The 2 child benefit cap lift will be cancelled out by the weekly benefit cap

[Pinkbowls]

I keep seeing all this talk about families with 6+ kids “racking it in” if the two-child benefit cap is lifted, and honestly, it’s hogwash. Here’s the reality:

If the Labour government does lift the two-child cap, it will mainly help low-income working families and families who are claiming disability benefits. These households aren’t subject to the cap, so the poorest families and those who genuinely need extra support for a third or fourth child are the ones who will benefit.

For a single adult with two children outside London, the monthly benefit cap is around £1,832 (~£423 per week). In London, it’s higher, about £2,108 per month (~£486 per week).

Now let’s break it down roughly for someone renting privately:

• Assume the standard allowance + personal allowance for the adult + child elements (for 2 kids) = around £1,200–£1,300/month.
• Private rent in many parts of the UK, and especially in London, can easily eat £800–£1,200/month.
• Add council tax support (which helps a bit, but only partially) and you can see that most of the cap is already taken up.

So in reality, lifting the two-child cap doesn’t suddenly create a pile of extra cash. For families on benefits but below the cap, the extra child element for a third or fourth child may only leave a modest amount after rent and council tax.

The idea that parents with 6+ children will suddenly be sitting on a fortune is completely overblown. The system is designed so that the support goes to those who genuinely need it, not to families already comfortably above the threshold.

The main winners of this policy will be:

• Low-income working families who are earning enough to be under the cap and can actually receive the child element for additional children.
• Families claiming disability benefits, who aren’t subject to the cap at all.

It’s important to separate myths from reality: this is about helping the most vulnerable and supporting working families, not about rewarding large families for being on benefits.

I thought that was only if they got the carer's element of UC? And isn't that the same roughly as carer's allowance? So still £500??

@AnonymousUser4 may I asked what your situation is? Politely my first honest thought is why has so many children when you can’t afford them. I respect that sometimes things aren’t as they seem but if it was just a case of “I wanted four kids” then unfortunately my sympathy lies with the children

This.

All research shows that unemployment/under employment is intergenerational so actually you're just going to end up in the situation where there's even more people dependent on govt support.

Yes, it seems as if men can get away with fathering children hither and yon. They need to be accountable - not self employed on minimum wage when really they are doing cash in hand for the village.

I didn’t know either of my DC had SEN until the youngest was in school, by which time I was long past the cut off date for exchange or refund.

Would you work full time for £500?

Because that’s what you’re expecting a full time carer to do.

Yawn.

See my earlier post. Plug in the scenario into 'entitled to' website. And out spat the number so benefit PLUS 16 hrs at NMW (no disability, single parent, renting 3 kids, London) is equivalent to a take home salary from an £82k job.

Crazy eh?

It's either you have no idea what the take home of someone on £82k is OR you have no idea how much you are eligible for in the above scenario

Well each child has two parents you take turns with jobs. Work shifts if required morning and evening. Or one parent in a high earning job. When it came to caring for my grandparents we all took turns. And for the hours we could not cover due to work/ uni we hired someone. This is how things work in other countries. Everyone in the family chips in. Not expect the government to provide. Culturally asians take care of family. Maybe that is something that should be encouraged here. That way no carer gets overwhelmed either as everyone helps out. And the person who needs care has their family with them nearly all the time. Here as people receive benefits no one needs to work for basic necessities. So cost of labour is high. If everyone had to work to get a meal they would get off their butts and find a job. So getting people to do the menial jobs would be much easier. Just look at the care sector in this country it is full of people whose ethnicity is not British.

I think it is entirely reasonable for the state to pay benefit for the first two children - having more than this is a choice vs people who fall on hard times through no fault of their own such as becoming disabled, bereavement of main breadwinner or job loss etc.

What I don't understand is people screeching about the birth rate being too low. There are around 10 billion of us on a planet that can only sustainably support 3 billion, and many of the world's problems would be alleviated by there being less of us.

The same people are simultaneously complaining about immigration, lack of housing and hordes of jobless, plus the fact that our air is so polluted that children are openly having air pollution listed on their death certificates.

The argument that people should have more children "to pay for old people" is beyond selfish, and ignores the fact that more and more jobs will be done by machines, plus all the climate refugees that will be fleeing north in the coming decades as their land burns or floods.

I wasnt referring to me. But I am not lucky being disabled.

I am just fortunate to live in the UK. If you think I am oh so lucky would you take my disability and PIP from me and keep it for yourself?

Well if ND isn't a problem, then why disability benefits/ PIP etc?

If you know your family finances are impacted due to one child having a condition why have more. I get if families are coping with one child and then have a high needs child that affects the ability to work. In reality though I see working parents with ND coping well with their ND children. I also see parents with zero aspiration having children as a filler for their lives.

I'm saying the opposite of banning people having children. Just that the state shouldn't be picking up the cost of them.

More than that. 24/7 with no sick pay or leave, holidays etc.

The majority of families who claim universal credit have at least one adult in full time employment. Often both. Where one stays home FT it's usually due to them having a disability or being a carer for a disabled child. Or both. Sometimes its because they can't find suitable childcare for the available jobs. I have worked for years helping people on low income, in poor housing or dealing with other difficulties. The amount of ignorance around about benefits is sad but sadly not uncommon.

Maybe find out the facts before insulting people you know nothing about.

This thread is about the child benefit cap. Not about PIP. Jeez

Firstly, not all children do have two actively involved parents.

Not all family members can cope with all children.

Who are we leaving our disabled and often violent child with for 8hrs a day should he come out of school, his grandparents who are in their 80s? Or his aunties and uncles who all have jobs? His cousins who have jobs and college etc?

Some children are 2:1, so taking “shifts” between working and caring (god knows when sleep happens in this scenario) wouldn’t work in all cases either.

I actually don’t claim UC or carers, we both work full time. We claim DLA and that’s it. But many, many people could not work and effectively support their families.

Those people aren’t forgetting their responsibility to their child or loved one by “relying on the state,” they’re trying to uphold that responsibility and need support to do so.

Yeah I agree. The idea it’s 35hrs a week is a joke.

We provide care for 35hrs a week just by taking the nights into account.

Thing is there’s no evidence that the 2 child limit has had a substantial impact on reducing the number of children people have.

Either people didn’t plan for the additional children, their circumstances changed, they had a stronger overriding belief (eg religion) or they don’t have the skills/education to fully consider the implications.

It just doesn’t work to disincentivise people from having kids. So you can either leave those kids to grow up in very poor households through accident of birth or you can ensure the benefit system provides a suitable minimum amount of support.

Are you having a laugh! My husband works nights!

My husbands mum died of cancer before any of my children were born.
My dad died last year and was an alcoholic!
My mum has been in a wheelchair for 20 years and is now in a care home.
And my FIl is in no fit state to watch my youngest and he is very challenging!

Just because it was easy for you does not mean everyone is as lucky!

And hiring someone! Where is this money to hire someone?

Don’t refer to our children as a “problem,” it’s very impolite.

Working full time with a child with significant complex needs is no joke, and “coping” is about the best you can hope for. The quality of life you end up with is very, very poor.

Have you ever tried getting up at 2am for prolonged periods, getting kicked in the face all morning and then logging on for a morning meeting, working 40hrs a week? I have. I do. Horrendous.

I can well understand why some people either can’t manage to do so, or choose not to inflict that on themselves. Those people deserve state support.

Even if two parents are not actively involved we need to ensure they pay to maintain their child and not expect the state to have to do it. Currently the people struggling the most are those that are mid earners who are not entitled to any benefits but are getting taxed to the hilt. Their kids might not have any disabilities but they are going to be in poverty soon with the high cost of living, additional taxes and no spare money. While people on benefits for whatever reason are able to afford a lot more. There was lady on here a few months back who was getting £4500 on benefits. She lived in london so her rent was the biggest proportion of her payout but it is still an incredible amount of money to be given without working whether your child is disabled or not. I am all for providing facilities or respite care etc for children with special needs, I just don’t think we should be handing over money like that. There is likely to also be misuse of funds meant for disabled children by their parents.

How would you like benefit claimants to show their 'gratitude', then? On their knees with a begging bowl?!

PP has shared that she is working. But even if she wasn't able to, it's disgusting to suggest that people claiming for genuine disability should be 'grateful'. A safety net for those in need is how the system works. If you'd rather live somewhere people were left to starve due to circumstances beyond their control, maybe you're the one who's in the wrong country.

These threads always end at disabled and vulnerable children, and not at the rest of the out of work population.

Shame, really.

Maybe people should stop bringing the disabled into it then ay?

£2000 per month, is more than I earn, working full time, with a degree .

How lovely to get it for doing nothing at all !!

and still state you are hard done too!!