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 true. The children of claimants are far more likely just to become claimants themselves.

Are you saying that disabled people who don't work shouldn't have a comfortable life style? My DC has severe learning difficulties and will need livelong 24/7 care. I doubt anyone will employ them as they would need 1:1 support all day long. What kind of lifestyle is in your view acceptable for someone like DC who doesn't contribute? What lifestyle would you find acceptable for us as a family (if one parent has to give up work to become a full time carer)?

That’s about 2.9% of the population.

And not isn’t being “successful”. It’s 2.9% of the country being disabled enough to qualify.

all of us working to fund this are fools

I’m bringing my retirement forward. I refuse to be used as a cash cow for a minute longer than I have to

Does it go on bills, just like a working persons salary?

I also think we need to force men to pay more for their kids and reduce benefits accordingly. My best friend has an 8 year old with her ex, he left when their daughter was 3, he lives a few miles away and earns 70k (it’s also a poorer area so his mortgage etc will be minimal). He now lives with his new girlfriend and their baby and doesn’t pay a penny to my friend as he takes their child half the time. Meanwhile my friend works 15 hours and the rest is UC. Why the fuck should the state be paying to house and feed his child when he’s a high earner?!

That’s wonderful! You have clearly done a great job parenting your son - and perhaps he was also lucky to have the right mental attitude.

The problem I see in my area is second and third generation welfare families. The parents (usually one parent) do their best but have lost any work skills they might have acquired at school. They bring the children up as best they can but they are not good role models and cannot really help with the job search. Many also suffer from low mood etc. Some quite like having the kids and their NEET friends around as it brightens up their lives.

I think most of the older adults are beyond help..nobody is going to offer a job to someone who has been out of the work force for years. But it seems criminally negligent to me to write off 16-24 year olds and consign them to be benefit claimants for life.

Job search/upskilling etc should be a full time occupation with attendance at a job search centre or college for eg 36 hours a week. Anyone turning up late or not turning up on a regular basis should have their benefits docked.

are dysfunctional

I have a friend who is quadriplegic and has a brain injury. Why do you wish that he has an even harder life by having to limit heating, care, food and specialist clothing?

Only just less for me on the state pension!

Yes DH (a lifelong Labour voter, the type who never goes to the doctor’s and has never missed a day of work) is angrier than I’ve ever seen him and saying the same.

Is that not the point?

If the DC is with him half the time (and the child doesn't have disabilities), the question should be: why does your friend works 15 hours only given the child is 8 and in full time education??? That is not normal. The dad has the DD half the time. he does his bit. The mum is obviously workshy, sorry.

I don't think they should lift it.

Or at least I think there needs to be a public debate about whether we want to encourage big families (for me anything bigger than two kids is big ;) ) On the one hand we are told that we don't have enough kids being born to pay our pensions in the future. But on the other hand we have too many people in the world, not enough housing on our small island etc.

If we decide we do want big families, then we need to invest in them. Which may or may not involve removing the benefits cap. But might well be better spent on education, libraries, sport for kids etc.

But we need a debate, not a knee jerk decision.

Lot of people on here want children to suffer because they chose to have the wrong parents

You always get this kind of response on these threads.

Nobody here is talking about people with severe learning difficulties, serious illness etc. These people and their families should get more than they currently get.

We are talking about the thousands of people who are fit and well and could go out and get a job or attend college if it was in their financial interests to do so. But the system has developed in such a way that it is not.

I dont feel I am better than anyone no. But I have also had to work a hell of a lot harder in life than most non disabled people. And I also do not have ADHD.

I choose to work. I have been questioned since my 20s why I choose to continue by my consultants. I have things in place to help me work. Including my PIP. If I lost this job for whatever reason I would find it extremely difficult to find another.

Yes. Also these kids have a harder life than a child who's parents have the money, space and time to support them so they are less likely to succeed in education, and are more likely to end up on benefits themselves.

Basic. They've said it multiple times.

But that number does not include their housing if they rent so they actually do get more than 800 unless they have no rent.

where did I say that?

Thank you @MidnightPatrol,that's me exactly. I'm middle aged and well qualified in my field (hence various student loans lol). There has to be some benefit to working, studying etc, otherwise the social contract is broken.
We also need capable, conscientious people who are prepared to work for average salaries.
I cannot fathom why the Labour govt would lift the cap, when they keep claiming we're skint and also, polls show the public are against it. They are fearful of labour MPs, who claim to care about child poverty, but are sadly, more interested in keeping their jobs, than doing what's right for society in the long term.

If people put half as much energy into tackling the ever widening gap between the rich and the poor as they do benefits bashing, people might see their standard of living and wages improve. Instead they go after the poorest in society because it makes them feel better about themselves. Pathetic really.

Anyone reading this thread on universal credit, please ignore them. I once worked for a housing association and the majority of mums were trying their bloody hardest while the father of their children were nowhere to be seen. To a pp, no I don't think these women or their children should have just the basics in life. As a civilised (and wealthy!!) country, we should be trying our fucking hardest to give our children the best start in life. Absolutely disgraceful comments on this thread.

You think that he should lead a basic life with no luxuries.. like a steak.. thats where you said it

Have you even seen a DLA/PIP form ?
Read the decision makers handbook ?
Had a PIP assessment?
know how much additional evidence you need to provide ?