Labour are lifting the 2 child benefit cap

[PuppyKeep]

AIBU that this is a terrible decision?

Parents need to take responsibility for their own decisions. Cant afford them? Then dont have them. Simple

Those babies will end up copying their parents work ethic because that's all they have been taught and it's what they know. It's sad but it's the truth

We had 1, an abortion and then the snip because we couldn't afford anymore. We did all this as we were low earners at the time. The cap didn't influence our decision. I didn't know our situation would improve and I didn't want our child to end up with half an already small plate because we fancied another.

Any child who's parents are properly living on benefits (rather than meagre top ups) and have more than 1 are going to end up with fuck all.

The kids of anyone who are working full time and contributing to their private pension and paying off a mortgage will be much better off int he long run. I don't know why people forget about the benefit of fiancial stability for themselves and inheritance for their children when they're moaning that poor people get to procreate without dying of starvation or whatever.

Yet again, people have to be told the cap is not on child benefit. The cap is on the child element of Universal credit.

So, the extra amount we are talking about is not £73 a month or £884 a year. The extra amount that the child element cap is currently preventing is £292.81 a month for each of the 3rd or subsequent children. That amounts to £3513.72 each year for each additional child. That is, if the current child element would stay the same for more than two children. There is talk that if the cap is removed they may taper the amounts given for subsequent children.

Vasectomies are free on the NHS.

You are thinking of Child Benefit, not the extra amount of Universal Credit given to claimants with children. It's much more than £17 a week!

The overall benefit cap does not apply if someone in the household is disabled. So yes, the massive figures can apply and more so with all the extra disability benefits on top.

I think you will find it's for any Universal Credit claimant who has children living with them most of the time.

I know someone who has three DC by three different fathers. The fathers of the oldest two pay child maintenance. She has never officially said who is the father of DC3, so gets nothing for him apart from child benefit. My concern has always been that the maintenance for the other two gets spread out to pay for DC3 so, in effect, the fathers of DC1and DC2 are paying for a child that is nothing to do with them.

Yes, won't somebody please think of those poor men having to pay child maintenance, who may not be getting value for money.

The overall benefit cap does not apply if someone in the household is disabled. So yes, the massive figures can apply and more so with all the extra disability benefits on top.

That's in specific circumstances. Not the general circumstances that people on the thread have been going on about.

The benefit cap only applies to something like 1.7% of UC claimants.

I hope they are lifting it. The two-child cap is an absolute disgrace. What could be more important than children's welfare? Good old Labour!

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?

Nope. We get nothing for DN - we don't qualify for CB due to DH's wage, and we don't get UC for the same reason, but if we were already getting UC for our children there would have been no special exemption to let us have it for DN.

We're not entitled to a penny for DN. Social services originally promised we'd get a kinship allowance, but 8 months down the line we've got nowhere with that.

Literally the only help we've had was the social worker asking a favour of a local nursery which helped us queue jump a little as without him being in nursery when DD has her weekly physio and hydrotherapy we'd have been unable to take him in (I'm in the water with dd).

The benefit cap only applies to something like 1.7% of UC claimants.

Which rather suggests the number of people on UC simply choosing not to work is tiny - as opposed to the number of people on it due to health, disabilities, and of course low wages...

Who brings them up then?

Why are you concerned about what portion of what money goes to which child because your friend's exes' money might help the youngest? She's your friend, not them. Why would you care about how the money is split or be concerned about the exes? The maintenance comes into the household and it's up to your friend to apportion as she sees fit.

It's also quite possible that she gets maintenance for the youngest and hasn't told you, as that could be seen to be milking the system. As in, you get more money if your kids have three separate dads than if you have three kids with one dad. Maybe she wants to keep quiet about how much money she has, and I wouldn't blame her.

The first time I watched “Idiocracy” was several years ago and I laughed throughout.

i watched it again over the weekend and now its’s too close to reality to be funny at all.

This is a terrible idea. As someone who is unselfishly child free and have worked all my life (still working in my 80s) I am a net contributer. Families are almost inevitably net takers. Children contribute nothing to the community until they are old enough to work. They also consume vast resources of things which I do not want and cannot use. Why are we so mawkishly obsessed with so called child poverty?

Would you have preferred she got her kids second hand clothes and pocketed the rest for herself then. Her point was she spent the element given towards having a child, on her child. Unlike many I have also seen that minimises spends on the child and sees it as extra funds for themselves. Sadly see it all the time giving those that would use it towards their children a bad name.
I worked part time for a few years when DD was young and recieved working tax credits, like the PP I also made sure the child element went on my child. It doesn't cost much to increase a portion size per child when cooking fresh. This left plenty so my child also had clothes from next and the likes. Although I did often buy in the sale when everything is half price. Also put some into her savings each month. Also didn't drive, rarely went out without DD in tow, don't care for pampers, didn't have sky or contract phones (sim only), so not like I was flush. Just spent the money on the necessities and DD as it was intended.

Hi Bumblebee72, what's your background? Just interested.

That's awful Gingernessy. When was this?

Most of that income is above the tax free threshold, so the people receiving it are also tax payers.

I never gave any indication at all that I thought they were 'poor men'. My point was that some of the money meant for their respective children was obviously being used to support DC3. Perhaps things would be fairer if the mother was to name DC3's father and then this situation wouldn't have occurred as he would then be paying maintenance for his own child.

At what point did I say she was my friend? An assumption on your part. I can assure you 100% though that the father of DC3 hasn't been named. My point was that because of the two child benefit cap, she gets no money for DC3 apart from child benefit, so any other income has to be spread amongst all three children. If the two child benefit cap is scrapped, she will then get more money. I am sure there will be lots of families who will benefit from the change (if it happens).