Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

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

1000 replies

Pinkbowls · 12/11/2025 13:24

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.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
7
Leavesfalling · 12/11/2025 22:10

Outside9 · 12/11/2025 22:05

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

Where do you think the money comes from to pay these "inadequate parents" that you refer to. It makes no difference what word you use to describe it. Its still money paid to people who dont work by people who do work.

Do you think the inadequate parents spend the money on the welfare of the children? To safeguard them? Because I have a funny feeling that may not be the case...

Outside9 · 12/11/2025 22:10

Candystripes85 · 12/11/2025 22:02

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.

Welfare isn't a salary.

Outside9 · 12/11/2025 22:11

suburburban · 12/11/2025 22:06

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

Edited

Having a mortgage =/= being impoverished.

dogsandbudgey · 12/11/2025 22:11

@Outside9 but would some kind of voucher scheme not work better than giving cash to parents? How does throwing money into parents bank account guarantee that the child will actually be fed.

Leavesfalling · 12/11/2025 22:12

Outside9 · 12/11/2025 22:10

Welfare isn't a salary.

You've got in a bit of a muddle I think. We all know it isn't a salary. Because the recipients (the parents) dont work.

Outside9 · 12/11/2025 22:13

TwinkleTwinkleLittleBatgirl · 12/11/2025 22:08

Parents who aren’t prioritising their children?

You'd rather pay more to have children taken away from their families than to just safeguard the innocent children? Ok

Happilyobtuse · 12/11/2025 22:13

Leavesfalling · 12/11/2025 22:02

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

That’s just daft isn’t it?! I know someone who was given a house as she was a single mother and had a child at 18. She was totally inadequate as a parent and often spent all her benefits money on clothes, cigarettes, drugs etc. The father of the child is totally absent. Then she fell pregnant again by another man this time. Again he has left the scene and wants nothing to do with her. Both her children have now been taken into foster care by her elder sister. Giving this woman money has not benefited her children at all. They were often hungry, dirty and uncared for. This is very often the case! So money doesn’t suddenly make someone a good parent. I would rather give money to those who are working hard full time and still struggling moneywise. With that work ethic they are more likely to put the money to good use.

suburburban · 12/11/2025 22:13

Outside9 · 12/11/2025 22:11

Having a mortgage =/= being impoverished.

It can do, I remember being in that situation

Leavesfalling · 12/11/2025 22:14

Outside9 · 12/11/2025 22:13

You'd rather pay more to have children taken away from their families than to just safeguard the innocent children? Ok

Paying money doesn't "safeguard" children. Again I think you've got in a bit of a muddle.

UnhappyHobbit · 12/11/2025 22:14

Candystripes85 · 12/11/2025 22:04

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!!

Exactly this! I personally know of someone who was found to have thousands in their flat when they died. They lived their life on benefits and withdrew their benefits each week and didn’t claim what they had saved in cash. It actually sickened me that this money was passed on relatives and not back to the state. That’s not the only example of this I know of either!

OnlyMabelInTheBuilding · 12/11/2025 22:14

Outside9 · 12/11/2025 22:10

Welfare isn't a salary.

Correct. Salary is worked for.

Welfare benefits are given to you thanks to other people who work.

Outside9 · 12/11/2025 22:14

TwinkleTwinkleLittleBatgirl · 12/11/2025 22:09

The government need to? Not their clearly inadequate parents?

I don't think dogs should starve because their owners can't be bothered to feed them.

I rank children above dogs.

Frannieisnthappy · 12/11/2025 22:15

Candystripes85 · 12/11/2025 21:40

Considering the current cap is more than my monthly salary (I also have 2 children), no I don’t think it should be lifted. I can’t get any help because I have a mortgage, but my friend who has a shared ownership house gets hers paid for entirely as she technically ‘rents’ half her house. They need to sort out the current system before spending any more money.

Well that isn’t entirely true and depends on your friends circumstances. She will still need to pay her mortgage regardless and any UC amount will be based on her income, what the local housing allowance rate is, how many bedrooms are needed for children, wrap around care.

She wont be getting her whole house paid for via UC.

OnlyMabelInTheBuilding · 12/11/2025 22:15

Outside9 · 12/11/2025 22:14

I don't think dogs should starve because their owners can't be bothered to feed them.

I rank children above dogs.

My own dogs rank above other people’s children.

Outside9 · 12/11/2025 22:16

Leavesfalling · 12/11/2025 22:10

Where do you think the money comes from to pay these "inadequate parents" that you refer to. It makes no difference what word you use to describe it. Its still money paid to people who dont work by people who do work.

Do you think the inadequate parents spend the money on the welfare of the children? To safeguard them? Because I have a funny feeling that may not be the case...

By this logic, get rid of the NHS. I'm not sick. I don't want to pay tax to look after sick people.

K0OLA1D · 12/11/2025 22:16

OnlyMabelInTheBuilding · 12/11/2025 22:15

My own dogs rank above other people’s children.

And there we go. Fuck me

Outside9 · 12/11/2025 22:16

Leavesfalling · 12/11/2025 22:12

You've got in a bit of a muddle I think. We all know it isn't a salary. Because the recipients (the parents) dont work.

Ok?

Leavesfalling · 12/11/2025 22:17

Outside9 · 12/11/2025 22:14

I don't think dogs should starve because their owners can't be bothered to feed them.

I rank children above dogs.

So you equate children with dogs that have no owners.

Children have parents who usually decide to have a child. The parent of that child then, usually in this country, take responsibility for that child. Legally its called "parental responsibility " and there is a legal duty of care the parent owes to that child.

They are not a dog with no owner.

SleeplessInWherever · 12/11/2025 22:17

OnlyMabelInTheBuilding · 12/11/2025 22:15

My own dogs rank above other people’s children.

This is a nonsense response and you know it.

You’re not struggling to feed your dogs, I’m not struggling to feed my kids. Nobody is suggesting starving my children so I can pay to feed someone else’s.

Some of us have financial shoulders broad enough to both support our families and contribute to the welfare “pot” that supports people who are less fortunate. In my opinion, we should.

Outside9 · 12/11/2025 22:17

dogsandbudgey · 12/11/2025 22:11

@Outside9 but would some kind of voucher scheme not work better than giving cash to parents? How does throwing money into parents bank account guarantee that the child will actually be fed.

We do have voucher schemes. Housing benefit for example often goes directly to housing associations.

Leavesfalling · 12/11/2025 22:19

Outside9 · 12/11/2025 22:16

By this logic, get rid of the NHS. I'm not sick. I don't want to pay tax to look after sick people.

Sickness is involuntary usually (unless you smoke etc).

Having children is usually voluntary.

Outside9 · 12/11/2025 22:19

Leavesfalling · 12/11/2025 22:14

Paying money doesn't "safeguard" children. Again I think you've got in a bit of a muddle.

The stats says otherwise. We are having less babies, and yet more children are in poverty since the cap was introduced.

Outside9 · 12/11/2025 22:19

Leavesfalling · 12/11/2025 22:19

Sickness is involuntary usually (unless you smoke etc).

Having children is usually voluntary.

A child doesn't choose their parents.

Outside9 · 12/11/2025 22:20

OnlyMabelInTheBuilding · 12/11/2025 22:15

My own dogs rank above other people’s children.

Don't be surprised if people feel the same way about you in a different situation.

suburburban · 12/11/2025 22:20

You could have an accident then need the NHS or develop health problems

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.