Labour are lifting the 2 child benefit cap

[PuppyKeep]

AIBU that this is a terrible decision?

But you mitigate these things by thinking if I have one or two children how would I cope if x, y or z happened in the future. If I had 3 or more could I still afford to bring them up if x, y or z happened?

Should no one take responsibility and leave ourselves at the mercy, or not, of the state?

Should it be only one group of people who will be responsible limit the size of their family in order to facilitate another group of people to not do so?

Until Labour and other parties resolve this issue and make a fairer system regarding ensuring people have the children they want and can afford, that society needs, the dilemma goes on.

No we don't want children to be in dire poverty. But the actions needed to ensure that money given for children is spent on them, for example using using supermarket food vouchers, clothing coupons etc, is a no go area for stiigmatising poor families. So then how do we ensure that some parents on benefits don't continue to trap their children in a poverty cycle no matter how much money is given to them? Or that some others have a life unaffordable to their neighbours that put in a full days work with no access to benefits and are just getting by.

If you are one life event away from having to live in penury, maybe having more children isn't the best idea?

Lots of people seem to assume that if the work then they contribute to the system and then fair game to to pick on others. The reality is (although mumsnet like to pretend they are all high earners), many people posting their disgust will be taking out more than they contribute. The cost of maternity care, child birth, education and health care is all paid for by tax payers, and as a higher rate tax payed (and I work in the public sector).I am fine with that because I want a functioning society. I also want people to be lifted out of poverty and deprivation of life chances so they can contribute in the future.

My wonderful MIL was a refugee, having to leave behind incredible wealth and seeing family members die due to genocide in WW2. She met DH's dad who was in the RAF after escaping persecution and he brought her back to Edinburgh and they had six children. Initially they lived in a one room tenement and got moved to a small flat in a scheme and they they raised six children who all went on to be high rate tax payers. A postie and a hospital kitchen worker, full of love and appreciation for the life they were offered. DH's dad died young so I never met him but MIL continued to contribute so much to her community through guides and other projects for decades.

Yes, wealth does need to be more evenly distributed. The fact that the Labour Government has done nothing to tax the billionaires . . .

So in answer to your question, the 2 child cap isn't the problem. The Government not taxing the billionaires is the problem. And has been for years.

Hang on, everybody else is pretending to be a high earner but you are a legit high earner? That seems a bit odd.

Arguably, yes. But the point is most people don’t think like that. Mumsnet is chock-full of women who’ve been left by a DH who earned most of the money, and they never thought it would happen to them.

The poster who had a DH in a coma when she’d just had a baby (dreadful situation, made even more so because of ineligibility for benefits) didn’t think it would happen to her, because they’d have had savings, income protection insurance, no baby unless job had full sick pay, etc, if they thought it might.

She had family to fall back on, thankfully. For people with nobody, the state should be there.

You have to be exceptionally rich for life not to feel fairly precarious these days. If that's the bar, very few people will be having any children at all.

Bit of a failure of imagination here, so I'll help with a list of things that could cause a parent to suddenly need to give up work or radically reduce hours. How much can the average earner realistically have saved "for a rainy day" these days? £3k? £5k? £7k if they've been really careful? It doesn't take much for the wheels to come off.

• Cancer diagnosis
• Death or sudden disability of spouse
• Extremely ill child in in need of care
• Parent in need of round the clock care
• Mental health crisis (possibly as a result of one of the above)
• Child with additional needs needing extra support at home
• Accident leading to disability
• Grandparent who previously provided free childcare suddenly being unable to do so
• Rent or mortgage going through the roof, combined with other rising costs

Oh absolutely some people are

I agree that NI was the wrong tax to increase - Starmer boxed himself in, on the campaign trail, with his promises bit to raise other taxes.

Although the trend has become less pronounced over the last couple of decades, the highest earning households generally have fewer children. In more recent years, higher-earning men actually.

Short video, and a very good explainer:

@Holluschickie, did say that or that I pay tax at the higher rate? Lots of years to get there, many student laons, no pay rise for 10 years under the Tories, earning considerably less than if worked in the private sector. Then fiscal drag etc and also being widowed suddenly at the exact moment the Tories totally whipped that benefit away (based on the deceased contributions). But I now contribute more to our tax system than I take out and that is fine with me.

And you don't think that this could be helped by the Government taxing those that should be taxed?

You're quite right - all of your bullet points would hinder someone from working and yet - where's the money to help? If we taxed efficiently then the UK would have far more money to spend.

@harveythehorse Look back through my posts on this thread. We are in absolute agreement! I think the government should be taxing " those with the broadest shoulders" (as they are fond of saying but never truly doing). That would include billionaires of course, wealth being taxed at the same rate as income, corporation tax on the royal estates, raising inheritance tax, closing loopholes used by the ultra wealthy to "legally" sidestep tax...

Well, there is still the overall cap so having a million children isn't going to do any favours for anyone.

She's clearly found a magic money orchard.

Seriously insane..

This is a good point.

Some of the massive figures being thrown around just won't happen because of the overall benefit cap.

Tax on gambling is favoured apparently. I have no issue whatsoever with that.

Probably going to remove the single person Council tax reduction.

I don't agree with the current benefit cap in this area, but I think £17 per week is reasonable to make people think before having children and not considering much about how much it will cost.
I agree with the fact that no child chooses to be born and no woman should have to force herself to have an abortion because she doesn't have enough money to keep the baby.

Good news for me, my dd was born one month after the cut off 😌

Surely in that case you should get benefits for all of them as they are not your children you chose to have and without you they may have ended up in care which would have cost the state more?

The cap has never deterred that type of person from having more children, so its just the kids that suffer.

When you have limited qualifications, and huge gaps in education and/or employment it can be pretty much impossible to get into the workforce. That situation then creates a vicious cycle where people continuously have babies because it's the only thing that gives them purpose or a sense of worth. I think Labour should take a different approach.

• They could make it mandatory to study a level 2/3 vocational qualification if you're not in education, employment or training. A lot of funding has been put into adult education, yet its very poorly advertised. We have a significant demographic of people who would benefit from the funding and education and employment would likely help break familial cycles of chronic poverty and unemployment because those families wi suddenly have other responsibilities to balance.

• Labour could also introduce mandatory volunteering once someone been unemployed a set amount of time with no valid reason. People would hopefully learn new skills, build confidence and realise they actually have the capability to work. And if all else failed at least they wouldn't be getting their universal credit for doing nothing all day except have children.

Multiple births are exempt from the cap. But if you already have 2 or more children then have multiples you will only get for one of the babies if its twins or two if its triplets as you can help getting pregnant but cant help it if its twins or triplets

Indeed! We were benefit claimants when DC were very young. DC 1 is a trainee solicitor, twin DC are at uni & in an apprenticeship.

Parents need to take responsibility for their decisions. I agree that no child should suffer but honestly this society doesnt have enough funds to bail out every child because their parents have made crap desicions and prioritised themselves over their current kids wellbeing.
I feel like an absolute mug, being a high rate tax payer, working hard to buy my home and having an abortion- partly because I knew having another would negatively affect my current children's living standards.
Honestly I feel like an absolute twat. I shouldn't have even bothered working hard, should have just gotten into a council house, work part time, claim benefits and have a shit ton of kids and exploit the system. Others have done it and used relegion as an excuse so why cant I?