Labour are lifting the 2 child benefit cap

[PuppyKeep]

AIBU that this is a terrible decision?

Presumably they will now scrape the free school meals and breakfast clubs etc. Otherwise we are double paying parents for these things.

Yes, I agree that society needs children. However, those children should come from all parts of society, rather than an increasing amount coming from parents on benefits (whose children are more disposed to repeat the cycle of living on benefits) because the working population not relying on benefits can't afford one or two children, or even any at all.

Edited to add that the solution would be to increase child benefit significantly so that all working parents not relying on any benefits have the same choice as parents reliant on benefits as to the amount of children they want.

Surely, that would be a fairer way for society to increase the population needed for society's operation.

No, and I probably worded it badly. Some people would be aghast at their kids being cleaners and carers. And they are not the parents on benefits.

@Bumblebee72 why do you think families on lower incomes are having more than 2dc?

Having children is a responsibility not a right.

When did this shift? As an 80s child this was not the prevailing attitude!

Nobody wants people to have children they can't afford, but we definitely need far more people to be able to afford to have more children.

And, the way society currently is, having a succesful career and earning big money is not very compatible with having multiple children. More and more people (myself included) put off or forego having kids for their economic well-being. While that might make sense on a personal level, its likely disastrous at a societal one.

Why if there’s taxes? What does it look like?

And why is masses of unemployed young people not a huge issue?

Parents should work and pay the majority of the cost of having kids themselves. There's plenty of people on full benefits with 6 to 8 kids! Until we get back to the days of kids starting school out of nappies, able to talk, to eat with a knife & fork etc, we don't need to reopen the encouragement to mass breed more.

In one breath people are saying £290 or whatever it was a child per month is nothing yet in the next it lifts a whole family out of poverty despite adding an extra person …

Yes - the way our society is structured makes it extremely difficult to be a parent and keep a career going. Being a parent is a huge disadvantage at work, and the more you have, the harder it is.

I've really only seen women manage 1 or 2 without being totally derailed - and even then, there's usually one or more of i) a stay at home partner ii) enthusiastic local grandparent or iii) a salary high enough to absorb insane costs of private nursery or nanny (plus wraparound so not always having to dash home for pickup).

These days, most people in a position to afford more than 2 children have 2 working parents in decently paid jobs - but as soon as they have the kids, there's no flexible working or affordable childcare to let them stay in that financial position.

@Fidgetybit do families on low
incomes have more dc than higher income families?

I suppose to be fair this poster in Darwin Terms we have created a sort of reverse survival of the fittest, which is quite unnatural in the long term.

Well I am hoping to have a third so this is good.

Can't anybody come up with an advantage to keeping children in poverty?

That's largely because people who forego having kids earn more money, so don't need to access benefits.

Having children, on the other hand, pushes people towards or into poverty, so that they require benefits.

We currently, in essence, give huge financial rewards to being childless - then wonder why people with multiple kids often need a helping hand.

This thread sums up why I object to paying more taxes to fund the feckless

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/legal_matters/5419328-is-an-own-room-required

4 kids and 2 have severe additional needs, then she moves in another man and has another kid with him making 6 in total between them. It can't be real. It really can't..

You are right and Starmer is showing his utter ignorance.Pronatalism never works.And the mumsnetters who bang on about pensions being a benefit need to really do some reading and educate themselves and stop accusing boomers/gen x of being selfish.There are more opportunities for children when there are fewer of them and less resources are used up.

Yay, child poverty!! Woo!! No one ever has children they can afford and then loses their job. Nope, everyone can see 18 years into the future. So children deserve to grow up in poverty. Yay!!

Why drag another OP and thread into this? Can't you bash her on her own thread instead of this one?
FFS, this place sometimes.

And the mumsnetters who bang on about pensions being a benefit need to really do some reading and educate themselves and stop accusing boomers/gen x of being selfis

The state pension is a benefit though...

Of course the state pension is a benefit. What on earth are you talking about?

Sounds like they exploring a tapered system which sounds fine to me.

oh , I am too sleepy...missed the context

Can't anybody come up with an advantage to keeping children in poverty?

It makes people feel better about their lot?

It’s not child benefit! It’s the child element of UC

But why is it “the mother sat on benefits for life” who is demonised? What are the government doing to ensure that the invisible dads pay maintenance for their children?

Oh that’s right, absolutely nothing.