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.

Less fortunate or lazier than you? Which ones would you chose to support with the money you presumably have worked for?

I think you should read the post again. I didn't say dogs with no owners.

Well I go right back to the start of this thread. Don't have children if you can't afford to pay for them. Its not rocket science.

I think children shouldn't be made to suffer in impoverished conditions because their parents don't have sufficient income.

And you're painting a specific narrative. Most people who claim benefits actually work.

And I go right back go my original point, a child doesn't choose their parents.

You referred to dogs and "owners". An owner isn't a parent. And doesn't have parental responsibility.

So pay the inadequate parents money to safeguard the children from their own parents?

But this is exactly my point; I don’t expect to rank high on anyone else’s priorities, outside of my immediate family. Why would I?

People need to take responsibility for their own children. Or not have them. It is immoral to have multiple children in excess of two and expect working people to support them.

I wouldn’t begrudge any of their children food/support, whatever the reason for their lack of income.

I prefer to look at it in terms of income and available funds, rather than individual point scoring arguments.

Some people can’t afford to put their heating on, we can. Whether that’s their own fault or not, if my taxes mean someone isn’t freezing in their own home - good.

I have never bought into this idea that having more should automatically mean you’re more selfish.

You may feel you've made a point here, but I assure you there isn't one.

But the benefits arent paid to the child anyway.

And the fact that many people on PIP are working doesn't factor into your one-size-fits-all moralising in any way??

But we are going to have to agree to differ, because far as I'm concerned, if someone's assessed as being entitled to a benefit, they're entitled. That's factual, whereas you seem to want to attach a moral dimension to it which is impossible for people to properly assess from the outside. You sound like you don't even have any notion of how hard it is to actually qualify for PIP.

Incidentally, as I couldn't quite tell whether you were using the impersonal or the personal 'you', I am not claiming benefits myself, but could well need to at some point in the future given my state of health. If that happens, I will be thankful to live in a country that provides some support for the needy, but that's not the same thing as being 'grateful'.

Yes I think so

2 fair enough but no more if you’re not going to fund them yourself

Well you may have just missed it. Which is quite possible as I think you do get in a bit of a muddle sometimes! But no matter.

If discovered a child hungry on the streets, I wouldn't tell it to F off and find it's parents.

I'd happy buy them food, and call for support. Do you get it?

Loool sure.

Having a cap does basically try to give out an educational message to understand having lots of kids is expensive 🤔 The old fashioned idea of providing for your family and 2 with complete government assistance and benefits could be considered fair?

Get rid of the NHS too then. That will save way more money than the child benefit cap.

Yes I think so

That’s not what benefits does though. Benefits here would be you finding the parent, putting the cash in their hand and walking off, with no idea if the money made its way to food for the hungry child.

That's your choice. But taxation isn't a choice.

Do you get it?

It is irresponsible to keep having kids if you can't provide for them is the point being made, which is a fair one.

Would the support be to hand the parents money that you know wouldn’t go to the child?

It does seem a trend nowadays ti.hacebkods and try and get as many of them diagnosed with something as possible. That's the issue with society now is that everybody wants themselves and their kids to be classed as disabled. It won't bode well for the future when must of these kids refuse to work because they have been brought up bring told they are disabled and need benefit money.