Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

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
K0OLA1D · 12/11/2025 16:51

Iwishicouldflyhigh · 12/11/2025 16:49

This is my issue with benefits.

it shouldn’t be there so you can live ‘comfortably’, benefits should be a safety net so you are houses, fed, warm whilst you get a job.

them you can ‘live comfortably’.

Not PIP.

elevenpiperspiping · 12/11/2025 16:52

we need to keep the cap, and maybe think about having a cap on child benefit as well.

Hyasinth · 12/11/2025 16:52

Livelovebehappy · 12/11/2025 16:47

Those who are on benefits and low wages shouldn’t be having 4/5/6 children. They can’t afford them so shouldn’t be encouraged and supported by the government to increase their families when they can’t afford to. Too many people think that whatever their circumstances they have a ‘right’ to have as many children they want. Ive always worked full time. Would have loved to have had more than two DCs, but I couldn’t afford so stopped at two. Surely this is how all people should think.

The people who do not have a “right” to have children are the people who are working hard and paying their own way in the SE - something very wrong there!

Asctreow · 12/11/2025 16:55

TwinkleTwinkleLittleBatgirl · 12/11/2025 13:26

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).
you say that like it’s a bad amount of money to receive with out having to take on the responsibility and stress of work and paying tax!

Well, most of it would go to a landlord, and it would leave a single parent in that position in poverty unless their rent was unusually low, and they would have to be looking for work and then in work when the youngest child was 3, in order to receive it, so there's no possibility of the scenario you describe ever occurring.

Ticklyoctopus · 12/11/2025 16:56

Iwishicouldflyhigh · 12/11/2025 16:49

This is my issue with benefits.

it shouldn’t be there so you can live ‘comfortably’, benefits should be a safety net so you are houses, fed, warm whilst you get a job.

them you can ‘live comfortably’.

My issue with benefits is that they honestly ruin people’s lives, and they don’t even realise it’s happening. This is a very common scenario I encounter at work:

Teenager leaves school, works some kind of minimum wage job for a bit on and off, don’t leave home though. Use the money for weed, alcohol.

Eventually gets the sack as they don’t turn up or are lazy.

Sign on. Carry on smoking and drinking, staying up all night. This goes on for a number of months.

After a year or two their brains are pretty addled from sleeping all day and drug/alcohol misuse, they get some kind of mental health or neurodivergent diagnosis and use this to switch to LCWRA

They never go back to work as they’re not expected to. The benefit money just allows them to fester all day addling their brains and embedding bad habits until they’re unemployable. After 10 years, literally no employer would touch them with a barge pole. They’re on benefits for life, shoplift, petty crime, ‘disabled and vulnerable’.

Of course along the way they meet sexual partners, have kids no problem, claim benefits for them. The kids then may or may not get a diagnosis and the whole thing starts again.

What would’ve happened if they’d never been allowed to claim to start with?

Ticklyoctopus · 12/11/2025 16:58

In my opinion there should be a cap so no household whatsoever brings in more in total benefits than 25k, because nobody should be getting more than the average wage for not working.

Ticklyoctopus · 12/11/2025 16:59

Ticklyoctopus · 12/11/2025 16:56

My issue with benefits is that they honestly ruin people’s lives, and they don’t even realise it’s happening. This is a very common scenario I encounter at work:

Teenager leaves school, works some kind of minimum wage job for a bit on and off, don’t leave home though. Use the money for weed, alcohol.

Eventually gets the sack as they don’t turn up or are lazy.

Sign on. Carry on smoking and drinking, staying up all night. This goes on for a number of months.

After a year or two their brains are pretty addled from sleeping all day and drug/alcohol misuse, they get some kind of mental health or neurodivergent diagnosis and use this to switch to LCWRA

They never go back to work as they’re not expected to. The benefit money just allows them to fester all day addling their brains and embedding bad habits until they’re unemployable. After 10 years, literally no employer would touch them with a barge pole. They’re on benefits for life, shoplift, petty crime, ‘disabled and vulnerable’.

Of course along the way they meet sexual partners, have kids no problem, claim benefits for them. The kids then may or may not get a diagnosis and the whole thing starts again.

What would’ve happened if they’d never been allowed to claim to start with?

Edited

And honestly this scenario is so so so common, it may not be something that middle class Mumsnetters recognise but then neither did I until I encountered it. These people are not users of this website, you wouldn’t hear from them on here, only more articulate claimants with less outrageous claims

Youdontseehow · 12/11/2025 17:00

Dorisbonson · 12/11/2025 16:51

So people on benefits get more free child care, free accomodation and have larger families than those that work who dont get free childcare (or get lower amounts of free child care) and have to balance working with bringing up kids.

Its a crazy system where its easier for those on benefits to have larger families than those who work.

I fundamentally disagree with a country that penalises working parents. Its totally wrong.

On average children will do what their parents did, throughout history for many reasons. Its a shame but unfortunately those children of people on benefits are statistically more likely to be on benefits themselves.

If you are on benefits you should be on birth control because if you cant pay for your own kids you shouldnt expect us to. You should be responsible. Those on benefits who want kids can get a job.

Yeah but you’re still not acknowledging those whose circumstances changed and find their DC “unaffordable”.

But I do agree that living on benefits should not be financially easier than working.

Tesremos82 · 12/11/2025 17:00

newusernamex1000 · 12/11/2025 16:03

@Winteriscoming80I said something similar on another thread. My sisters best friend has 5 daughter, and trying for a son. 4 of those children are disabled so the cap is lifted for her. It’s feckless.

She will still only be able to claim for 2 children. Despite the benefit cap not applying to her. Unless she was claiming for more than 2 children before 2013.

LilySad91 · 12/11/2025 17:01

Sorry - we can't afford it.

Reeves raised taxes to fund increased spending like this. Result: unemployment sky rocketed. Result: Taxes will be raised again.

It's called the tax doom loop and we're now in it.

The only way out is to cut spending.

kittywittyandpretty · 12/11/2025 17:01

MossAndLeaves · 12/11/2025 13:54

Could you comfortably live off that?..

I do !
And work for it

Chafing · 12/11/2025 17:02

"mental health or neurodivergent diagnosis and use this to switch to LCWRA"

LWCRA is hard to get and not awarded on the basis of any neurodivergent diagnosis. Have you looked at the criteria?

nellly · 12/11/2025 17:02

Pinkbowls · 12/11/2025 13:28

I know that’s a lot of money. But my point is the lifting of the cap seems symbolic as a lot of people won’t actually recieve the extra money.

Well then why do it 🤷🏻‍♀️ it’s a kick in the teeth to those of us scraping by on middle wages, being hammered by the cost of living and not getting access to things like free school meals and social tariffs on broadband.

tbey would be better off setting up a discretionary fund and dealing with it like that for the odd family it can help

Asctreow · 12/11/2025 17:04

user1471538275 · 12/11/2025 14:30

It shouldn't be 'comfortable'. If you are supported by the state - no matter the reason, whether pension credit, no work available in your area, unable to work due to illness, caring duties etc then it should be a basic existence.

Basic food, basic shelter, basic provision of utilities.

If you want more than this (essentially a universal basic income) then working should allow you to have a better standard of living.

Not working should never leave you having a better lifestyle than people working full time.

There has to be an incentive to work the difficult stressful low paid jobs in our society - and more and more jobs are being rolled into 'low pay' by the day.

This is so disgusting an attitude, it's horrifying to read. Wanting disabled people, full time carers, elderly people to be forced to live on a basic, subsistence income. Why wouldn't you want to support them and allow them to enjoy life?

angelos02 · 12/11/2025 17:04

The whole system is so unfair - people that don't work seem to want a lifestyle close to those that do. While doing naff all to get there and just leeching off others. I'm sick of saying this but there should be a huge difference in the lifestyle of someone that works (even on minimum wage) and someone that doesn't. Trouble is, there isn't that much difference - especially for young people that can't afford to move out of their parent's home due to housing costs. May as well not work - as a lot of them have realised. I don't think I'd bother. Mugs game.

RaininSummer · 12/11/2025 17:05

MossAndLeaves · 12/11/2025 13:54

Could you comfortably live off that?..

I don't see why not. Pensioners are expected to live on 13 thou a year and myself and partner manage on two grand a month. If they can't manage assuming no disabilities, they need to work or work more.

Ticklyoctopus · 12/11/2025 17:05

Chafing · 12/11/2025 17:02

"mental health or neurodivergent diagnosis and use this to switch to LCWRA"

LWCRA is hard to get and not awarded on the basis of any neurodivergent diagnosis. Have you looked at the criteria?

Yes and it is absolutely NOT hard to get - there are 2.2 MILLION people claiming it!

Ihateboris · 12/11/2025 17:05

Ticklyoctopus · 12/11/2025 16:58

In my opinion there should be a cap so no household whatsoever brings in more in total benefits than 25k, because nobody should be getting more than the average wage for not working.

Completely agree with this 👏.

Julen7 · 12/11/2025 17:06

Ticklyoctopus · 12/11/2025 17:05

Yes and it is absolutely NOT hard to get - there are 2.2 MILLION people claiming it!

Actually over 4 million according to yesterday’s figures. Increased 1 million under Labour.

angelos02 · 12/11/2025 17:07

Ihateboris · 12/11/2025 17:05

Completely agree with this 👏.

Not even the average wage - make it the minimum wage. Workers on NMW have to survive so why shouldn't those that don't work?

Hyasinth · 12/11/2025 17:07

Ticklyoctopus · 12/11/2025 16:59

And honestly this scenario is so so so common, it may not be something that middle class Mumsnetters recognise but then neither did I until I encountered it. These people are not users of this website, you wouldn’t hear from them on here, only more articulate claimants with less outrageous claims

If benefits were withdrawn for NEETS living at home I can guarantee that most of them would be back to college or in a job within a week.

And for those young people living “independently” in next steps style accommodation benefits should be replaced by meal vouchers. Bus pass linked to college attendance/doing a job.

We should be slating the government for allowing/facilitating/encouraging all of these young people to rot their brains and lose any self confidence they may have had to start. Why are we not training these people to eg drive a truck, do plumbing and building instead of importing truck drivers, plumbers and the like from abroad?

mumofoneAloneandwell · 12/11/2025 17:08

A sane take on mumsnet

A breath of fresh air honestly 🙌

angelos02 · 12/11/2025 17:09

I didn't realise NEETS could claim benefits? Honestly, this thread is making me so angry.

Allseeingallknowing · 12/11/2025 17:10

Ticklyoctopus · 12/11/2025 16:58

In my opinion there should be a cap so no household whatsoever brings in more in total benefits than 25k, because nobody should be getting more than the average wage for not working.

That was the government’s plan- something went wrong, and plenty get more by not working ! So dispiriting.

Issueswiththetap · 12/11/2025 17:11

Ihateboris · 12/11/2025 17:05

Completely agree with this 👏.

There is a general cap but it doesn’t apply to families where there is dla/pip

Please create an account

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

This thread is not accepting new messages.
Swipe left for the next trending thread