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'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.

So child free people don’t use hospitals? Dont need police? Won’t need care if they become disabled or when they eventually become elderly? Actually the last one possible makes them a bigger burden to the state, with the risk of no familial carers it costs the government thousands more in social care.

This thread has got worse.
What did people with eating disorders (which ARFID is one of) do in "the war" etc.
What do you bloody think?
They DIED !
That's what happened.
FFS

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.

Yes but labour also significantly reduced the number of SEN schools under the banner of 'inclusivity' and that hasn't exactly turned out well.
They also closed down a number of 'supported living' centres for adults with moderate to severe learning disabilities, moving them into social housing without any of the support structures in place, it was an incredibly short sighted and actually very, cruel thing to do.
Labour also spent and spent and spent, including selling off UK gold stocks, meaning cut backs had to be made, before we start hailing this new Labour Party as social saviours, let's see what magic they're going to weave, now they have inherited a poor economic situation. The last two labour governments have come to power with a decent economy behind them, now they don't have that cushion, let's see how they choose to divide the pot.

@Zimunya so what's your view on accidental pregnancies - because no contraceptive is 100% perfect.
Abortion?
Adoption?
Workhouses for these children just because their parents full time jobs don't pay enough so they have to claim UC?
Give the baby to a rich family?
Urrgh.
It's all going very Handmaid's Tale now.

Agree with this. I’m so fed up of SureStart being banged out at every opportunity when post early years SEN kids have been placed in ever increasing unsuitable situations for many years. And Labour are straight back to it with ‘inclusive education’ with no actual idea of what SEN children actually need to give them and neurotypical children the best education (never mind expecting teachers to cater to several different needs in one class). It is another economic crisis waiting to happen when these children reach adulthood.

Good. If you can't afford more children, don't have them. Lifting children out of poverty does not mean paying people more taxpayer's money. It should be about education, better employment opportunities, improved housing, better community structures, environment, healthcare, support systems etc, etc. That is where the money needs to be spent.

However, more money is needed, so taxes or borrowing will need to increase. It is not a quick fix, it should be a cross-party goal, where all parties work towards a common goal, irrespective of which party is actually in Government.

What about those who already have children and their circumstances change?

@unsync so compulsory abortions for unplanned pregnancies then?

If anyone understands the issue that has existed of children with SEN being forced into unsuitable mainstream placements, it’s me since 3 of my children are autistic.

I have also had two successful tribunals against my council. And the way I see it, due to my conversations with LA staff is that before the Tories got in, it was difficult to get provision for SEN but the money was there. Now, the money isn’t there in the first place thanks to 50% budget cuts. And a Tory government who spent revenue on vanity projects.

I am not sure why you are conflating children in poverty with children who have SEN, or being derisive of Surestart because Surestart was a great service for those who needed it. its aim was to help create a level playing field for children who were starting school behind their peers for socioeconomic reasons.

Although there may be a crossover in some cases, it’s not a reasonable argument to make that things were always bad under Labour because they weren’t.

SPOT ON. I raised my child as a single parent, working full time and more to keep the boat afloat. Circumstances prevented me having another child but having children is a massive responsibility for the parent(s); it shouldn't be the responsibility of the state

No one is saying that having children should be the responsibility of the state. What people are saying is that helping vulnerable people should be the responsibility of the state.

Bad. Allowing children to live in poverty is not good for them, and not good for the rest of us. I'm all for people taking responsibility for themselves, and for their choices, but not for punishing children whose parents either made poor choices or found themselves in changed circumstances. The welfare state is meant to be there to support all of us in times of need from the cradle to the grave - a far bigger problem is that so many people despite making responsible choices live precarious lives, and this leads to resentment against those with less. But the poorest aren't to blame for widespread precariousness, even if they do receive benefits, in fact most people on benefits are in work these days. We need policies that give everybody the chance to have a decent lifestyle where the basics of life - housing, transport, food, energy, childcare, education, health - are affordable and available to all.

Short start wasn't amazing, I worked in a sure start centre. The idea was brilliant, 'bring services to hard to reach families'. The problem though, hard to reach families are just that, hard to reach. Our centre was open three mornings a week. We provided different health and early years services, we also provided a health breakfast for kids. All parents and children were welcome, but we had more middle income families using our services, than the ones who we really wanted through the door.
Hard to reach families are often chaotic and struggle with time keeping.
Hard to reach families are often living on the outskirts of smaller towns, meaning they would need to get a bus to the sure start centre, often they didn't have the money for the bus fare.
Hard to reach families, normally have at least one parent with undiagnosed SEN, or / and mental health difficulties hence the chaotic life style.
What hard to reach families actually need(ed), is proper support, they need assured tenancy so no risk of eviction. They need help in the first instance, with food deliveries (this isn't to infantalism them, it's to give them a breathing space and slowly build confidence so a parent(s) starts to learn the skills they need to understand budgeting) they need proper support for their mental health, it's well known procrastination is caused by both depression, anxiety, ADHD, and sometimes ASD. The problem with procrastination is mounting bills and dept, which then feeds into the fear and procrastination. Poverty is incredibly complex, and it isn't good for society, and sure as hell isn't good for families living in it. But the reality is increasing the 'two child cap' is simply putting a plaster in a gushing wound.
If our society really wants to lift families out of poverty, then we need to increase spending on services, and that means increasing tax. It will be a slow arduous hill to climb, it needs long term investment, from all governments, it needs to be properly researched, and implemented so there is no wastage, its absolutely doable, but will require this government and successive governments to actually really, really care about our society. I'm not convinced we have enough people in power with that integrity.

Yes, these are all good points.

But it's not obvious. People continue to have children they can't afford without a care as to who picks up the bill.

Well said@veritusvariety .

Because we don't want poor people to get ideas above their station.

We do want poor children to get ideas above their station though. Their parents are the ones making that more unlikely by bringing more siblings into crowded accommodation where they don't have enough food or space, and giving them mountains to climb to get out of their situations by heaping additional stresses onto them.

@DramaLlamaBangBang and this is where Labour is a better government because they do things to encourage social mobility. Unlike the Conservatives who actively try to prevent it.

Telling people to pull themselves up by their bootstraps is not what enables social mobility btw.

Also, the birth rate has fallen to below two children per household.

You must be absolutely ancient. I’m 70 and I don’t remember rationing. I expect a lot of people died because their nutritional needs couldn’t be met.