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?

This type of simplistic approach to complex societal problems is comforting, but useless.

Do you really understand so little of society and poverty?

Start by reading Seebohm Rowntree and follow the study of poverty and its impacts through to the 21st century.

Being poor makes life harder, but it doesn't make those who are poor less worthy of being alive or having a family.

So is commuting and paying a mortgage where Liz Truss’s incompetence means your repayments go up by £300 overnight. I’m also disabled and this costs me about £30 a week, so I do understand, but ultimately the taxpayer cannot level every single playing field.

Most families won't,
Those with disabled children, can get more.

I think there should be a blanket benefit cap of no more than £24,000 per household.

And they don't because not all disabled people get DLA / PIP, it goes off need not diagnosis.

Of course it's not the argument at all, but it's not as dramatic and 'YOU WANT THE POORHOUSES BACK!!!' This argument always descends to!

That would be stupid, it's unworkable and self-defeating.

Benefits all get ploughed back into the economy, except housing benefit which is a state handout to landlords.

If you restrict benefits at that level, you'll pay out more in health, social care, police/justice and social.services.

It's a society. It's either modern or Victorian. Victorian was shit.

The ever widening wealth gap, the impact of new technology on the job market and the state of geopolitics in general are the real issues here.

There seems to be alot if cognitive dissonance going on about who should have children and who should fund it, the goal posts for which get shunted around depending on which ideological zeitgeist is being punted on the day.

On the one hand, the world is over-populated and the "poor feckless breeders" are to blame (never the death throes of end stage capitalism) but then the birth rate is dropping and we do need the lower classes for the jobs that are beneath the middle and upper class kids, because bin man isn't an option for them.

The cynic in me thinks this new proposal is to ensure we have enough bodies to fill the caring and service industries, which are the only ones we'll be left with as AI takes over and the ability to progress into "naice stable careers" gets further diminished for those without assets or inheritance or nepotism to fall back on.

That said, no child should, or needs to be living in poverty in the world we live in. There would be plenty to go round if the markets, and the greed of those who run them, weren't run like a rigged casino.

We've got billionaire pronatalists opining that the tech bros should be reproducing a superior generation at as speedy a rate as possible, and potential "cannon fodder" being nurtured at the other end, and it's all being framed like some huge moral crisis because everything's too expensive - by design!!

Most people just want a nice, relatively secure life, some want kids, some don't, but tarring poor people as defective parents simply because they're poor is extremely offensive and from a certain copy book that should never be revisited.

Keeps us all at each other's throats, dividing, judging and bitching, rather than looking closely at the true causes of the world's ills. Trust me, it ain't Wayne and Waynetta and their extra sprog.

Personally I think that the government should fund childcare rather than pay any child benefits.

If every child in daycare was given at least one decent meal, it would be a better way of ensuring that children are fed, rather than leaving it to feckless parents who spend the money on who knows what.

Not saying that every poor person is a bad person or a bad parent, but many lack intelligence unfortunately.

We won’t have enough adults to be paying taxes in fifty years if serious action isn’t taken to incentivise childbearing. And no, increasing government funding of childcare settings so women can go back to work while their nine-month old babies are being looked after by teenaged apprentices earning four pound something an hour isn’t the answer.

This is certainly one of the least explored solutions to reducing the burden on the state. I think it’s time for a harsh system where non-custodial parents are court-ordered to pay support based on the needs of the child, not what they earn, with exceptions only for those deemed completely unfit to work. Then, if they refuse to comply, they need to be forced into work by their local authority, such as street cleaning and bin collection (I understand these services are probably contracted out, but there’s no reason for them to be) for no payment, until they find paid employment, or start paying support if they have been obscuring their income with cash-in-hand work. Failure to work appropriately should be punished with an ankle monitor and house arrest, lifted only for enough time to do a weekly shop, or go to a doctors appointment or for a job interview with evidence submitted.

I agree. The payments can then be deducted from benefits.

So how would that work with a high needs child the non custodial parent might be working in a minimum wage job aa they have no qualifications etc even if they work all hours god sends and spends their entire wage on their child leaving nothing fir themselves
You then want them under house arrest because they can't afford what you deem meets the child ,s need
Yeah not sure thsts going ti work tbh

I have to agree here.

I think there’s a lot of people in this country with undiagnosed SEN. People with chaotic lives and struggle with making good decisions/day-to-day life.

The number of kids who are in poverty in this country isn’t because the government cut £20 a week from their parent’s benefits. There’s a huge web of complex issues that contribute to poverty/deprivation.

Also, a lot of working families in this country are in rented housing paying ridiculous money just for a roof over their heads. More social housing is needed as it cannot be expected that all parents can get onto the housing ladder. Without owning property in this country (and having the finances for a huge upfront deposit) is just a perfect disaster for families living in poverty. The government should prioritise building practical housing - lots of countries have families living in apartments. Spacious two/three bed flats with good public transport/facilities and green spaces is what is needed. In this country they’re associated with antisocial behaviour, but an easy solution to that is any antisocial behaviour and they’re evicted. Two strikes and you’re out, you wanna trash your local environment and make life uncomfortable for others, go pay through the nose in private rent or abide by the rules.

In this country they’re associated with antisocial behaviour, but an easy solution to that is any antisocial behaviour and they’re evicted. Two strikes and you’re out, you wanna trash your local environment and make life uncomfortable for others, go pay through the nose in private rent or abide by the rules.

But the problem with that if you're talking about families with children is exactly the same as the issue with limiting benefits for parents that you see as feckless or whatever: ultimately the child will suffer for something they have no control over.

Just for some balance while we discuss the ridiculous lives of luxury most parents of disabled children live...
Understanding the financial needs of families with… | Social Finance

Agree with the need to build flats. Totally common and acceptable on the continent. Why are we building houses, which are more expensive to build, run and maintain instead?

Here is something which doesn't need to be downloaded
Nearly Half of Families With A Disabled Child Living in Poverty | Disability Rights UK

If we paid family carers "properly" it would cost more than the NHS costs and bankrupt the country overnight. If we took all disabled children etc into state care (as in communist Romania) so the parents could be "productive" members of society it would still cost a huge amount and also be awful. The current situation is by far the cheapest option for the state and taxpayers. Having a child with disabilities can plunge a whole family into poverty. The fact that that is the case but some people want to cut benefits for those families more is abhorent.

Not necessarily for every child, but statistically true on balance. Children of poorer parents tend to have worse outcomes.

Yep. I agree.

Someone choosing to bring a life into the world knowing they can't financially support them is bad parenting. It's selfish and neglectful.

A person who has no education working in a low-wage job and providing a significant portion of their income for the support of a high-needs child obviously wouldn’t be the target of legislation aiming to penalise non-custodial parents who deliberately stay on benefits or hide income to avoid having to support their children. It isn’t possible in one Mumsnet comment to cover all nuance in every situation, but I think it’s common sense to conclude that introducing minimum ordered support that is based on the cost of raising the child/children rather than income would also include guidance on not exceeding a certain percentage of income for a non custodial parents who a family court judge rules is making all reasonable efforts to maximise earnings.

Who's talking about disabled people???

I hate to be that person, but how is this the case? As I said above, a parent with 2 children on DLA and caring responsibilities would receive ~£3,000 in benefits per month. That’s a £37k salary. There are multiple families in this area with 3 or even 4 children all on DLA who will be receiving even more than that. (And when I did the calculator I entered lower rate DLA, so if higher rate it would be significantly more than that)

Disagree. It is inhumane to create a life that you don't have the resources to feed and shelter. The very basic requirements of being a parent is being able to feed your child.