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.

Inadequate parents should have their children taken into care.

You are one individual. The PP is talking about the redistribution of resources. How much of your resources should be redistributed and to who? Would it be a net loss or gain to you?

Who’s funding the increased demand on social care?

Oh look, more tax!

But children do suffer with inadequate parents whether there is money involved or not. So just providing money doesn’t make an inadequate parent adequate!

because it isn’t f*ing purpose of benefits.
if that’s true, DLA should be made means tested just like PIP should be

Doesn’t go to the inadequate parents to carry on being inadequate though. That’s a win in my book. Being a failure at parenting shouldn’t be an economic choice.

the only solution is to sterilise everyone at birth, then run some type of experiment to see who is worthy of parenting children lol there’s a fair few I know wouldn’t have made the cut! lol

I think the PP is assuming that the benefits are spent on the children by the inadequate parents! Which is perhaps a little naive...

So be an inadequate parent= get life paid for?

Kids aren’t suddenly going to get lifted out of poverty because the benefits cap is lifted. For the majority, it’s their parents who have put them in that situation and it’s their parents keeping them there. They won’t start eating 3 course dinners when mummy and daddy get more money, they’ll be eating the same shit they do now and go on a couple of extra holidays every year instead.

Do you mean a cap on benefits or a cap on having children? Not sure how you stop people having children!

They give them more than 250 million. That is their profit after they have paid the staff and their overheads. What the government give them is a lot lot higher

Jesus this thread is winding me up, I’m making this last comment and coming off. No one claiming benefits should be able to save a single penny. You expect others to pay for you, you shouldn’t get the luxury of saving. If you can afford to save, you are getting paid too much!!

Or be left with grandma while parents enjoy the hols paid for by taxpayers THEY ARE ENTITLED TOOOO!!!

It's welfare, not a salary. And... to safeguard children...?

It seems it’s ok though for people going out to work or have mortgages to be impoverished especially with Rachel Reeves trying to get them to pay even more out of taxation to pay for this nonsense

the government should leave this alone - 2 cap to remain as far as I’m concerned

Make work pay more than sitting at home on benefits having children. Carrot not stick for the feckless.

Yes. Having children in care would be WAY cheaper and safer than having them raised by their parents/family.

Thats a new one.

Parents who aren’t prioritising their children?

Precisely. Which is why Gov should ensure the children at least don't go hungry...?

It means safeguard children instead of letting them suffer.

There are many people on UC who are actually FT employed, and still require the top up UC to get by.

Last time I checked, working full time to provide for your children isn’t inadequate parenting. The issue is often actually a low pay, high cost, problem.

It’s incredibly judgmental to assume that all families “we” pay to support are either at the breadline by choice, or are terrible parents. They’re often just parents in low paid employment who need support to get by.

They’re parents of disabled children who cannot work, or have come out of employment for reasons beyond their control.

I think we need to be careful not to tar everyone with the same benefits brush.

The government need to? Not their clearly inadequate parents?

Who do you think that guy with all the cookies represents?

This. Realistically most of the people on the highest rates have zero chance of ever getting a 35k plus job.

Neither me nor my husband bring home more than 2k a month but we are not entitled to anything (which is fair).

It is absolutely a benefit trap.