To think the 2-child benefit cap is fine?

[RealHousewivesOfTaunton]

I was surprised to find out today that the 2-child benefit cap doesn't affect the housing element of UC or child benefit. With that in mind, what's the big deal with the cap? Parents need to take responsibility for not having more children than they can afford. The welfare state is still there if things go wrong.

There are SO many threads on the cap - it'd be worth commenting on one of those!

Of course, when you fall on hard times, you can just shove the extra kid back up where it came from, eh? That'll teach them a lesson about not being able to see into their future!

I thought the two child benefit cap was for all benefits. I didn’t realise you can still get child benefit for a 3rd, 4th, 5th and so on…. And the cap is only on the child element of UC.

I hope they keep it the way it is and use the money on carers allowance to help look after disabled children as that’s a pittance and there’s no options to work as you’re caring for you disabled child. If anyone should be getting help it’s those parents!

Seeing the Cap as a deterrent to having excess children is all very well, but that does nothing about the fact that many of the 3rd children affected by this are living in defacto poverty.

I'm not a fan of punishing children because their parents are perceived as feckless or irresponsible, so it saddens me somewhat to see that in the other threads about this issue, the prevailing attitude of caring, "leftie" mumsnetters appears to be "fuck them kids", and "why should I pay for them".

Agree. Having children growing up in poverty does no-one any favours.

Starmer needs to rethink this one. We can afford to reverse the cap.

The "we can't afford it right now" excuse being trotted out is laughable. The government has plenty enough revenue, it's a question of what they prioritise.

Maintaining the cap, and and as a consequence leaving children living in poverty is a choice. The Labour Party is choosing to let children live in poverty.

Housing allowance of UC is based on how much rent you as the (probably only) adult liable for rent pay. Not an amount per head.

I'd still be paying £800 pm if I had 1 kid or 50.

Parents need to take responsibility for not having more children than they can afford. The welfare state is still there if things go wrong.

Ok yeah so let’s punish kids for decisions made by their parents, seems fair.

The welfare state is still there if things go wrong when does the benefit cap apply then? Before or after things go wrong? I don’t understand.

Damn it, wish I'd thought of that when my husband assaulted me and forced me to be a single parent to my three children!

Parents need to take responsibility for not having more children than they can afford. The welfare state is still there if things go wrong.

But it... isn't.

Example: I was widowed in 2015; my husband in 2018. Obviously we're now married again to each other.

Those widowed in 2015 had an entitlement to widowed parents' allowance until their children were adults. I only lost mine through getting remarried.

By the time 2018 arrived, the widowed parent safety net had been capped at 18 months after the death of the spouse.

Just one small example of the 'welfare state' not working properly.

Parents need to take responsibility for not having more children than they can afford. The welfare state is still there if things go wrong.

So say you were a married man whose wife had your third child. The wife then dies from birth complications leaving with you with 3 children under 5. Both of you were working and in well paid jobs before this happened. Are you saying the welfare state shouldn't support you?

Say you are a woman who has 4 children with your husband. You find that you have an STI because your husband has been cheating on you. You find out he's been cheating for years. Once you uncover he's cheating he walks out on you and your 4 children with 3 of them under 5. Both of you were working and in well paid jobs before this happened. Your ex-husband is self-employed and cooks the books not to pay his child maintenance. Are you saying that the welfare state shouldn't support you?

Agree. It’s disgusting that so many people are happy to have so many children in our country living in poverty. Who does that serve??

The cap is cruel, discriminatory and hateful towards children. I’m sick of the attitude towards poor kids in this country 😞

But the children wont necessarily see the benefit of the extra money even if they do lift the cap. Then we are 2.5 billion down and the problem still exists.

Why won’t they see it?

So what solution do you see for this issue instead?

It's so depressing that it needs spelling out this clearly. And people still don't get it.

What I don’t understand is how it’s a surprise to anyone that children in larger families are more likely to live in poverty. Additional children require additional money shocker. There are loads of threads on here with women who want/decide to go ahead with a third even though things would be tight. The more dependents you have, the more vulnerable you are financially, and the more likely it is that something going wrong will be disastrous.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think it’s fair on children to grow up in poverty and we need to put a stop to that but it’s pretty clear some parents tell themselves it will be ok money-wise when it won’t be. I’m not sure UC is the most effective intervention though, I think we should put extra money into things like funding for schools in deprived areas, FSM, healthy start vouchers, children’s dentistry, early years, free activities, free school uniforms etc instead - with some of those the economy of scale makes them more cost effective.

I completely agree with it. Hopefully it stops people having more kids then they can afford and expecting us to pay for them.

I don’t understand any of it. There’s a problem with the declining birth rate but no political will to support the children who are already here.

Interesting that most comments are anti cap, but the vote is mainly pro cap.

I'd definitely favour money going into FSM, sure start centres, food vouchers etc. instead of benefits as a pp said. I think it increases chances that money gets to benefit children.

And no I don't trust that all parents will spend it wisely, and I do think that's my business when it comes from tax. Families not on benefits have to weigh up costs and family size/ can we afford another.

This really. I get all the ‘but why should we punish the children’ replies, but there has to be some sort of cut off, doesn’t there? There IS a safety net for families in crisis, that doesn’t mean they should get unlimited money for an unlimited amount of children. If you decide to have children and you know there’s no family support in case the worst happens, then you are leading yourself up shit creek having so many more than you can cope with if something happens to your partner

I think the only fair way ( and yes i will be flamed for it) is that a cap should only come into force i have another whilst you are on benefits. If you already have 3 when you got onto benefits there is no more money for any born with a due date of 9.5 months of starting benefits.

I'm not convinced that couples having unprotected sex are thinking of the consequences in terms of not getting UC for the potential additional offspring.

Some families already had more than 2 children before they became ill/ lost their jobs/their relationship broke down. None of them had a crystal ball.

"I'd still be paying £800 pm if I had 1 kid or 50."

You rent is typically going to vary by how many bedrooms are in the property.

"Housing allowance of UC is based on how much rent you as the (probably only) adult liable for rent pay."

You are mistaken. There are different amounts payable depending on how many bedrooms you are entitled to. This is related to how many children you have, their ages and sexes.

For example, in my local authority area, if you are only entitled to one bedroom then the Local Housing Allowance is £575 per month.

For two beds it is £700 per month, for three beds it is £810 per month and for four beds it is £1,050 per month.

Regardless of the amount of rent that you are actually paying, you will only receive the Local Housing Allowance for the number of bedrooms that the rules say you are entitled to.

How much do you pay in tax? Because I’m willing to bet quite a lot that you’re not a net contributor. People with this kind of attitude so rarely are.