Why not just lift the 2 child benefit cap for kids already born?r kids whr

[malificent7]

But not for future kids to act as a deterrant? Just an idea

There really wouldn't

I think you might be missing out. Its per kid in England

'Start shaming feckless parents'. Your tone is a disgrace.

Have a think.

The outcome is the same for the children regardless of whether you think their parents are at fault or not. It's solving nothing just plunging more children into poverty. And guess what? Bringing children up in poverty does not lead to good outcomes for them or society as a whole. So it is within our interest to support all children regardless of how we view their parents choices.

And giving extra money for every extra child didn’t actually improve their outcomes because those parents tended to still spend it how they wanted rather than on actual beneficial things for their children.

The sink hooe
estates with 8 children 10 years ago are the same sink hole estates todays it’s just the next generation breeding. Throwing money at it doesn’t fix it.

With the world population ever rising and more children worldwide in real dire poverty is it really sensible to have more than two children? And to have more children when you have to claim benefit to support the two you already have is ridiculous, 'I just wanted a large family' doesn't cut it. Then to expect the state to support these children as well as the first two is unbelievably entitled.

It's not child benefit that has beeen withdrawn. What has been withdrawn is the right to claim any other benefit (like UC) for third and subsequent children born after 6 April 2017 unless a twin/multiple birth or conceived via rape. There's a huge difference. So I support keeping the present rules, because as a contributing taxpayer, I don't want to fund third and fourth babies for families that depend on pumping out a baby every three years to keep the income flow. Get a job, pay some tax.

It did reduce it, by the equivalent of 5600 kids per year according to the Child poverty action group. So over the last 7 years since it came in that would be nearly forty thousand kids.

Unfortunately still plenty of people having 'shock' pregnancies, not knowing the cap existed until after they had their third, having children without worrying about whether they could afford them or not, or changing circumstances that they weren't prepared for (according to the same website when they did a survey).

No one should be having three or more kids in this day and age IMO, the planet doesn't need it, you don't know when your circumstances might change and nobody 'needs' 3 or more kids.

Giving more money to these families definitely isn't the answer, more youth clubs, more mental health provision, more early years education, more free school meals during school and the holidays, more mentors, more family hubs. That would be much more beneficial to these kids than handing their parents money and hoping they start making good decisions with it.

Agree with @Beth216 and double agreement with the final paragraph. Fund the child, via services. Don't dish out money to parents, because if the parents are selfish, the child won't see much benefit.

World population is forecast to peak around 2050. And extreme child poverty worldwide has been drastically reduced in the past 30 years.

The UK, like most advanced economies, currently has a problem of too few children to keep it going in the future. You need 2.1 children per woman and it's well below that. At that point you have to either import people or accept that there won't be enough to keep the pensions paid. South Korea is staring down the barrel here, with 0.8 children per woman. I was told today that last year more Koreans bought a dog stroller than a baby stroller.

Meanwhile France gives tax credits for any number of children, and if you have three and work in the public sector, you get to retire 5 years earlier. The UK urgently needs ways to get people to have more children, especially since immigration is unpopular right now (and, with the world's population stagnating, a lot of other countries are going to start to have problems with aging). I don't know if better benefits for larger families are the way to go, but it would seem to be a reasonable thing to try.

And how will those families having less money make this situation better?

If as you seem to think parents would spend the money how they want anyway, then there is now less to spend and less for those children.

Also, it seems like you've got your ideas on families in poverty right out of the Daily Mail in the 80s.

I much prefer the move towards free breakfasts and lunches at school which this govt is moving towards, and increased funding of holiday clubs.

Plus investment in education and healthcare and childcare

Extra cash to parents won't necessarily reach the children.

Decent free meals, decent education and decent healthcare benefits everyone.

I get that people can fall on hard times, I've been there when I left my abusive ex. And I was so grateful for the free lunches at school and the tax credits for childcare which meant I could just about scrape by and work my way up to a more financially comfortable position .

I would like to see the govt give the CMS more teeth to go after non resident parents though. It's outrageous how many dads, in particular, just walk away without contributing anything

Grew up next to a sink hole, lived next to a drug den where the mother churned out kids then lost them all. I know plently first hand about the families that will repeat the cycle regardless of cash thrown at them.

Chucking money at a crack head wont make her children better off, nor will the pot headed father who had a new baby mum every year.

Those in need who more help would help are not the ones who would be targeted as ever. The children in dire poverty the parents would spunk every last penny still in themselves fixing nothing.

I also wasn’t even alive in the 80’s 🤣

Jesus wept.

Your welcome to have my old neighbour and her types as yours

punishes children for the decisions of their parents

You’re naively assuming:

parents receiving benefits = money is spent on kids.

@malificent7

Because even that will cost a lot of money and Dear KS said that - instead of increasing taxes by a vast amount - they would not increase VAT or Income Tax.

Sadly to deal with the devastating last 14 years we need to find a vast amount of money and quickly!

https://www.gov.uk/child-benefit

This suggests otherwise. Direct quote from the gov.uk website.

Only one person can get Child Benefit for a child.
There’s no limit to how many children you can claim for.

Sounds like you're missing out.

Did you actually make an application for your youngest’s child benefit?

You can definitely claim, and as long as neither parent earns over the high pay threshold, you’ll get the additional child benefit for your third child.

Child benefit is not limited to just the first 2 children.

Nope. 2 is plenty. I don't see why we pay at all. I'd more be in favour of subsidised childcare and free meals for all children.

Remember that many of those getting UC support are average full time working people who happen to be on a wage that doesn't meet the cost of living. The child element supports the children of those families who do spend their limited money well. It isn't just feckless people who wouldn't spend it on the children anyway.

Breakfast clubs and childcare isn't much help to me as a parent to teens. I need to pay bills, college bus fare, uniforms, clothes and food.

They are sadly the ones who would still be over looked. Earn just too much for things like free dental or school meals. genuinely care for and want the best for their children. Vs the pop em out fast and hard.

And then in another few decades the kids that were born to pay the pensions will need plenty of more kids born to pay for THEIR pensions. That sounds sustainable, NOT! Sometimes I think people forget children will be old themselves one day.

Confused by some of the posts on here. Anyone can lose a spouse, become disabled and not be able to work, or be made redundant. In that case NOBODY should have more than two children unless they are a a very finacially secure multi-millionaire. These same people would be angry if their state pensions are cut, or they can't get seen quickly in a hospital if the birth rate massively drops in the future and there aren't enough workers paying tax.

My mum is one of these people. Lived on benefits for eight years ehen we were young and got a council house while and hates people who do the same 40 years later. I have worked pretty much full time all the way through rausing my kids with a severely disabled child too. Other than this my mum is lovely, but the logic of only having kids you can afford tends to come from the same people who very much used the system and nonchalantly had kids expecting to state to cough up themselves.