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?

Yep lift the cap. The birth rate has hugely declined all over the world, absolutely no evidence a cap stops people having children, they’re just having less naturally. I don’t believe many people went out of their way to procreate lots for more benefits, it was just a media frenzy in the 00s to divide people as per. Benefits are so low anyway, I don’t think many people really want to live on them. People act like they’re practically millionaires when it’s like £300 a week max.

Also just don’t think children should ever be punished. They didn’t ask to be born, they deserve to be fed, safe, clothed and all the rest.

Well we need significantly more future tax payers, so that would still be a net positive.

Unless people would prefer high migration as an alternative, but as of late they seem to not want that either.

If Reeves puts up income tax, millions of people will have to make cut backs to their own lifestyle. She can't then use their money to pay for other people's children. It literally makes no sense.

There is no way to ensure that additional child support would be spent on those children anyway.

Also, the argument about them being future tax payers does not necessarily follow - there are millions out of work for no good reason.

Yes the cap should remain

The only people with absolutely no control over family finances are the children. I can’t see a solid argument for forcing them to live below the poverty line to punish the adults in their lives.

Labour did not promise to keep the two child cap in place in their manifesto. Continually repeating this lie doesn't make it true.

Removal of the cap wasn't included as a specific manifesto pledge, but that does not mean they promised to keep it. In fact for years Starmer has been talking about his commitment to reducing child poverty. Removing the cap is, according to all experts views, the quickest and most cost effective way to do so.

The only people punishing the children are the parents. Nothing to do with anyone else.

It just strikes me as political suicide.

Nobody voted for this as they promised they wouldn't do it. All polls show that the public is against it, even Labour voters. People want the cap to remain. We are supposed to live in a democracy FGS!

The fact that they're going to hit everyone with an incredibly unpopular tax bomb and then announce this at the same time will mean that they will never ever be trusted again. I honestly don't think I'll see another Labour government in my lifetime.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jul/16/labour-keep-two-child-benefit-cap-says-keir-starmer

He really did promise that. The manifesto didn't contradict this claim.

If you have more than two children, it is very likely that one of you will be unable to work full time so why on earth shouldn't you be compensated and there are many reasons for having more than two children (not including twins)

Cultural Reasons
Religious reasons against contraception/abortion
Wanting children to have the security of many loving siblings
Prioritising a large family over a career
Wanting to contribute more humans to society
Because they could once afford them before a downturn in circumstance
Simply wanting to!

It does seem harsh that paying those who choose to have more than two children seems to be frowned upon and thank goodness we have a government that disagrees with this.

I think it is not unreasonable, while at least two children are under 12 to ensure that the family are on £50,000 a year and I think there are whisperings among some in the Labour party that this is not without merit although because of the optics surrounding it, it won't happen until the next term.

Still, we have to start somewhere and lifting the two child cap is a start at least.

It makes perfect sense if you don't want children living in poverty. As a higher-rate tax payer I, personally, am delighted that some of my hard earned money goes to lifting children out of poverty. I don't want to live in a society which thinks it's more important that my children get designer clothes and other luxuries than that other children get food, heating and shelter.

Twins were always exempt from this policy though

If we don't need to support people to have children, then why are we being told we need permanent immigration? Why is the budget for some things limitless? We know tgat we've been lied to re recruitment of British doctors, do posters not see how policies fuel riots, which then cost a lot?

Is this a joke? If you want to have £50k coming in, get a job that pays that. Don't go after someone else's money. Jeez.

Two children is enought for anyone. People with children already get a raft of freebies and handouts which are paid for by the taxes generously donated by the single and childfree.

Well this will work well.

In the news today - hardly any NHS trusts can treat cancer patients within 62 days so that treatment becomes more expensive. Some people may die, others may not be able to return to work. Children wont starve, we have food banks - but we can kill people.

How much more in tax are you prepared to pay to save lives?

I use the haf holiday clubs with my oldest (big gap between oldest and younger two so basically an only child) so that oldest can socialise with children his age. I guess other people with children close In age or a lot of cousins (mine have NO cousins) don’t feel they need it as much.
Of course the main point of it is the free meal but most fsm kids their parents aren’t necessarily poor forever (it’s based on your income when they start reception)

Surely a joke.

No, it should not be lifted. The easy availability of free contraception (and free termination where applicable) to all should mean families having only the number of children they can afford to raise. Yes I know someone could have unexpected twins, but that's an exception rather than the rule. There are far too many demands on taxpayers' money to allow subsidising unlimited numbers of children. You can't choose whether to be disabled, or elderly, or ill, but you can choose the number of children you have. If unlimited numbers are in fact subsidised then there's no incentive to have any self control or take responsibility.

Exactly

Virtually all of that £3.5bm "cost" will go straight back into the economy and tax coffers.

If you're confident - and you say you are - that what you suggest will cost far less than £3.5bn upfront, and will return the same economic/tax revenues - by all means show us your workings. A couple of starter questions for you: how much will it cost to devise, set up, furnish and administer a food voucher scheme for all UC recipients with more than two dependent children? And how much will it cost for the government to upgrade foodbanks which currently don't have refrigeration, licenced catering kitchens and storage facilities (hint: the large majority of them) to the level needed to take fresh food and give classes in how to cook it? A sub-q to this: how much will it cost the government to give all foodbanks fresh food?

A sensible discussion of the issue means all sides informing themselves of the actual facts, necessary steps and likely outcomes.

What next? Pay for other people's pets? Holidays?