Labour are lifting the 2 child benefit cap

[PuppyKeep]

AIBU that this is a terrible decision?

Nobody is saying everyone in the 80's worked bit they did their damnedest to work! Nobody sat on benefits for life in them days without ever working a day like you see now! As said I never knew anyone that didn't have two contributing parents.

This is what Labour do? I am not Labour but it isn't a surprise?

It’s not a narrative - they are scroungers taking the piss. That’s just a fact.

And resentment is a natural human reaction to unfairness. You’re pandering to the people you’ve decided are ‘vulnerable’ and enabling them to make bad choices that make their lives worse, not better. You’re not helping them. It’s the bigotry of low expectations.

I don't think that's true. We have families where there is generational worklessness, people were routinely kicked out of home so they could go on the council list etc. That goes back to the 80's.

I accept the fact that some families have ended up with more children than they can cope with - financially and practically. More than they "should" have had. But I don't accept the idea that this is mainly happening because they can get benefits - I think it happens for a whole host of different reasons, and even if The Daily Mail can dig up examples of people saying they DO have more kids for benefits, that doesn't mean that the majority of parents had more than 2 kids for that reason, or that those bizarre outlier cases should be what we base policy on.

Also - these children exist now. And how they are treated during their childhood will determine the type of social problems we need to deal with in the coming decades and the nature of the workforce who will be available to deal with them.

I think a big problem is that the benefit system stifles ambition and potential. We employed a young man who had 3 kids, got divorced and met a woman with 3 also. They had another 2 between them. So 8 children in the house. His 2nd wife had never worked. He always refused overtime payments, and asked for time off in lieu, as the extra payments skewed his benefits, and he ended up no better off. When thr cap came in, his wife got a job, and he started wanting payment for his overtime. The bigger problem is that he could have been a really skilled tradesman, earning much more than our small business could afford. But, his benefit payments topped up his wages, so to move to a better paying job, would initially leave him no better off, so he stayed, for over 20 years. When he left, he was offered a high paying job, with good prospects, but opted for a lower paying job, in a restaurant. As far as I know, he is now working in a minimum wage job, topped up by benefits.

Particularly in mining/industrial areas where whole communities found themselves jobless with no alternative.

But just because there ARE some "scroungers taking the piss" does not mean that most people receiving benefits fall into that category. It's madness to make policy and vote on the basis of the most extreme headline-grabbing stories. The stories quoted are being held up as representing an entire group of people when they do not. The reality is so much more complicated and nuanced. But it's easier to parrot back the simple story of "piss-takers".

Hungry children are vulnerable - regardless of their parents choices. That is not up for debate.

About 10 years ago a guy was infront of me in the queue at the post office. He was picking up his benefits. He commented loudly that it was Thatchers fault he couldn’t get a job. Hadn’t had one since she shut the mines. The mines had shut 20 years previously and lots of other industries had popped up in their place. I was so surprised people were allowed to live off benefits for that long without having to retrain and get a job.

Or working at all. If kids are growing up in poverty then having more children in poverty condemns those children to overcrowded conditions, not enough space to do homework, not enough time and attention from parents or money for any extra curricular activities etc. They will have a mountain to climb to get out of that and get qualifications/ work ethic etc.

Yes, this

You really are pretending to be blind aren't you! I am not going to keep repeating about the benefit culture has changed! Not only because of the boom of large benefit families that never work a day in their lives and the fact that we now see multi generations following the same path but we now have an issue of people wanting to call kids disabled and get benefits for such as ADHD? I literally had someone online telling me that their school child has ADHD and she gets benefits for it! My brother is in an 8 year waiting list for assessment for ADHD and he's had it all his 51 years of life not he's not disabled! He has mates with it that aren't disabled but some of these parents are writing their kids off! They are teaching these kids to think they are disabled and can't work when they grow up! The benefit culture has got out of hand and any one with sense sees it! A lot of the benefit stupidity that's around now wasn't around years ago I assure you!

Hungry children are vulnerable - regardless of their parents choices.

Does giving people more money they haven't earned mean they suddenly have the ability to make good choices?

People who don't prioritise their children's needs aren't suddenly going to become responsible and sensible because they have been given more money from the magic money growing tree. If it was that simple I'd have no objection to it.

Hungry children are vulnerable - regardless of their parents choices. That is not up for debate.
Then the money needs to be spent directly on those children, through free school meals, holiday clubs , social services etc. There isn't unlimited money so it should be targeted to children not the parents who have caused the problems in the first place.

Tell that to the people on this thread resenting free school meals...

I did read that there might be a “taper”. What that might consist of is anybody’s guess, but surely this govt cannot hand out £3k+ a year (of taxpayers’ money) for every child born now or in future or indeed the past (plus all other benefits of course) to uc claimants whilst those on modest incomes slide downwards.

There are those posters who trumpet “You go on benefits then.” Well, I and others of my ordinary ilk can’t as I’ve a house and - I know because dh was out of work this year - you get a boot in your backside from the Job Centre if you exude a whiff of being middle class.

BUT - it won’t be long before swathes of people see that benefits do pay more than even relatively decent jobs let alone lowly ones and make lifestyle decisions accordingly, eg wanting social housing, spurning marriage/coupledom etc.

There is petition online to „keep the 2 child benefit cap” if anyone wants to sign it.

UK second most at risk from debt crisis of all major economies https://share.google/iaKPz6XoJqSpOGQun

It's all so messed up isn't it! There's somebody in my partner's department that does that, they are a profession in a good whack too but they won't do overtime for money so they can keep the child benefits. This is when you worry that our taxes are paying benefits for people who could very easily earn more money!

I know so many people do seem to be able to imagine a world where you don't push out the sprogs and hand them over to Nanny Starmer to feed, house and keep warm.

But you are assuming here that the vast majority of families in receipt of benefits are feckless rather than working hard and struggling due to other factors. Where's the evidence for that? I don't accept the argument that most families on benefits are spending it all on SheIn and Vapes. I'm sure you can dredge up examples of some families doing that - but it's wrong to hold those up as representative of an entire group.

The fathers won't be that bothered. If they cared that much the would go for custody and look after the children

Nobody begrudges kids eating, what people begrudge is mum having 6,7,8,9 plus kids and pleading poverty whilst daddy sits in the shadows & lets the system pay for his kids! Keep families to a size that isn't taking the absolute mick!

You're assuming the vast majority of people on UC are hardworking people who aren't playing the system though. Where's your evidence to prove that you are in fact correct?
I am absolutely sure there are people who aren't playing the system and I have no objection to these people receiving financial help. However it is grossly naive to think these people are in the main. My entire life experience tells me different.

What happened to the men and the boys in this scenario?