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.

@Zwicky Wouldn’t that just lead to the taxpayer paying absolutely massive amounts of public money to compensate for useless dads? I can’t see how the government would get all of that money back - the dads would still either cheat the system or, if they’re on benefits or low wages themselves, be unable to pay. You could prosecute them but then that just fills the prisons (or further hampers their job prospects, or both).

And meanwhile the taxpayer bill has gone through the roof because taxpayers are all subbing in where the man should.

I’m absolutely in favour of the onus being on deadbeat dads but I can’t see how this wouldn’t end up with an even bigger welfare bill than we have now.

Gosh I wish there was a 'policy' that works for the men who leave their children without financial provision - for the state to cover.

For all those - including myself btw - who were left holding the babies to get on with it - truly sorry.

But for the girls who are planning ahead please heed the 2 child cap when planning your families and futures as you'll have to support them - with or without him.

The state is not paying for more than 2.

the welfare state is not there for the third child if things go wrong, that's the whole point of the calls to remove the cap.

I think there may be a middle ground here. Nobody wants children being brought up in poverty, so existing children should still receive funding. As PP have said, if your circumstances change, you cannot send your 3rd/4th one back! However, 3rd children born after a certain date (maybe a year into the future so not conceived yet) would not be entitled to claim as the parents took a decision, (or were careless) in the knowledge that they’d get no extra benefits for the additional child.

That happened back in 2015 when it was eventually brought into play in 2017.

Ample notice was given.

I would like more done about absent fathers who don’t pay.

I agree re clamping down on fathers not paying their fair share. We shouldn’t let them get away with making the taxpayer pick up their tab.

The housing element is dependent on number of bedrooms. If you needed four rooms you’d get more than for a two-bed. They will only pay for the number of bedrooms you need, not how many your property has so you get more if you had three children than if you had one child.

Maybe tonight's vote isn't really about the benefit cap at all.

Maybe it's the SNP and some Labour MPs having an early go at challenging the Government to see how the land lies power-wise. It's a nice emotionally charged issue to try it on - easy to suggest that the Government is being nasty to poor children if they don't fall in with the rebels.

Somewhat depressingly, giving more money to the kinds of families who make a lot of bad choices, the money often doesn't actually make it to benefitting the kids.

That's, what happened in 2017 ,
It was proposed in 2015 ( I think) that children born after a certain date would not get extra tax credits/ universal credit
Also people still receive money for children born before thst date.

Child maintenance isn't taken into account for the purpose of benefits
And many fathers will be payiing ,but if they are on low wages it won't be that much.

In the UK we are no longer having enough children to maintain our population (without immigration). Many couple are deciding to have no children or to only have one. largely down to the COL. Childcare costs/availability have been a huge factor.

What a ridiculous response to someone suggesting that you shouldn’t always just plan for the best, but maybe think about how you’ll cope if something goes wrong.

If you’d struggle to get by if something unfortunate happened, is it totally unreasonable to think that maybe you should be having just two children rather than three or more?

I think the cap should remain. There was a recent BBC panorama programme which had 4 families discussing the cap and how it affected them.

All wanted the extra money. One mum was discussed the lack of dentistry for child. Her son needed multiple teeth removed. Giving her more money may allow her access private dentistry but it doesn’t solve the greater issue of a lack of dentists! Perhaps changes to way dentists are funded, an increase in dental courses and an immigration policy which encouraged overseas dentists to come here would help everyone.

Another single parent was spending a fortune on take aways because her children ‘only ate junk food’ especially pizza. The mum attended a cooking class and suddenly her children were eating home cooked chicken and rice. Giving her more tax payers money wouldn’t help she needs support to teach her basic cooking skills and perhaps the father of both children could pay more!

Another parent was a grandmother who was looking after her grandchild (approximately 8 yoa) and her own daughter (approximately 6 yoa) she had concerns that her grandchild had ADHD. But the wait for an assessment was almost 2 years. IMO giving her more money wasn’t the answer, more nhs funding to provide faster assessments, an ECHP and improved access to SEN education/support would be of greater benefit.

The final parent had 5 children! She received just over £3000 for each of her eldest 2 children per year. For the remaining 3 she would receive an extra £10,000! Anyone on average wages cannot afford 5 children, so who did she (and her husband) think was going to fund her children? When having children you have to think of what might happened financially. Most of us think of this and have fewer children, but for some people that doesn’t appear to apply to them. If they were given more money I suspect they would just have more kids as being able to provide for them independently is not high on their priorities!!

what does this even mean? People who disagree with me don’t pay tax? Bizarre logic. But if you’re so moneyed up dear, skip the frivolous bets and pay it straight to the needy mouths of fifth and sixth kids who won’t be getting their benefits?

Will they though? Or will they be one of those multi-generational families that have never worked or never been net contributors?

I have no words.....!

Think about it for a bit. How is that helpful if you were doing fine until 2024 and your third child was born in 2022?

The cap was introduced to prevent a situation where a person on universal credit was receiving more than a person working full-time on minimum wage could earn.

All well and good but unfortunately people who have more kids than they can support don’t do so after sitting down at the kitchen table for a reasoned and responsible look at their finances, and they’re unlikely to start no matter what policy chances are made to benefits.

What might help is improvements to education, but levels of intergenerational poverty will sadly compound this issue. Because early childhood is particularly vulnerable, investments in early childhood should improve lifelong outcomes. How those investments are best administered though is up for debate.

If you don’t understand what a net contributor is you can always use Google.

I am a very high earner and I would happily pay more tax to ensure that children in this country didn’t grow up in poverty, because ultimately as a society we would all benefit from that. It is very short sighted to think otherwise.

Well I don't have statistics, but I am willing to bet they are more likely to end up like that if they are brought up in poverty.

Or will they be incentivised to get out and earn some money if they realise no-one is going to pay for them if they do nothing?

@RationalityIsHard how easy do you think it is for, say, a single mum of 3 to “get out and earn some money”.

My own parents had 3 kids, both worked, all good. Within a 3 year period they had got divorced, my grandma (who provided the childcare that enabled my parents to work) died, and my mum became the sole carer for her disabled sister (previously looked after by her mum, my grandma) so had to give up work completely. I grew up on benefits as a result. We often struggled to eat and heat the house and this was pre benefits cap. Luckily I went to a great free grammar school, then Oxbridge, and now earn a frankly ridiculous amount as a lawyer in the City. I pay more in taxes than most people in the country earn. I could not have done that without the support of the benefits system (and access to excellent free education).

Do we want kids to grow up like me or to be trapped in poverty?