Do you think we should life the two child benefit cap?

[Marshmallow4545]

I believe that the majority of people think that the cap should remain and child poverty should be tackled in different ways.

Personally I would like to see children on FSMs allowed free access to after school extracurricular clubs and activities. I would also provide more poor families with access to food banks and would look to stock these with a range of healthy and nutritious options either through donation or state funding if required. I would also look to recruit volunteers to offer advice on health and diet in these places. I would provide clothing and school uniform banks with high quality, second hand clothing that kids would actually want to wear. I have some branded 'fashionable' stuff my kids have grown out of that's still in great condition that I would happily donate.

All of the above in my view is preferable to lifting the cap and would be more effective in tackling the impact that child poverty has on the child.

So AIBU that the two child cap should remain and we should look at other more direct ways to tackle child poverty?

Well, UK fertility rate was 1.79 in 2016 and 1.56 in 2023.

Maybe coincidence maybe not. It's twice the rate of decline from 2010 (baby boom)-2016

The cap should remain. It is fine if you want a large family but you should be prepared to pay for them yourself. DH & I discussed this and felt we could give a comfortable life to 2 children, anymore and we would struggle. Live within your means.

I just can't imagine thinking 'I'm in a shit position financially but I want another child but hey-ho some mug that gets up in the dark to go to work will pay more tax to pay for it'.

Exactly. Two kids is more than plenty!

Why should the rest of us go to work to support not only our own 1-2 children but also those of parents who recklessly have more than they can afford?!

Yes, and if the Government removes the cap, then even more parents will take advantage of this.

If you are irresponsible enough to continue to have children you can’t afford, especially when you are not working and are totally reliant on state support, you are probably not going to spend any additional benefits on your children. We all know families where the needs and desires of the parents are put first and the children are well down the list.

I think our main point of disagreement is that I don't think that people are poor because they are irresponsible or too stupid to use their money responsibly. It is so much more complex than that. No doubt that is the case in some instances (as it is in wealthier families, it's just more socially acceptable there.) The poor families I know are trying their absolute best to provide the best lives that they are able to for their families. They don't need to be treated like they've done something wrong, which seems to be the prevailing belief on this thread.
Life is tough for lots of people, but we have reasonable evidence from experts to say that getting rid of the cap will make life a little bit easier for this group of people. I can't really see the argument for not doing it.

It’s impossible to just choose not to work on UC - you can’t choose to and just get benefits there are work commitments and sanctions if you don’t look for work and get work. The only exceptions are LCWRA and if a parent is a carer? It’s not some easy choice that’s allowed if you just don’t fancy working !

do these poor people you're talking about have two kids or more? if more, why?

Or if one half of a couple earn enough.

But there are over 4 million on LCWRA

The issue is just so complex. I saw a clip from a channel 4 documentary on it recently and it was heartbreaking. So many single parents who were fine and had jobs in a better economy when they decided to have children. Then a spouse got sick. They lost their job. A spouse died. They got divorced and the ex won't pay child support. But on the other hand there was a lady complaining about how her council housing was too small for her family yet she was pregnant with another on the way. Is that a good choice? The children did not ask for this. They are not at fault. They should not have to live in poverty. Of course this is true but at the same time, to be blunt, I don't want to be taxed even more to pay for this. I feel the solution to most of these problems is to look up at the people/ companies/ corporations ludicrously hoarding wealth and paying workers poorly. They should be paying better wages with better worker benefits as well as being taxed more to help with this.

Yes that too! And in a lot of cases with SEN children this is the case where one parent works the other is a carer and they get a UC top up - often it’s impossible to access childcare of a child has severe SEN so these families need a SAHP.

I agree about poverty in general. I do think someone having more than two children when they live in poverty is where the questions of judgement and responsibility really starts to crop up.

The arguments against lifting it are obvious. Someone somewhere pays for it and it's often families with not a lot themselves who have responsibily chosen to limit their own family size. Even those on benefits may feel penalised for having a smaller family and not having access to all the multiples of child UC that larger families get. There is only so much to go around and the people paying for it aren't necessarily rich.

There is also the question of what we are trying to do with the money. Child poverty is a crude financial measure. It doesn't reflect the experience of the child and how much their basic needs are being met. We need to focus on these things, not the financial measure of poverty. We need to make sure the money is benefitting the children and not just enriching crap parents. There are crap parents in every part of society but most won't be tax payer funded to this extent and incentivised to have more and more kids.

Some do, some don't. I didn't ask why.

The argument against is the country can’t afford it.

I’m aware of that. It’s almost as if we have a health service not fit for purpose where minor illnesses that could be treated and improved early deteriorate to the the point they are disabling, that CAMHS is useless so young people dont get MH or ND diagnoses and support in a timely way and that small issue of a global pandemic and long covid and related issues.

Many parents are limited by finances when it comes to how many dc they can have. It’s a reality that means it’s one or two dc.

I am sure there are multiple factors why we have this ever increasing number but I’m just pointing out that actually on UC there are quite a number not working due to sickness and caring responsibilities.

Yes which are genuine cases where they can’t work for specific reasons. It’s just this thread seems to have the attitude that there are some families choosing to not work without any factors such as illness or caring - and that’s not possible- UC come down hard on work commitments and sanctions.

If you are on UC and get carers allowance, UC deducts that payment from your UC payment. You can still apply for it but you don't receive your full payment of UC AND carers allowance on top.

It also isn't always obvious that a child is disabled/has SEN and remember that not all children are born disabled, sometimes it can happen later in life due to accidents/illnesses.

Don't they just.

Before my son's DLA came through, I was still hounded by them to look for work despite the fact that my son was in hospital at the time.

They are ruthless and I don’t think people realise this. There’s no option to just choose to not work if you don’t fancy it that’s not allowed ! We had similar still had to attend meetings whilst waiting months for dla application to be processed.

I think disability is a bit of a red herring in a way. It's all about the decision to have three or subsequent children. Really in this day and age and in this economy very few of us can do this without taking a huge financial risk.

Disability or illness could strike any of us or our children at anytime. We could get fired from our job or lose a business through no fault of our own and be out of work for years and potentially never earn what we once did. You need a hell of a lot of financial backing before having a third, fourth etc child is a sensible thing to do. More to the point, I absolutely believe that in this day and age most families have to juggle so much more time and a energy wise. It is a very brave family indeed that feels that they can definitely give enough of these things to lots of children whilst financially supporting everyone.