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 know someone who is onto her 6th child. Never worked a day in her life. Draining resources like calling ambulances for her sick children because she doesn’t drive to take the children to walk in centres and out of hours gp. I would put money on her having a 7th knowing that this cap has been lifted. I stuck at 2 children because I receive nothing other than child benefit. The same other mom used to tell me I was cruel putting my child in breakfast club. Yet I had to do I could work. It just feels like working mothers are comstantly
beinf penalized.

This is so idealistic talking about fairness. What about the unfairness of children being born into poverty? Or the unfairness of children being born in war torn countries? Arguing what is or isn’t fair is limitless, but when it comes to children surely the choice should be what’s right not what’s fair.

Totally agree. I think Labour have made a big mistake here. I've heard a number of work colleagues say they won't vote for them again because of this. I also don't think it takes children out of poverty anyway. I'm sure in lots of cases the money doesn't even reach the child.

There is also the “trickle up” argument. If you give money to those that don’t have much they will spend it. They won’t stick it in a cash ISA! So even if they do spend it on vapes and takeaways it helps grow the economy. If the economy grows we all benefit. That’s the theory anyway.

Agree. I don't want to see children go hungry.
But far too often the money doesn't get anywhere near the child.
Do decent breakfasts and lunches at school. Food vouchers or maybe packed evening meals to take home

But I don't see why so many middle earners should be squeezed from every angle to pay for the feckless who want to order dominos 5 times a week and vape their way through the rest of their benefits.

£1835 is the benefit cap, if you work less than 16 hours a week, that isn't being lifted. £292.81 per child £400.14 for a single adult over 25. £1097 rent for a 3 bedroom house (lha in Ashford kent). Even if you are a single parent with 2 children you are getting hit with the cap, you would not get any extra for a third child because the benefit cap (not 2 child cap) comes into play

Those kids will end up on benefits just like their parents as they know nothing better.

And the costs to the tax payer of children living in poverty are far greater than the cost of removing the two child cap.

The benefit cap had no impact on absolute poverty - it really wasn’t Dickensian - it also didn’t apply to children already born when the cap came in. The effect it had was on relative poverty - ie do you live in a family that earns less than 60 per cent of median wage. I think that people do have to understand this - in some cases, this could be the consequence of having two parents who don’t work more than 18 hours a week between them, topped up by benefits. Should they add another child into the mix? If you get a “good enough” level of support by doing the bare minimum, will people be incentivised to work?

I see these sorts of people everywhere on my daily travels, and it makes me feel sick.

From just looking at them you can tell?

Indeed, from a mile away.

But that has to be balanced against the huge costs of having a vast chunk of the population that is disincentivised to work. And the further costs of having a core workforce that is demoralised and demotivated

😂😂😂

I work f/t and earn £75000 - my monthly take home pay is £4100 (after pension contribution deductions and paying for private health care benefit.) I have two kids (and fortunately a husband who works ft.)
I thought I was doing alright!!! Now I’m not so sure!!!!

Thanks for updating with this because I was thinking „surely that can’t be right?“
I dontsay that from a place of judgement - was simply wondering about the accuracy.

So in effect even the poorest of society get over £3000 clear a month now ? It's totally ridiculous imo.

I voted for this government. I also went out canvassing for my local Labour candidate. I was delighted when they were elected and I wanted them to succeed, but they have been a massive disappointment in so many ways.

This economically illiterate budget is the last straw. You don’t need an economics degree to understand that when you tax something, you get less of it. In last year’s budget, Reeves taxed jobs. Then, unsurprisingly, unemployment increased. This time, she has taxed work. I wonder what the result will be?

By the same economic logic, when you incentivise something, you get more of it. Reeves is incentivising people who live on benefits to produce more children they can’t afford to support. I wonder what the result will be?

I’m out and I won’t be voting Labour at the next election.

This is comparing apples and oranges though.

The people this thread is complaining about - those claiming UC for multiple children while not working - aren’t potential teachers, nurses or midwives who’ve simply opted out. They don’t have a degree of job prospects, nor the wherewithal or intelligence to get any.

Why? Because they might have grown up in poverty themselves, with poor or no parenting, they have low intelligence, possible abuse or exposure to additions, undiagnosed dyslexia or other issues, or simply because they had no guidance, no one to fight their corner.

It’s very, very hard to break out of that cycle.

This budget is an absolute joke. Absolutely before anyone starts saying that Reform are better, they agreed with lifting the cap! The cap was more or less the only thing the Tories brought in that wasn't insane. This nonsense is enough to have me vote Conservative next time.

It's nothing to do with child benefit ,
It's the child element of universal credit.

It was pretty unpopular when it was introduced so I'm not sure how it has suddenly become popular.

So why did you have 4 children, instead of the 1 child have because I couldn’t afford more?

How do we know the children will benefit from it? It may just go in the parent/s pockets?! The country didn't want this but as usual, tax payers have to pay for it.

I disagree. I know people doing exactly those types of jobs who opt to work minimum hours to get UC

I have offered people promotions with FT hours and they have chosen to stay in their lower graded PT job because they are better off.