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?

I don't know enough to answer fully- but the evidence that the money saved as a result of the cap, is subsequently spent in the health and justice systems as a result of poverty is compelling.

I'm not a high earner myself btw, I have also cut back over recent years just like everyone else, but I have also volunteered with children for the last ten years or so.

First thing I definitely would do is criminal charges of neglect for absent parents who refuse to pay towards their children, just as a resident parent would be subject to if they didn't feed or clothe their child. I would also count child maintenance income as income when awarding UC.

The two child benefit cap seems popular and going by some remarks on other social media accounts I’ve seen today , lifting it isn’t popular at all. Especially as it seems other taxes are rising. What with this and the waspi women claims back in the news ( and the large black hole they have to sort out) the whole thing is a mess.

@leastofmyworries I don't think the first point of CMS should be classed as income. CMS firstly needs an over haul starting with getting the fathers to pay and provide yearly bank statements! Very few people are raking a decent amount of money through CMS if any money at all as it stands.

CMS do not count it as income (rightly so) because it's unreliable and often fluxuates. This would leave the mother and child/children at the detriment of the father choosing to pay or NOT...

No, we need the cap and I say that as a parent on UC.

I am an 80s baby from a council estate, I have seen numerous friends have baby after baby because they could.

I mean, my sister best mate keeps having children and she has 5, 4 disabled and she’s trying for her first son. She will never work.

But very often the men not paying (and it is usually men) are on benefits themselves.

I haven't seen any compelling evidence that the two child cap will deliver effective savings to the health or justice systems. Any estimates tend to be based on a comparison between households currently living in poverty and those that aren't. The assumption is that if you can lift households out of poverty by handing the parents more money then the children will behave more like their non deprived peers and follow the same trends. It completely ignores other factors that cause households to use more health and justice related resources including cultural differences, education levels and attitudes. These factors don't magically disappear just because a household has more money. The link between deprivation and public sector resource use may in many ways be correlation as opposed to causation. You could easily increase spending and still end up with all the same problems. We already have evidence that imposing the cap did not worsen the educational outcome of children impacted. What makes you thinking lifting it will make any difference? There is more at play here than money.

I also volunteer with children and this is how I know so many families with different setups. There are some kids living on poverty that have fantastic lives. Their needs are met, they are doing well educationally and they are happy and healthy. Sadly I also know kids in the opposite situation. The difference isn't money and almost all of those in the former situation are from smaller families where the parents can devote what resources they do have on fewer kids. This isn't a coincidence

So the cap isn't stopping her from having more and more children- so it literally, in your example, isn't working?

I don't know what the answer is I really don't.

Just to add, I also believe this should be 2 children per parent. So the dad cannot be having multiple babies to women who then have to rely on benefits.

But right now we are not giving her even more money. Why should we?

@LeastOfMyWorries My UC is capped for my daughter or any other children I might have.

My sisters friend isn’t because she has disabled children.

If CB is so luxurious, and your job doesn't pay, quit right?

If you don't want to pay for people's irresponsible choices, why don't you make those same irresponsible choices yourself? That will make things better. Great argument.

By your logic, perhaps you are living hand to mouth cos you couldn't afford any children yet you've chosen to have them,.they're a lifestyle choice according to this thread...or do the societal reasons your money doesn't stretch suddenly come into play?

No one else is funding me or my children so I have no idea what you're talking about here. I'm not saying, I'm struggling, so someone else should pay - or, regardless of the fact that I'm struggling, I will just continue to make irresponsible choices and other people can pay for them. I don't consent to doing that for other people either.

Care to add any more context to that comment? There must be a way to stop the increasing the divide between the rich and the middle class/ poor. It is abhorrent, it is a global issue and it needs to be fixed. And yes, I think employee wages should improve. Everyone should earn a living wage for a full time honest job.

We should certainly not be rewarding such irresponsible behaviour!

Yeah but she will lose a lot of it when they become adults.

And how would you achieve that? By forcing companies to pay even more in wages? Do you honestly think that will work? With much cheaper labour costs abroad, companies will just let even more UK employees go.

The women would claim, and they have two children each. Wouldn't be workable.

The benefit is for the children. You can't punish them because you think (with no insight into her life) that the mother is irresponsible. She clearly didn't get pregnant with no man involved. I can't believe I got labelled "judgemental" and a "lazy scrounger" on this thread. The judgiest of judgy threads.

For the record, I have received one benefit in my life. The Family Allowance which was a universal benefit until the tories decised it wasn't.

Just to let all the people on this thread who think their miniscule tax is paying for all this. It isn't.

Hence why the UK Govt is up to it's eyes in debt.

This all started with Thatcher. We now have zero assets because everything has been sold off to people obsessed with accumulating money.

A whole thread about money in a UK obsessed with it.

They should use this thread in Modern Studies to show young people that money drives you nuts when you worship it above all else.

It makes you blaim the poorest people because your own life is clearly shite.

Yes it is and statistically more likely if you are from a lower socioeconomic group.
I have seen families in my school make a very concerted effort to get staff to write letters of support for DLA because their child has "behavioural problems" which the parents say are suspected autism/ADHD. I don't think they have either, they have often had zero boundaries and chaotic homes, which has affected their behaviour. These children are often very badly behaved when they start in nursery, but improve considerably over the next year or two as they learn about structure/routines/turn taking etc. The parents get very irrate when teachers say there is nothing out of the ordinary to report. These parents know the system and fully intend to make the most of it.

I'm very left leaning and I never believed these things until I saw it for myself. There are poor parents who have fallen on bad times and there are poor parents who will always be poor parents, regardless of how much money they have it will not be used to increase the quality of their children's lives. Parents like these want to dump their 3 month old in a Sure Start all day, where in all honesty it had a much better chance. It's such a shame that funding has been cut in this respect.

I don’t really understand your point here?

Not my problem

@LeastOfMyWorriesmy ex DH of 20 years, who I had my children with went on and had multiple children with multiple women. Leaving 3 other women on benefits, something has to give. We cannot cap it at 2 for a resident parent while the non resident parent can leave multiple mums on the breadline

Oh ok - I was hoping you might elaborate?

The 2 child cap still applies if you have a disabled child. It's the amount of benefits you can receive that isn't capped if your child is disabled

@newusernamex1000 Maybe be glad you don't have a disabled child?