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.

Hyperbolic responses again.

I'd buy a voucher that's redeemable for food. And pay for the child's school lunch.

No, the reason threads like this exist is because people insist on spouting knee-jerk opinions about things they don't understand. As far as I am concerned people who have been assessed as eligible to receive a benefit do not have to be grateful for it. And 'handed money without having to do anything' is a pretty odd and insensitive way to describe being in receipt of PIP.

You probably shouldn't be stepping in with a strange child though and assuming the role that a parent should be. I'm just saying that as you sound quite young yourself so maybe just be careful what you do. Call Social Services if you think a child is in danger.

You're advocating that state shouldn't be responsible for welfare. It's certainly not hyperbolic to suggest you can apply that to national health.

A significant proportion of people are sick due to their lifestyle. Obese, drinkers, smokers, lack of exercise - why pay tax to look after them? They should be able to afford health insurance.

That is true actually. Good point although a little harsh perhaps?

In prior post I said I'd call for help (I.e. social services).

@ ruethewhirl Well, since I don’t know you personally, you can assume I’m referring to the general, impersonal “you.”

My own mother receives PIP, so I do have some understanding of how difficult it can be. Even so, I still believe that people have a moral responsibility to feel some gratitude for a non means-tested benefit, given that it’s provided by the current system. Just because someone is entitled to support doesn’t mean there shouldn’t also be appreciation for the system — and for those who are working and paying taxes to help sustain it.

A lack of gratitude really bothers me. It feels unappreciative, and to me, that’s an unfortunate quality.

Yes that's thr right thing. Don't go round interfering in their lunch and buying them things as it could be misconstrued.

You think that's harsh but leaving children in poverty isn't harsh?!?

Just teasing you. I was surprised you who seem to want taxpayers to fund everyone who asks for money seemed so tough on smokers!

Oh, I'm not having any trouble understanding the 'context' of the bile you've been spitting on this thread.

Perhaps own your bigotry.

Oh the "b" word!! That's told her!

these are my words. You are lying.
thats not what I said.

i also ASKED the PP whether she would prefer good residential care to her being the full time carer. And she said she would.

there is no way that many benefit claimants who really need 24/7 care than actually getting PIP/DLA/whatever. The number of benefits claimants for “mental health” in last 5 years doubled, you can’t seriously believe all of them are needing 24/7 caree

Yes. More than I earn.

Sorry you are mistaken. Her whole house gets paid for. She previously owned a house with her ex. They split up and sold the house. As she had the kids with her, she was entitled to social housing. She put a bid in on a new build scheme in our area which offered part ownership and part social housing rented. She put her £100k from the previous house on the new one (that was her share that she owned outright). The rest of the house which is rented from social housing is covered by UC. So she is in fact living in a new build with absolutely no rent or mortgage to pay, plus all the other benefits that come with it. Yes she put £100k of her own money to buy her share, but how is she allowed to purchase a property with £100k and then go straight on to benefits and get all her expenses covered by the tax payer.

Then I have another friend whose mum inherited a lot of money after living in a council house her whole life (wasn’t entitled herself but she lived with her mother who was). She claimed benefits from the moment she came to the country 40 years ago and never worked. Bought a house outright with her large inheritance and then went straight back to living on benefits. In my opinion, she should have been made to repay everything she had been paid, before being allowed to purchase a property and go back to claiming.

This is why I’ve said in another comment, that people are so naive to the benefits culture in this country. People genuinely believe that every one on benefits needs it, they have a hard life and they don’t have bills covered. It’s really not the case!

If the cap fits...

I think the alternative comes across as expecting people to grovel and beg.

It’s giving “please sir, can I have some more?”

I personally think that’s incredibly demeaning and dehumanising, and as a tax payer who contributes to the benefit system - I don’t need it. I don’t even particularly require a thank you.

Some people are supported, others support them. That’s how a functioning and reasonable society works in my book; and I don’t need begging or a round of applause for it.

Support for Mortgage Interest payments is a thing, should you be entitled.

Does it though? Or is it just a bit of a 2023 put-down that has no real meaning anymore. "Bile" is also a little trite and overused these days. But nice try.

It isn’t when you go out to work and earn money either though is it?

You've totally missed the gameplay that's been going on for years with the benefit system! They was a BBC article this week about people getting into debt on buy now, pay later and the article featured two women who've never done a day's work and one has 4 kids & the other 5! And this has been a problem for years! There are working couples out there that would struggle to afford one child, how many working couples have 4 or 5 kids? Why is it that benefits claimants are notorious for having the largest families! Why is daddy not feeding & housing his own kids even though he keeps knocking mummy up! The more kids they have, the more they achieve being unemployable because they've got no skills, have never worked and no salary will pay for their oversized brood!

But you know as well as I do that, in the majority of cases, that is not what happened.

I haven’t missed anything.

My cousin rang me last year at 1pm, no money on the electric meter. She’s got my 11 year old god son in the house. I sorted that out.

She rang again at 4pm, no food in for dinner. Still with the same child in the house. I sorted that.

I know for a fact that the reason she didn’t have any of those things is because she’d spent that money on drugs over the weekend. I also know the reason she rang me is because she knows I have the means to fix her self inflicted problems.

She may not have loads of kids. But she’s the same age as me and has never formally worked since the day we left school (the same school).

She does work, cash in hand, but her rent and council tax are all paid by UC and on paper she’s unemployed so on full benefits.

My father has 7 kids. Never formally worked a day in his life. No NI, or tax, ever. He’s a cash in hand builder who also claimed benefits. When I used to bother to visit him, the first thing he’d do is send me to the shop for drink and cigarettes. Ask for a takeaway.

I can’t have missed the game. My family play it.

And before anyone chimes in, yes I’ve reported the above people.

If we carry on with the trajectory of making it hard for responsible working people to have children, and beneficial for the feckless to have many, we'll eventually wind up with too small a tax base to sustain any of it.
In fact, we may already have arrived at that point.