Labour are lifting the 2 child benefit cap

[PuppyKeep]

AIBU that this is a terrible decision?

My money is on increasing VAT to 25% to cover the amount the chancellor needs to raise. It is going to need to be something big, she had quite a lot to find before the party conference week of giveaways. Normally you bride your supporters coming into an election now a year into a parliament.

I think the challenge is where that money is best spent. By giving it to the parent directly there is an assumption that it is being spent to support the child. That may not be the case. At the same time, schools are still woefully underfunded. Our local primary can’t afford glue sticks or basic maintenance without donations. We’ve now reached a point where there has been a direct request for parental donations. Labour doesn’t seem to be investing properly in education as a means of tackling inequalities but rather seem to be banging on about breakfast clubs and libraries. If you want to tackle inequality you need to be chucking money into schools, into sen support and other services. At the moment, you have to be sharp elbowed to get support.

As always there are many posts here along the lines of - we know circumstances change, but what about that family down the road with five kids where no one works and they just smoke weed all day.

The issue is, you can’t reduce payments for one family without reducing them for all.

The state cannot and will not cut benefits for so called “feckless” parents with three or more children, while continuing to provide the same support to families of the same size whose circumstances have simply changed. Not only would that be morally questionable, but it would also be impossible to administer.

There should definitely be a cap. If you raise two children at the taxpayer’s expense, I think it’s fair for society to say “no more. We have paid for you to raise two kids, if you have a third you will have to pay for it yourself, like the rest of us do.” There is no magic money pot. We have to pay these benefits out of our taxes, and there is a limit to how much money a government can squeeze out of a nation. The U.K. is dangerously in debt, and the main reason is the bloated welfare system. Every time someone takes out of that pot, there is less money for hospitals and schools and cancer drugs and road repairs and state pensions.

Also, this encourages some of the worst people in society to have more kids, who they then raise to be as ignorant, foul-mannered and anti-social as they are. (Obviously I do not mean that everyone who claims benefits is like that. I said some of the worst.) One of the depressing things about modern Britain is that it seems to be the most intelligent, civilised and well-educated members of society who’ve stopped reproducing. Whereas the underclass seem to do nothing but reproduce. (When I say the underclass, I don’t mean those on low incomes. I mean those who cannot and will not live in a responsible and civilised way.) Personally, I think you should have to apply for a licence before you can have kids. If you have convictions for sexual abuse, have had previous children taken into care, have raised violent/anti-social children, or have been convicted of child neglect, etc, society should step in and at least discourage you.

Labour have already hiked taxes here. It’s not working to do what you’re after.

That’s a spurious argument. With no policies in place to improve public services in line with increased taxation, and no mechanism in place to ensure additional contributions go towards public services, it’s simply not the same thing.

If labour said tomorrow they were taking an extra 5% of my salary to fund say, the NHS and a new social care department to run alongside, another 2% for education and childcare inc say…. universal free school meals, another 2% for working age benefits - like redundancy benefits and retraining opportunities- and another 1% to renationalise the water companies and clean up our waterways and oceans, i can say absolutely say with my hand on my heart- I’d absolutely welcome it. Would I feel the pinch? Absolutely- truly it would “hurt”. Would I accept that’s the price we pay to leave our kids a country better than we found it? Also absolutely.

Despite us both paying taxes, we received no financial support from the govt when my husband ended up seriously unwell in a coma for weeks whilst I had a young baby and child. We were fortunate enough to have family step in and help us so we didn't lose the house and could buy food. If there is no real back up in such situations, then why the hell are we paying for ADHD payments or for some not to work but churn out kids? Those people are the ones taking money away from those who have actually fallen on hard times!

Well if school is compulsory why not provide a hot dinner for them from the state?

If Labour (and the Tories) hadn't hiked taxes, how do you think things would look?

In any event, having lots of succesful-but-childless people is a major societal problem that will only increase the tax burden over time.

I don't think it sensible to assume that AI will save us (not least, as the birthrate problem goes well beyond economics).

Why did you vote Labour? Surely higher taxes and a decent welfare state is part of Labour's ideology?

Your posts make no sense, hence I think you're steering opinion.

And yet some people on this thread would be the first to complain to school when another child disrupts lessons because they are hungry, when the problem could be mitigated by giving that child a meal that costs less than the price of a coffee. Free school meals benefit everyone.

So more women forced into abortions they might not have wanted?

Wasn't there free school meals for all for the boomers etc?

So how would you solve the fertility crisis?

I do wonder if there'd be something to be said for tying state pension entitlement to the number of kids you have (with suitable exemptions for those who are childless not-by-choice), provided those children (if fit and able) go onto full time employment or similar.

Childless - minimal pension
1 child - intermediate
2+ - generous.

Alternatively or additionally, re-instating and hugely increasing the Child Tax Benefits would probably help.

I'm sure they were. Clearly the policy had an immediate impact on how people managed their family size. I suspect you'd also see an uptick in contraception too, happy to look at that graph if you have it.

I have personal experience of exactly what you're talking about - family members who would provide fodder for one of those sneering C5 documentaries. But do I wish their kids couldn't afford to eat as a result of their parents life choices? No. And do I think that just because some families like this exist, all low income families should be left to rot? Also no. I equally have other family members working multiple jobs and getting nowhere.

I have a weird situation with a foot in both camps, and you're right when you say it is another world. Over here in the "land of the wealthy", 4 or 5 rental houses were purchased during the 90s and providing the rental income that lets the kids do the unpaid internships that will then propel them into the best jobs, £600k flats are being inherited, pensioners book their third 5* holiday of the year and school fees are paid by grandad.

These are the people we need to be looking at. Not squabbling about whether a 6 year old might go home to a warmer house thanks to a lifting of the 2 child benefit cap and then ALSO shock horror get a free lunch at school and a bowl of porridge at a breakfast club.

I have sympathy with boomers who worked hard to get where they are, saved up, and now feel targeted for their success. But the piece of the puzzle I think they're missing is that working hard and being sensible doesn't get you there anymore. There are families doing their absolute best and they are sinking - and when you weigh that against a handful of people taking the piss - who do you side with? You surely have to accept that no system can be perfect and some will get some things they're not entitled to?

It's all such small fry when you hold it up against the huge sums of money in the "other world" you talk about - hold those people you sneer at in the other world to account and make them pay more damn tax!

Most people should learn to live within their means and take personal responsibility.

No contraception is 100%.

Successful people aren’t childless, why do you say that? Women are still having dc

Also this societal collapse you mention, what’s happening?

On Labour not hiking taxes, better if they hadn’t to NI as it’s hammered businesses hence the bigger hole and need for more taxes.

Best comment on the thread.

And free university (with living grants)
And council housing (which could then be bought)
And a property market that grew and grew and grew
And final salary pension schemes

It's not about holding those things against people, but I don't know why we can't have an honest conversation about the fact the boomer generation grew up in a system that rewarded hard work in a way that the current system does not.

You only have to look at who lives in the same houses in the same street - my parents bought their house on one salary (a not-quite-professional job). To afford the same house how, you need to be a dual income household where both earners are doctors / lawyers etc.

That doesn't diminish how hard my parents worked to buy that house, and how incredibly careful they were with money. But it was possible. It's simply not possible now in so many parts of the country.

I really feel that those retirees who benefited from all the above should be expected to throw the ladder down to the younger generations.

Posters who are talking about more babies being needed, why is it the people with more than 2 children and already living off the state that we need to incentivise to have more?

Unfortunate that your birth control methods failed twice. Is that genuinely the taxpayer's fault?

Completely agree that nobody should be forced into abortion, but equally, there are many, many ways that people can take responsibility for their own choices.

These kids will still be in poverty. The lifting is silly. It will cost the state a load of money and do nothing tangible to help. Having a third child is not a sensible decision for anybody - unless they are loaded and have lots of help.

The main advantage a kid has in life is it's mother. A handful of quid is nothing up against an organised, motivated and determined mother that another child has. Likewise, sloshing money is nothing up against an organised, motivated and determined mother. It all comes down to the mother, and father, to a lesser extent.

Is it the kids' fault? Because that's who gets punished by the 2 child cap. We have enough wealth in this economy to catch the most vulnerable people when they fall - it's a question of how we distribute that wealth. At the moment, it all sits with a fairly small group of people - and I'm not talking about parents who (for whatever reason - and there are so many possible reasons!) end up with more children than they can afford on their own.