Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

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
Ihateboris · 12/11/2025 17:11

angelos02 · 12/11/2025 17:07

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?

Yes, I work 40 hours a week on just above minimum wage. Once my rent, bills and travel expenses have gone out, I have fuck all left. Really pisses me off when I'm getting up in the dark and coming home in the dark and see people NOT going to work but get more than me.

TwinkleTwinkleLittleBatgirl · 12/11/2025 17:11

Asctreow · 12/11/2025 16:55

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.

What scenario? That a person on benefits takes home almost as much as a full time worker?
The audacity that a person be expected to find work once they were offered free childcare?

Ticklyoctopus · 12/11/2025 17:12

Issueswiththetap · 12/11/2025 17:11

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

…and this is the issue. With the equivalent of the entire population of Scotland claiming PIP or DLA, how many households do you think are not subject to the cap?

popcornandpotatoes · 12/11/2025 17:12

MossAndLeaves · 12/11/2025 13:54

Could you comfortably live off that?..

No, that's why we go to work and chose to have one child

user1471538275 · 12/11/2025 17:14

@Asctreow You think it's 'disgusting' to suggest that people who are entirely dependent on the state should only live a basic lifestyle.

You think it's disgusting that people who work for a living, who get up every day to go to work in a stressful environment should expect slightly more than those who don't.

Well I think it's disgusting that people's expectations are that their lifestyle should be better than those people who are paying towards it through hard graft.

People working full time are struggling for these basics, but somehow you think others who are state supported should have a better lifestyle than them.

Marshmallow4545 · 12/11/2025 17:15

Youdontseehow · 12/11/2025 17:00

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.

Having more than 2 children should only be a decision made by those with an immense amount of financial resilience. They are a luxury and you should be sure that you could cope with often quite predictable changes in circumstance.

PractisingMyTelekenipsis · 12/11/2025 17:16

Hyasinth · 12/11/2025 17:07

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?

They won't. I know NEETS who are living at home. Mum lost all child related benefits when child left school. The amount the now adult child gets in UC is less than mum got anyway. Now mum is struggling even more, even if DC pays rent. But the alternative is kicking the child out, which most people won't do. So poverty continues. I dont know what the solution is though.

And LCWRA seems to be random. I didnt leave my house for 2 years as I had severe agoraphobia. I was turned down for LCWRA. Yet I know people who get it for anxiety who are out and about everyday.

Livelovebehappy · 12/11/2025 17:17

Asctreow · 12/11/2025 17:04

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?

Maybe because living on benefits is designed to pay for the basics and necessities, not to allow people to enjoy life by giving them extra for holidays and steak. Why would it be fair to give them extra money for luxuries, whilst those that live on their salaries who are not entitled to or claiming benefits have to go without?

Ticklyoctopus · 12/11/2025 17:17

We desperately need Kemi Badenoch in charge but I think it’s unlikely to happen. It’s such a shame. The reason Reeves was crying when her benefit reforms went up in flames is because she knew how serious this would be for our economy.

UserFront242 · 12/11/2025 17:21

Julen7 · 12/11/2025 17:06

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

That is because people on legacy benefits are being migrated over to UC.

Youdontseehow · 12/11/2025 17:21

Marshmallow4545 · 12/11/2025 17:15

Having more than 2 children should only be a decision made by those with an immense amount of financial resilience. They are a luxury and you should be sure that you could cope with often quite predictable changes in circumstance.

Where is your evidence that two DC is the optimal amount?

we can look forward to a future where there are not enough workers to provide for our ever expanding population.

Ihateboris · 12/11/2025 17:21

angelos02 · 12/11/2025 17:09

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

It's making me angry too. However way you look at it, our inept government are literally giving money away, and making it too easy to make a decision to either work or claim benefits.

TwinkleTwinkleLittleBatgirl · 12/11/2025 17:23

PractisingMyTelekenipsis · 12/11/2025 17:16

They won't. I know NEETS who are living at home. Mum lost all child related benefits when child left school. The amount the now adult child gets in UC is less than mum got anyway. Now mum is struggling even more, even if DC pays rent. But the alternative is kicking the child out, which most people won't do. So poverty continues. I dont know what the solution is though.

And LCWRA seems to be random. I didnt leave my house for 2 years as I had severe agoraphobia. I was turned down for LCWRA. Yet I know people who get it for anxiety who are out and about everyday.

Why would the alternative not be… mum and dc get paid employment?
That they should instantly claim UC instead of looking for training/work, is exactly what the threads about!

Ticklyoctopus · 12/11/2025 17:23

There is absolutely zero reason why an able bodied 19 year old should be claiming benefits unless they’re severely mental ill to the extent section looks likely. It’s actually offensive. I know disabled people who work who are full time wheelchair users, were born without one arm, who have a muscle wasting disease, who have had organ transplants, who have Down Syndrome. It’s so offensive.

Goldwren1923 · 12/11/2025 17:23

If it makes no difference then why lift it? It sends a wrong message.

I’m very dissapointed they backed down from benefits bill reform

Rescuedogblues · 12/11/2025 17:23

Im on benefits. Uncapped. These threads make me feel like shit.

K0OLA1D · 12/11/2025 17:24

Livelovebehappy · 12/11/2025 17:17

Maybe because living on benefits is designed to pay for the basics and necessities, not to allow people to enjoy life by giving them extra for holidays and steak. Why would it be fair to give them extra money for luxuries, whilst those that live on their salaries who are not entitled to or claiming benefits have to go without?

Why is it fair that I am disabled and others are not? I would happily give my PIP and disability to you if you so wish?

Ticklyoctopus · 12/11/2025 17:24

TwinkleTwinkleLittleBatgirl · 12/11/2025 17:23

Why would the alternative not be… mum and dc get paid employment?
That they should instantly claim UC instead of looking for training/work, is exactly what the threads about!

This, the ‘solution’ is work. Why wouldn’t it be?

I think we would be amazed at what people are capable of when they have no other choice.

Issueswiththetap · 12/11/2025 17:25

Ticklyoctopus · 12/11/2025 17:12

…and this is the issue. With the equivalent of the entire population of Scotland claiming PIP or DLA, how many households do you think are not subject to the cap?

It would be unfair to cap them as that would effectively remove their disability benefits.

Chafing · 12/11/2025 17:25

Well I have a NEET living at home. LWCRA was difficult to get and only accessed on mandatory reconsideration and after a meeting with a doctor. My adult child gets no benefits now apart from pip (didn't spend any money due to their disability and so reached maximum "savings" within 18 months) and, surprise surprise, wasn't back at college or in a job in a week because their difficulties don't enable that. If they took away pip as well, guess what, they still wouldn't be able to work. They did a supported internship but the provider was unable to find a workplace that could adapt sufficiently to meet their needs.

You don't get LWCRA "for anxiety". Here are the criteria. You have to get 15 points in any 1 area.

Limited capability for work and work related activity element of Universal Credit | Advice now share.google/MidHr0SmjFGv21BHH

Not that anyone on this thread will be swayed by whatever I write...

itsgettingweird · 12/11/2025 17:25

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.

Disagree with this entirely.

No one chooses to have a child with severe SEND that requires 24/7 care.

If you do why should you only receive the basics in life because you can’t work.

It costs far more for these families to place their children voluntarily in care so they can work.

The issue isn’t so much removing the cap it’s that the systems are no longer in place to allow these families to work (eg respite care).

Add to that accessible housing is no longer being built so housing these families is almost impossible too.

PractisingMyTelekenipsis · 12/11/2025 17:25

TwinkleTwinkleLittleBatgirl · 12/11/2025 17:23

Why would the alternative not be… mum and dc get paid employment?
That they should instantly claim UC instead of looking for training/work, is exactly what the threads about!

But in some cases Mum is already working. Her income still goes down when the child leaves education. Maybe she's working as much as possible. Maybe she has younger children and is at home.
Of course leaving school and claiming benefits immediately isnt an option. But "just get a job" isn't always possible. For many many reasons.

NotEnoughKnittingTime · 12/11/2025 17:26

Rescuedogblues · 12/11/2025 17:23

Im on benefits. Uncapped. These threads make me feel like shit.

They are one step away from disability or redundancy. But for the grace of god go I.

UserFront242 · 12/11/2025 17:26

This thread is one of the most depressing and nasty I have seen in a while, and that is saying something.

Are we really at a point now where benefit claimants are hated so much that someone has suggested that they be forced to go on birth control (which would just be women, seeing as there is not birth control for men).
Or the disabled not be allowed anything other than the very basics. Not even allowed a steak (They are about £3 in Home Bargains).

Any one of you parroting the line about benefit claimants are the fault for the countries financial woes need to remember that you are just one slip down the stairs away from becoming one yourself.

Some of you ought to be fucking ashamed.

Hankunamatata · 12/11/2025 17:26

Money would be better spent on healthcare. Than more benefits

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