Getting paid £3513.72 tax free per year for each 3rd, 4th or more child if on UC

[WishingIwasyoungerandslimmer]

Is this really reasonable? For those working and just missing the eligibility criteria for Universal Credit, is it fair to them?

When would anyone working and just gettig by, be able to get an additional take home pay amount of £3513.72 per year for each child that you have? Have three children? Here's £10541.16. Got 4? That's £14054.88 . Have 5? Here's £17568.60. These figures are tax free amounts so the extra pay needed will be a lot more.

Did those calling for the two child cap to be lifted not understand the amounts of money that will be handed out if lifted?

Doesn't it just disincentivise parents from moving off Universal Credit into work or for those in work to try and get better paid jobs?

Isn't it a slap in the face for couples having to limit their family size to one or two children and to have to both work full time to support them through paid labour and paying taxes?

Surely if the government felt forced to scrap the two child cap, why not instead have reduced rates for each subsequent child? Apart from food, other costs will be less as the each new child has the use of older siblings old clothes, baby equipment etc.

The two child cap was popular for the majority of the country. It was popular with those that would have liked to have more children but cannot afford to do on the wages/salary they receive. Now over the next few years as it gets harder and harder to get by for those in work but not receiving benefits, the resentment will grow and grow. While those recipients of the UK's welfare state's largesse are saying, thank you very much, no need now for me to try and find work or work harder.

You’ve also forgot to mention that those claimants who have migrated from tax credits who have transitional protection may lose this if their overall UC award is increased with the addition of child element. So again they won’t be better off.

Yes.

I have four dc.
Never had more children than "necessary" to ever gain benefits.
Shit upbringing meant I was never going to get a job that pays beyond min wage. Been on job seekers, income support and now UC and probably will be on it for life sadly.
And this is after moving from a retail position, to a management position within an NHS building so I have tried to better myself, have tried to earn more as I hate being reliant on benefits but lifting it is a good thing imo.

its hardly a luxury lifestyle with 4 children on 14K though? I would imagine they would get a bit more money from UC of course but 4 kids cost a lot of money. Its not that many families either so to me it sounds reasonable.

Yes I would get an extra £250 a month if I have another but it might cost more than that to feed and cloth them. It isn't riches.

Same here, whats the fucking point of trying to work hard. If i had my time again there is no way i would work and save. Actually i am planning to start working gor cash in hand so my tax won't be wasted.

If the feckless poor are a very small minority, why do so many of us have them as relatives, friends and neighbours?

Why should anyone work for just above minimum wage if you can get near enough your net pay amount in benefits. Better still no paying for prescriptions, dentists and get free school meals for your children, cheaper rates for broadband etc etc.

Curently, the poor are getting more, rightly, but so much more that soon the non benefit receiving workers will move down until there isn't any difference between them. Apart from one group getting money for not working and the other group contributing to paying for it.

I personally think a better idea would be to reduce the amount of income tax paid in proportion to the number of children eg 2% cut for 2 under 21, 3% for 3 etc. this helps encourages everyone to work.

This is lifted from the Guardian today looking at whether hypothetically people stand to lose or gain in today’s budget: ‘The Smith family have three children and live in a rented flat in the Midlands. Jack works 35 hours a week in a distribution centre and is paid the NLW. His partner Mia isn’t working. After tax and NI his take-home pay is £1,627 a month. This is topped up with a monthly universal credit and child benefit payment totalling £1,457.
Under the two-child cap parents could only claim universal credit or tax credits for their first two children. The decision to abolish this rule , and the uprating of benefits, mean the family should be able to claim £304 a month for their third child. They will also benefit from the 2026 uplift in the NLW.’ I read this to mean that this hypothetical family are now going to get more in UC than if the mum were working full time at the minimum wage. How on earth is that incentivising work? Their combined income with his salary and their new monthly UC amount will be £3381 (including the uplift for their 3rd child) It would take one salary of £52k to get that after tax. How on earth is that fair?

You may not have had more children to get more benefits money but what was your thinking when having the 3rd and 4th? There must be an underlying assumption that you will be OK because you will always be supported regardless of whether you can afford them. If you’d had to support them on your salary would you have chosen differently?
I’m not that bothered about this change. Just frustrated that working hard and earning doesn’t get you much more than doing basic minimum wage part time work and having an easier life.

I think if you work and don’t play the system and are responsible for your life choices then you are screwed over to support people who don’t take responsibility or can’t be arsed working

I’m a single parent of three children earning a similar wage to ‘Jack’ and get nowhere near that amount in UC. Maybe that isn’t that families whole story?

Interesting, do you rent or own? My understanding is that renters get a lot more UC.

This doesn't sound right. Did it list how much their private rent is?

I didn't have that great an upbringing either. One of four children of a single mother and brought up on benefits. When benefits were the bare minimum amount to give people a safety net and not encouraged to stay on them permanently.

This made me never want to live that life and although I live in the same 'deprived' area I have only one child and have been in work for decades in a job that pays enough not to be reliant on benefits.

So with us, our experiences of being poor when young led to a different mindset and different outcomes.

Yes, I do own so that could be the discrepancy I suppose.

Scraping the two child limit is a joke. I’m not perfect got pregnant at 15 fave birth at 16 but 4+ kids by 4 different dads and expecting other peoples taxes to pay is surely taking the piss?
I mean seriously? Raising taxes for THIS?? I doubt many people will vote labour again

You couldn’t pay me 67million to have an extra child so I doubt £67 a week extra will be that much of an incentive for people to have another ! Costs more than that to raise a child and then of course the lack of sleep etc etc. no thanks! And I expect that’s how a lot of people feel. That plus the benefit cap I don’t think this will
cost the taxpayer much

have one disabled child and no benefit cap it’s a fucking joke

But those kids are unlikely to be paying your pension in the future.

Some ethnic groups do tend to have more children than the national average for cultural and religious reasons. So this may well increase the resentment against such groups, as well as the general disgruntlement against those on benefit by those who choose to work. How long before the far right begins to push this.

How sad to see posters on a website for mothers stoking up hatred against mothers and children.

@Ontheirtermsonlyit will cost 2.3 Billion

The benefit cap will still apply unless there are disability elements within the award and if so then they deserve the extra

Even with the benefit cap ?