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?

If you're saying being in poverty automatically makes someone a bad parent, you have lost your humanity and your moral compass.

You have no right to make that sweeping judgement.

If you want a military you need people to be in the army. And if there is a war (god forbid) some of the people putting their lives on the line for you will have been from poor families. Its actually in the interests of British security to have a well nourished, well educated population with stable childhoods. That's a horribly utilitarian way of looking at it but its true. Morally also, its wrong to expect people to fight for the state if the state views them as benefit scum when they are in genuine need of help.

As I said - there is an issue with working people also claiming benefits but fixing that is complicated and doesn't involve cutting benefits. It is probably best done at a time of economic prosperity.

@offmynut *tide me over

That’s not what I said though, is it?

If we go to a world war it’s highly unlikely we’d need boots on the ground nowadays.

You said: Anyone who chooses to have a child they can’t afford to raise or house except in poverty, is by default a bad parent.

This statement is devoid of humanity.

Tell that to Ukraine.

Why is it always the suggestion to give the cash to the middle-class so that they may "help" the poor souls with their wise "advice". Telling the poor tinkers how they can helps themselves is much more beneficial than giving them extra money. No actual cash can ever be given to those in poverty.

Funny how many middle-class great ideas leave them pocketing the money.

This is years ago now but is a good example.
Our local council announced tens of thousands for a scheme that promoted computer literacy for the the local povs. 1, the local povs already had computers. 2, the scheme ran for two hours, once a week and lasted 12 sessions in total. 3, no bugger showed up.

They could have purchased at least 100 basic PCs for how much they pissed away. All they did was enrich the bank balance of a couple of middle-class advisors who helped nobody but themselves.

If nuclear weapons are used then its all completely academic anyway (and if we assume it would come to that why spend on the military at all. Just bung some money into Trident and pray). Other than that though, war always always involves boots on the ground. The inventor of the Gatling gun believed it would save lives as it would mean you needed far fewer soldiers in the line of fire to operate it. It didn't work out like that (to put it mildly). Its important to invest in new technology (drones etc). The idea that that means we won't also need soldiers to risk their lives is a nice thought but unlikely.

But true.

😂 You’ve taken one sentence of my post and chosen to ignore the other… Anyway, what I said was:

Anyone who chooses to have a child they can’t afford to raise or house except in poverty, is by default a bad parent.

If circumstances change, of course that’s different.

And I stand by that. Benefits should be a safety net, not a lifestyle choice.

I agree. Benefits are in many cases now far far far too generous for people with children. A family with 3 children, who claim DLA for 2 of them (a very common occurrence round here), with rent of £1,000 p/m would be entitled to £3100 per month according to Entitled To. That’s equivalent to a salary of £37,000 per year.

So you think disabled children should be living in poverty than?
Nice.

No, it isn't true.

It is only by fundamentally not understanding what is valuable about people and society that such a statement gets made.

Being poor does not make a person a bad parent. Being poor/rich is not a moral issue.

Right. Including you? Hence your disinterest in the impacts of the two child benefit cap..

I'm saying the statement is wrong, with or without your irrelevant follow up sentence.

Having a child when poor does not make someone a bad parent. Being poor or rich is not a measure of being a good or bad person or parent.

If you use wealth/income as a proxy measure for goodness/badness at anything, you've lost your humanity.

I bet this also led to a Mumsnet thread "why won't the povs come to our computer classes this is more evidence they deserve to be broke" 😂

No but nor do I think any family where nobody works should be better off than those who do.

And less than 37k is not ‘poverty’. I manage it fine with 2 kids; one in nursery

That's an authoritarian/moralistic attitude. Euthanasia and breeding control never quite go away as ideas - saw them in the workhouse, saw them in totalitarian states, saw them in religious organisations.

I do not accept your figures, they are not borne out by academic research.

I don’t believe that being poor make someone a bad parent (unless they have more children than they can afford). However, statistically, bad parents are much more likely to be poor and reliant on benefits.

Being disabled csn be very expensive
.

You don’t need research figures. Ask any teacher…it’s true. Why do you think the worst schools are in the poorest areas? They get the most money, often some of the better teachers as they can pay more. The common denominator is that there are a lot of bad parents - parents who were brought up on benefits with no aspirations, where bad behaviour was acceptable as was bunking off school.

if you do refer to research…why do you think that a child’s chances in life is most influenced by their mother’s education level? Because that is who they are most influenced by. A well educated woman is more likely to have had a good career, planned for children she can afford and married someone of the same standing., hence being better off.

And you also said benefits were far to generous, how much money do you think a family with two disabled children should get?

I agree. Benefits are in many cases now far far far too generous for people with children. A family with 3 children, who claim DLA for 2 of them (a very common occurrence round here), with rent of £1,000 p/m would be entitled to £3100 per month according to Entitled To. That’s equivalent to a salary of £37,000 per year.

More than that. Take home of £31,000 is the equivalent of around 50k salary. I agree it's wrong that families on benefits get more than people who work. It should be equivalent of minimum wage at most.