Astounded that this is actually legal

[movingthemountains]

A friend of mine has 4 children, 1 with her ex partner from years ago and 3 with her husband. They have been separated for a year and plan to divorce eventually. He moved out of their rental property and now lives with his mum. He doesn’t work, never has really, apart from the odd job here and then over the years but it’s never lasted. She works part time, 2 days a week. They share the kids 50/50 and it’s all amicable.

Due to the two child benefit cap, which applies since the youngest 2,were born after 2017, they are unable to claim for all 4 kids simultaneously. As a result, they each claim benefits for 2 kids instead.
He receives between £900-£1000, a substantial amount considering he has no rent or bills to cover. It’s wild that they can pull this off, but if they were living together, it wouldn’t be possible.

AIBU to feel shocked by this?

Additionally, before anyone suggests that this is just a bait (generally how these threads go), friends do talk, you know!

I'm no more astounded this is legal, than I'm astounded by many ways one can legally avoid paying taxes.

Apparently £23 billion of benefits/support went unclaimed in 2024, so I'd prefer these 4 children's parents have enough to feed them; given they're only capable of working 2 days per week. Enough children are in poverty in this Great Britain.

@movingthemountains "He receives between £900-£1000"

what is that actually for?

So some of it is UC in lieu of JSA I'm guessing and some is child benefit?

just trying to get a clear picture.

But that was a choice. Nothing personal but no one should produce four kids just because they can "afford it" in the moment. Shit happens. Very few people get through life without some combination of job loss, economic recession, relationship breakup, illness, disability, death, divorce and other disruptions to working and income.

Planning for the worst-case scenario, not the best-case scenario, is the responsible and adult thing to do. Living to the hilt of one's income and resources is irresponsible and anti-social. Expecting others to pick up one's slack if things go awry is wrong.

I don't understand how you can claim child benefit for all 4 children if the is a cap on two , shouldn't just the mum claim for 2 and he can't claim at all, as it says only one person can claim for child benefit even if they live 50 50

The fact is the underclass, feckless are the ones popping out kids indiscriminately. This has contributed to the UK's downfall. They need to face up to their responsibility. No excuses.

We need to encourage responsible, settled people to have children.

Irresponsibly producing offspring is not involuntary misfortune the way illness, disability and accident are. The latter can't help it. The former made a conscious choice. I do think people should bear the consequences of poor decision-making, especially when it involves creating human beings. If they are impoverished in old age because they were irresponsible earlier in life, that's OK by me. Lots of people work hard, exercise self-discipline, delay gratification and strive to be responsible; why shouldn't they be better off than those who couldn't be bothered?

What more shocking is that a couple with only One person in 2 days/part-time employment decided to have a family at all? & then 3 kids.

Both likely to have more kids in future….

Exactly.

It’s not a loophole - it’s fair because benefits can’t be divided after a split. What I mean is imagine a situation where one parent has 5 nights and the other parent has 2 nights. Benefits can only be paid to one parent and not 2/7 and 5/7

It is fair that each parent claims for 2 kids each as they have 50/50. It’s not a loophole and if the parents move in with someone who also has kids then the claim changes again.

Benefits are calculated by household not by who the biological parents are. Imagine a system where it’s done by biology- how do you know if you have accidentally made a fraudulent claim because of your ex? Many people don’t know what their ex is up to and want their current situation kept private from their ex.

Oh, another benefits bashing thread based on a story about a 'friend'.

These posts are intended to wind people up.

How is that?. Its a one off payment

To be honest, I'd rather see this loophole used than kids living in poverty.

ETA: as Snorlaxo says, it isn't really a loophole.

I'm sure some of the posters on this thread would be more than happy to see work houses bought back.

I never understand these comments. So are we never allowed to discuss this particular topic then?

You are arguing points I haven't made. Whether you are ok morally with elderly people living in poverty as a consequence of their actions is irrelevant to the point I was making, which is that its a foolish idea from an economic and societal point of view. Health and social care services are already strained beyond capacity. Throw elderly people into poverty to make them pay for the percieved feckless breeding of their youth and the pressure on these services will intensify, as will the cost to the tax payer. It would be cutting off your own nose to spite someone else's face.

@upupupU I see, I didn't realise

You can’t take away a human beings right to have children. Benefits exist to help people. Do you think it’s as simple as don’t have kids? Do you think African’s who rely on charity aid should stop having kids? Do you think the Palestinians should stop having kids? Do you think a child born in this country to benefit seeking parents has no right to exist?

I was working on the assumption that there was a cap on child benefit of two children, so the third child would not be eligible. In the example described by the OP, there are three children, one of whom would not attract child benefit if the parents were still together. So, I disagree, respectfully. I don't think the legislation was written with the intention of the two child cap be bypassed when parents separate. I could be wrong, of course.

As I said though, in the great cosmic oneness, it is not the most important thing to get worked up about.

And hence rises the spectre of eugenics, reformulated as the underclass argument. Only people of a certain class should have children. The poor are the problem.
The ‘residuum’ concept of the 1880–1914 period; the ‘social problem group’ of the inter-war years; the ‘problem family’ of the 1940s and 1950s; the ‘cycle of deprivation’ of the 1970s; and the ‘underclass’ of the 1980s and 1990s.

Long, long history of this in the UK. It resurfaces again and again.

Have a read if you are interested.
www.cambridge.org/core/journals/social-policy-and-society/article/reconstructing-the-underclass/0F2642308BC14731542AB3DE7DEFAB1B

If he did have rent to cover that would be covered by the taxpayer also if he's jobless..so it's actually a good thing in some ways?
I don't really see what's so shocking about it. Why shouldn't it be legal? Presumably it doesn't benefit you in any way if they got less?

If they are 50/50 then I don’t see the problem, they’re not both claiming for a child twice.

Why do you think it's 'benefit bashing'? Are people not allowed to discuss current social issues on this site anymore because you don't like it?

You have to prove you’ve applied for jobs, being on UC is like a part-time job in itself. He’s also be forced to work for free at some point, in a ‘voluntary’ role.

He’s not receiving £1000 a month in child benefit though - that’s £102.40 a month or is the £1000 from UC? The child benefit should go on their children.

It’s a loophole but not sure how you close it effectively.

I never understand these threads.

He gets half the minimum wage for looking after 4 kids 50% of his time.

He's getting less than you. What are you so upset about?