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.

People getting uc are not net contributors. It’s fair imo to limit size of families that people get benefits for. If you can’t afford a large family, don’t have one.

Wow, that’s extremely patronizing.

When the cap was introduced by Osborne, the scare stories about ‘benefit families with 8 kids’ were shown to be nonsense. Don’t believe everything you read in the right-wing press.

I genuinely don’t understand why people (deliberately) have more than two children? Should families be financially supported by the government? Others? Not trying to be goady, I just honestly don’t get it.

Maybe theres a middle ground ? A 2 child cap of the £287.92 child element rate and for third and subsequent children a lower rate ? Eg £143.96? Then nothing after a certain amount of children (5? 6?)

2 is quite arbitrary isn’t it? Why not say 1? Some people want more; others less.

The birth rate in this country is falling so most people now have fewer than 2 kids.

As a country we need more young people to look after and pay for our increasingly elderly population.

It's a silly policy.

We are being told that the birth rate is too low at the moment. Rather than the replacement rate of 2.2 children, it stands at around 1.5 children per woman. That has long-term demographic and economic consequences.

The most popular family sizes are 0, 1 and 2 children. There is no good reason not to extend child benefit to "extra" children in the fairly smallish percentage of families (around 15%) who have 3 or more kids. It's not going to make lots of people rush out and have more kids since most people only want one or two. In fact, for all the prejudice against only child families, they actually outnumber families with two children.

It’s approx £72 a week ? I don’t know of anyone who would actually want another child just for an extra £72 a week the effort of raising a child and long term costs aren’t worth it just for that money each week / month !!!!!! But what it would do is improve the lives of those third and subsequent children immensely

You might do if you were otherwise being made to look for work which is low paid and monotonous
I know its alien concept to d some ,but it's an extra 72,/ chid added to everything else, no you wouldn't be living the life if riley
But for some people staying at home looking after children is preferable to a minimum wage job.

Yes there were probably very few families who had 8 or more kids but wether you like it or not there were definitely people who spaced out having children so they could continue not having to look for work
You don't have to beleive me but it happened and I saw it.

I agree with the cap somewhat, as a child of the type of feckless parents the government want to avoid paying.
I was 1/12 children had between my mum and my step dad. They never worked, and had a very good living from benefits, not that any of us kids got anything. School would have mufti days and they'd send me in with a note that read they live off the minimum the law says we can live on, we're not paying for this. I was so embarrassed, but I couldn't change it. I was just a child. They always had cigarettes, mum always had her hair done, and always new jewelery though.

I would however like to see the government ensure that the children who cannot be supported by their parents are somehow fed and appropriate clothing can be provided to them. I'm not sure how it would work, as we've all heard of some parents selling the lunch vouchers from the government, clothing would be a similar issue I assume.

But I feel very uncomfortable with the fact that we have hungry children in this country.

You are not wrong OP. It’s a cap in name only because it excludes so many benefits.

MN and the public in general now think that freebies really are free. The default response to everything is it’ll be fine and someone else can pay for it. Countless kids that people can’t afford, unlimited welfare for people who choose not to work, or work enough, energy bills, pointless lockdowns, the list is endless.

Of course that someone who pays is always someone else. And that has now come home to roost.

Less than half the population of the country are net contributors. just think about that. More than half the country have no way of paying themselves to live and rely on other people to pay for them. And that number of net contributors is shrinking fast. With them shrinks the list of freebies. Unless you are deluded enough to think that that the ever shrinking number of net contributors will continue to pay more and more for others.

So no, the two child benefit cap is not unreasonable.

OK. Its seems clear to me from the discussion of net contributors that part of the debate here should be: what percentage of the so-called benefits recipients are actually in work? Because yes, 53% or so of the population now receive "benefits" but that includes by definition, I find online, the state pension for people who worked all their lives and paid in. What I can't seem to find is what % of the people who are NOT net contributors are actually working full-time. Because where I live, London, no one earning minimum wage in a full-time job is a net contributor if single; no couple where both are working full-time would be net contributors; and in short, one of the many underlying problems appears to be that wages are not high enough in the UK. At the bare minimum every job needs to pay enough to keep the worker him- or her-self off the street and fed, even if you don't think every such worker is entitled to have children? Please note I'm asking, not telling.

There are some, very few, people that are there (poverty) through bad choices.

I didn’t really understand the cap issue until I read this thread, it blows my mind that a Labour govn voted against removing the cap.

This country needs more children…of course there will be the people that will abuse it, but that happens with everything - there are probably many more that won’t.

And no, I am not a leftie luvvie, a net contributor (by a country mile) who fears what the country is turning into. The welfare state is to assist when the going gets rough - so maybe the cap should be lifted in certain circumstances, but I guess administratively that would be too difficult.

It’s the low wage, high tax issue we have. 50 k is not a higher earner……

There would always have been a three-line whip on an amendment to the King's Speech, whoever was in power and however large their majority. Presumably it's only Labour PMs who are "thin-skinned dictators"?

I am utterly appalled by some of the attitudes to the 2 child benefit cap.
•death happens
• divorce happens
• men fuck off & don't pay child maintenance

Either one believes in big society or one doesn't.
E.g. I don't have school age kids why should my taxes go towards education?
I don't have elderly parents why should there be elderly care or research into dementia or resuscitation of those over 80 ?
I don't smoke - why should smokers get medical care
I don't climb mountains - why should my tax be spent on rescuing those who do & harm befalls them ?
And so on and so on.

This me me me attitude stinks.

We pay in & we get out at some or other point in our lives & tomorrow is not a promise to anyone.

Well considering the shenanigans that went on with Abbott and Corbyn, dumping Russell-Moyle as a candidate on the back of mysterious "complaint", dumping other candidates for no other reason than being outspoken on Starmer's support of Israel's heinous behaviour towards Palestinians and ultimately costing his own party a seat, he hardly looks like a unifier, more someone so utterly terrified of being torn up by the right-wing media like his predecessor that he's willing to chuck everything the Labour Party once stood for into the garbage bin until he, and his party, are essentially indistinguishable from the Tories.

And again, pulling a three-line whip with a majority of 170+ is just laughable. Total insecurity, and yes, thin-skinned.

In case no one else has posted this yet

https://cpag.org.uk/child-poverty/poverty-facts-and-figures

Are you not very bright? The King's Speech is the entire programme for government for a year. A successful amendment buggers up their financial calculations. So there is always a three-line whip for any amendment. Laugh as much as you like; it would be the same if the Tories were in power with a massive majority, and just repeating the same ill-informed nonsense won't change that.

I have been told on a similar threat a few days ago that it gets spend of drugs, alcohol and cigarettes... 🙄

But looking after children as a job is minimum wage most of the time for a lot of childcare practitioners, so if a parent wants to look after their child (under 5?) maybe we should be recognising that as a valid choice and scrapping the 2 child UC cap and relaxing the work requirements for those with dc under school age? It could help to create emotional and financial stability for some dc and their families . At the same time maybe they could offer more than 85% childcare costs if these families do decide to work so that they have the choice and incentives rather than sanctions.

Well, the cap is not being lifted. Seven MPs have been suspended for voting against the government on this last night:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c978m6z3egno

Unfortunately you can't rely on parents to be responsible and make decisions that put their existing children first. Plenty have a 3rd, 4th, 5th just because they want to with no thought for the rest of the family. I don't know any middle or upper class families with more than 2 children, almost as if there's more conscious planning and thought that goes into it if you have to pay yourself.

Children shouldn't suffer because of their parents selfishness though, but not sure of the answer