's a situation entirely of their own making which they are currently actively trying to make worse.

Funny how there wans't much of that about during rationing etc.

This is a child maintenance issue. I can see a few posters have mentioned absent fathers. CMS is an absolute disgrace! They don't challenge these "self employed" fathers enough.

I agree. CMS is a disgrace.

I'd like to see some consideration and help given to those that work and receive no benefits, those that are above the threshold so get no concessions whatsoever. Those that are also taxed through the arse to pay for everyone else. Those that are likely, in reality, in more poverty than those they are forced to pay for.

I'd also like lower taxes for those that don't have children so pose no burden on the state and therefore receive basically nothing for all the money they have taken off them.

How do you know, were you there personally? Or are you also banging out repetitive shit like the benefits bingo person at the start of the thread? Just come straight out with ‘there was no autism in my day 🤪’ and be done with it. We like to see the ones who are talking out of their backsides clearly so we can move on and ignore your irrelevant (to both the thread and in general) opinions about medical conditions.

That's not how taxation works; we don't get to pick and choose what it's spent on and how it effects us individually.