To think adding more child benefits is a pointless and futile policy?

[MelissaExplainsItAll]

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/feb/26/parents-under-fives-could-be-exempted-two-child-benefit-cap-uk

I think child poverty would be better relieved in ways other than giving the parents more cash.

For example:

• better funded breakfast and after school clubs
• better funded nursery hours (banning top up charges)
• expansion of free school meals
• better school funding
• direct funding of school holiday clubs

AIBU?

I’m not sure what you mean by the hours- there are lots of full time jobs that lots of parents simply can’t do around pick up & drop off, plus needing time off for holidays or paying for childcare.

2 of my friends had to leave their jobs when their children started school, 1 because she couldn’t do the job between the hours of 9am and 3pm, the nature of the job was set shifts which were no longer possible and the other because once she factored in the cost of breakfast & after school club plus clubs for school holidays it didn’t make financial sense to continue.

I also have a friend currently looking for a new job with a 4 year old and despite having plenty of experience and skill, her job search is hugely limited because she needs to find a job that is between the hours of 9 & 3pm, Mon-Fri which either pays enough to fund holiday childcare OR has enough annual leave for her to cover the holidays herself- the job doesn’t exist. She has said multiple times that her options for work would be massively different if she had reliable childcare from 8-5, and through school holidays, she could actually work most jobs at that point. But once she has to factor in the cost of all the clubs it’s not viable.

It’s not uncommon for parents to work full time to afford life, especially these days. They see their children the same time everybody else does, before and after work. Lots of things are important for children, but high up on that list is a roof over their heads and food in their tummy.

I’m not saying it’s the perfect answer but it would allow parents to look at a much wider range of jobs, rather than looking for a unicorn.

First of all there is no cap on child benefit assuming you you earn under the threshold you csn have as many children as you want it's the child elements of universal credit, there is a cap on ( most people on tax credits have transitioned on to universal credit now)
Many people in receipt of universal credit DO work they just earn a low wage.

I’m not sure how I feel about the state shelling out more and more for lower income families to have 3+ children…

… while most average-to-higher earning families are having to opt to have very small families because of affordability concerns.

Particularly absurd given difference in cost of living across the country.

And IF for any reason you couldn’t work then what do you think is a better solution?

Why should the tax payer pay for others to keep having kids.
If you want them you pay for them not use a job center UC because you know the government will pay.
Ive seen some have kids for money and some are working there arse off just to raise one child without any benefits they work to pay for there child.

Universal credit will only pay for two kids so people can't keep having kids and once the kids reach a certain age parents are expected to work.

Dont have kids if you cant pay for them.
We have system in place to help parents that have children with disabilitys and people that can not work due to a health reason and rightfully so it should be used.
But some abuse the system with having kids for more money then it makes it harder for them that really need the help.

But us tax payers still have to pay for them two kids for a few year.
Why didnt the parents save and budget before they had a second knowing they already claim benefits for one why not better yourself before you have another that we have to pay for.

So if YOU couldn’t work tomorrow, how would you like to be supported by the system you have (presumably) been paying into?

Totally agree. Helps working parents and removes children from unstable homes for more time. Kids should have a port in a storm. Plus local police will tell you how minor crime and unsociable behaviour increase out of school time.

I have savings that can tie me over plus my rent for the next 14 month give and take a few weeks for me to find a new job.
Its called being prepared for life.
If i was to fall in a in a hole and had nothing we have a UC system that would help me find work.
But i would not have children because i know i could get money i want to pay for my own children so i can say what they have i have got it for them not used tax payers to fund it.

I’m pretty sure the cap doesn’t apply if there’s anyone disabled in the household?

The cynical would say that kicking it down the road by five years makes it another government’s problem…

The taxpayer should pay because civilised countries don't let children go hungry because of their parents' choices.

*MelissaExplainsItAll *Why do you think it's better for schools to do more parenting rather than parents?

So you have a stroke tomorrow lose your sight and right hand, you pole through your savings till you dip under the allowance (£6k??) and unsurprisingly because you can no longer drive, cook, manage you can’t find work. How do you want to be helped? Would you like your child to be fed etc through breakfast clubs etc etc or would you prefer them to see more of you?

I hadn't heard about top up charges being banned. At my nursery it’s £2 an hour for “consumables” when using funded hours, and the funded days have to be 10hrs, so it still costs £20 a day. They do offer “limited funding only places” but that’s only on certain days and my understanding is that there’s only a couple of these places.

Because most parents have to work to pay their bills. If they don’t need to (for instance, because they have a breadwinner and a SAHP), then this wouldn’t apply anyway.

I’d love to see a breakdown on how many children don’t receive their entitled CMS, vs how many receive £7 a week or whatever it is if the parent is unemployed.

I suspect that getting those non-working, non-resident parents into work would have more of an impact.

Having a stroke or a life changing health issue is completely different to having children for the tax payer to pay you to raise them on there money.

Is a lot of crime (minor or otherwise) committed by the under fives age group in your view?

Did you give one thought to disabled children or ones with SeN when you thought that up? Those children are statistically likely to be poorer and less likely to be able to access the above.
Also so much money would be lost unnecessarily implementing the above. Finally being poor doesn’t mean you can’t manage your own finances!

Who do you think the taxpayers of the future are?

There is already additional funding available for those families with disabled children.

An observation from when I was last looking for holiday clubs..

Our area had quite an extensive scheme for those on FSM. Not sure how well used it was, or indeed if it was oversubscribed. Included activities and free food.

Then there was expensive private providers.

The big gap was for those who were on lowish wages, not on FSM, but needed full time holiday care, even for just part of the holidays.
What was needed was similar to the FSM scheme, but subsidised rather than free. That would make a huge difference to parents.