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.

I don’t think it is stoking up hatred. I think what is happening is that middle earners see low earners taking home the same as them once UC has been included: it makes the nurses, midwives, teachers etc wonder why they are working so hard.

@Summerhillsquare isn’t it more about poor life choices of adults rather than mother and child?

Exactly this.
It's not sustainable

@Ontheirtermsonlyyes

Almost everyone I know on UC is a single mother who has been left up shit creek by their child’s father and let down by the woefully inadequate CMS. Very happy for all these mams to get more money per month but I’d prefer if we had affordable reliable childcare and a fit for purpose CMS.

Of course children should be punished for their parents mistakes or decisions. If I was in a house worth more than two million it would be madness that I pay £5000 a year so little Jimmy can have new shoes or decent supper.

I just wish they would change the law to allow the little tykes to work ok they are fewer chimneys to sweep and not many people buy matches but lots of kids in other countries work for a living.

Bit daft.

How many MaccyD servers does a country need?

Thanks for proving my point - as if having children was somehow a bad thing.

It isn't like having a disabled child is a walk in the park.

@Letsbeor people getting by in a northern town, working and just getting by paying for other people to do nothing and have the same lifestyle
not everyone paying for this shit life’s in a house that will be taxed on top of the tax they have already paid.
but so long as we are helping lazy irresponsible adults stay at the same level of lifestyle as the working.

And if you are lucky enough to scrape together the money to buy a nice house in a nice area along comes the "mansion tax" to kick you out on the streets.
Might as well not bother.
Now wonder people dont want to work 😡

@Summerhillsquareit is if you can not afford them

What does that mean?

That's an interesting idea. So many state that more children are needed to be born to become future workers who will provide revenue to support the ageing population.

However, if we are incentivising people and their families to be reliant on benefits, surely a proportin of their children will followmin the ame footsteps. While we disincentivise working families earning above mimumum to have less children due to financial pressures with unaffordable housing and childcare. So less children being born to families with a well established work ethic, that if here, their children would likely have followed, unless smart enough to realise that if the current welfare system hasn't been reformed.

So maybe turn it on it's head and incentivise everyone through the tax system to have more children (if they want them, that is).

I live in a northern (former) industrial town. Row upon row of terraced housing.
Nowadays 3 generations of families who have never worked and have no intention of ever doing so. They dont need to since they get a shit load of taxpayer money every month.
Walk down some of these streets and the stench of weed is all consuming, rubbish just slung out in the street. Absolute shit holes.
Its shame for those who do try, they work and try and keep their environment nice but its a losing battle xx

I didn’t realise there was a cap as PP’s have pointed out. I don’t care anyway though, we are working parents who have sized our family based on what we can afford, but we get considerable government help with our childcare costs, working is something we both get benefit from and other people receiving assistance just doesn’t wind me up. My understanding is that the cap didn’t work as they hoped and it pushed children into poverty, why are we as a nation so pissed off at an attempt to reduce the number of children living in poverty?

No, they have scrapped the limit too.

@Btowngirl because we reduced it by giving people who choose not support their own children money and they get that money from people who work and chose the amount of children they could afford

Because these aren’t children who have been dropped off by the stork, this is subsidising people who choose to have children but forgo the responsibility of supporting them.

Has everyone forgotten about the "rape clause"? That's the main reason I want to see the 2 child cap go.

I guess the question is how much does/would it cost you to raise a child? Would 3513.72 cover it? (Just under £68 a week)

It's not about mothers hating other mothers and their children.

It is about fairness to the working mother having to make a hard choice and not having the much wanted second or third child because they realise they cannot afford it on their current take home pay. All while the mother on benefits decides this is what they want knowing they will get extra funds to pay for its upbringing. They are not doing it to get the extra money, they just want an extra child no matter what, but they will be able to fund it courtesy of the welfare state.

Both have choices but only one can act on it. Why is it the worker that is expected to rein in her desire and make the sensible choice, but not the one on benefits.

Fairness is needed but it appears to be going out the window if not gone already.

If it gets some children out of poverty I am
for it.

I think people
should be given food vouchers instead of cash. Tha will make sure children are at least being fed. Giving some useless parents more money won’t mean the children will see any difference in their quality of life.

The money still won't be there for the children, will it? Feckless parents will still fritter that money on smoking/vaping/takeaways/lip fillers/XL Bullies.