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.

This is a vile comment, you do realise that a lot of children with high care needs are not apparent until there school age.
A lot of parents will go on to have additional children by then without knowing.

Is that a ban on disabled parents having children as well?

Only if their disability stops them from financially and emotionally looking after a child?

Just for a bit of context - the basic universal credit entitlement for a single person is about £400 a month (less if you're under 25). You'd likely be entitled to more for housing costs and council tax support, but most private renters don't get enough to cover their rent and most people have to pay something towards council tax so you could be paying £100+ of that £400 in rent and council tax. Leaving less than £300 a month to cover all other bills and living expenses.

Yes the total amount whole households receive factoring in children, rent, disability etc can add up but when you break it down to what they benefits system gives individuals to meet specific needs it can paint a different picture.

I read the comment as being stretched too thin. If a parent has a high needs child, will they have the bandwidth to give subsequent children the care and attention they need? I have a friend who spent years in and out of the childrens’ hospital and said she couldn’t have any more, as she was stretched too thin. Fair enough.

Nope the qoute said 'entitled'

There are lots of disabled people that have children that work but need pip to do so.
Are they allowed to have children?

Sorry Quote! Autocorrect again!

Everyone is 'allowed' to have children. But the parents need to be financially and emotionally responsible.

At breaking point, the IMF will introduce tough measures, those on benefits seem to think they will be immune but the fact they rely on government money means they will be hit hardest. I would think very carefully about having a child now if you are not financially secure.

They should go through the same thought process as people who are not receiving any benefits do. Can I afford to have a child?

So all the people that do the less well paid jobs like shop workers,care home workers,TAs,cleaners should not have children?

Judging by the picture, I agree, we do have a resource distribution problem BUT we also have an 'absent father problem'. He's obviously allowed to fuck off and not take adequate care of his kids. Why is the mum the only one struggling?

We also have an 'irresponsible parents problem'. They go on to have another child/more children when they're already struggling to financially take care of one disabled older child and themselves. Why do that to yourself and your kids, then expect others to pick up the slack instead?

All these problems should be tackled.

if the benefits system only gives people an absolute basic subsistence amount, not a penny left over at the end of the month, what happens when the washing machine breaks down or you need a winter coat or anything else beyond the basic ability to stay alive?

Not that people often have enough to save but it's idiotic to think that people's costs are completely consistent and predictable from week to week or month to month.

I remember that the currency devalued massively and everything that was imported or had imports in the supply chain became 3-5 times more expensive literally overnight.
benefits weren’t massive before but they basically became worthless, because everything was so expensive.

Massive public and private sector layoffs- or hidden layoffs where people just were not paid for months although officially employed. Like, literally zero pay. Imagine that.
Public spending was cut massively - police, roads, healthcare, etc. healthcare was free but there was literally no meds or bandages in hospitals; you had to buy your own everythinh and bring your own food. My dad had heart valve replacement and we paid out of pocket for all spare parts and meds!

Taxes probably increased but I was a student, so don’t remember that part well.

Being nice i.e throwing money at them clearly doesn't work. The only way to correct their behaviour is to cut benefits- tough love approach. Difficult but in the long term the desired outcome will be achieved.

My disability wasnt as bad as it became when I had children. It was under control and managed. By the time they were at school it was obvious that I was only ever going to get worse.

It may not be White British culture to have more than three children-speaking generally.

However, it is the culture of many other British cultures to do so, particularly Pakistani and Bangladeshi communities. Other religions like the Catholic religion also find themselves having to have large families.

So, there really is a racist undertone to suggesting that the taxpayer should not have to contribute small amounts to support other cultures.

Luckily, the Labour party recognise this and want to help, although of course they cannot say it aloud for fear of racist kickback.

Do you have more than two children?

Ok can you explain this to me please. Im not an expert on the benefit system at all, I also haven't RTFT but I saw this post and wanted to understand something.
A friend of mine lets out his flat. The rent is 2100 month. He has recently got a new tenant. This tenant works part time, I think 16 hours a week as an auxiliary nurse. The council cover 1900 of her rent, she pays 200. Her child is age 10.
So essentially she is working 16 hours a week to l receive an income tax free of £22,800 PLUS her actual wage. £22,800 tax free is the equivalent of a gross income of close to 30k, with her salary on top.
She is essential getting to live in a really nice 450k flat for £200 a month and only work 16 hours a week, why?!?
I don't know what other benefits she she receives but presumably there are more at that salary level. It is absurd!

She either has a disabled child so doesn't need to work or the sixteen hours is enough to hit the amount she needs to have no commitments.

Not relevant at all

What does the last bit mean? 'hit the amount she needs to have no commitments'?

That applies to everyone. But people need to remember that benefits are paid for by working people. And many working people dont have savings either. And also have to work.

If she earns over a certain amount (18 hours per week at NMW) she doesn't need to look for more work

Oh and also tons of banks and saving societies collapsed and government couldn’t rescue them so people lost their savings and companies lost their business funds with them.
and not everyone got a compensation from the government (or when it came years ago it was partial /worthless). We were lucky that we managed to take out funds which were meant for a share in a flat.

oh and property prices collapsed of course

to be fair it wasn’t just an IMF bailout, it was a failed bailout. So the government defaulted on its loans AND we still had to pay IMF back

the repayment was national news until we repaid everything

I think you are looking for prejudice where there is none. If you happened to live in a country that was pronatalist and rewarded high birth rates would you expect the government to make financial allowances for your decision to have a smaller family because smaller families are the norm in your culture? I think we would all recognise this as being preposterorius and yet this is literally what you're expecting our government to do

The policy is not racist. The rules apply equally to everyone. I know plenty of people from the cultures that you are referring to that have chosen to have smaller families. The religion argument doesn't really work either when white Christians make up the majority of religious people and they have been told by the bible to 'go forth and multiply'. Arguably it is therefore white people that will be most impacted by the cap.