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.

At one point she will not be able to have another child (menopause). They’re going to golden aren’t they…..15 children to support, required to find work in order not to lose UC. It’s not what I would want in my 50s.

My sister (mentioned above) has quite a cushy live on her benefits. Between her and her partner, they earn more money than me per year (as a 20+yrs qualified veterinary nurse who has always worked full time over that period).

They certainly have way more monthly disposable income than me, and have been able to splurge on numerous pets and holidays.

Im not saying that is the same for everyone on benefits, but this is the truth regarding my sis.

No they are not. The OP has chosen to ignore the existence of the overall benefit cap for the purpose of getting people riled up.

When I was facing having to claim UC (redundancy) there is no way I could have kept my home long term. It would not be enough to pay my mortgage (£500, 2 bed) and bills and support my son.
I don’t know if I missed something but I can’t think why someone would choose that.

Maybe but one of the parents could be on pip. I have a friend with 6 kids. She gets high rate mobility. Her partner is her carer. The last child was conceived after she became disabled. Shes still young enough to have another, wouldn't suprise me if they did.

Sounds great, why don't you quit your job and earn more by living like she does? Why don't you do that for your family if it would increase their standard of living?

Like someone upthread said, presumably for the same reason the benefits claimant doesn’t leave benefits and get a job to pay her way. After all, it’s not cushy being on benefits. Apparently.

What's the "same reason", surely they would be opposite and contradictory reasons?

Oh please. Just stop it with your ableist and shit stirring. It’s very, very, notoriously difficult to get PIP. It’s a 40 page form, there are assessments to go through with an official, you have to prove what you can and can’t do.

PIP’s not given just because you have a diagnosis, it’s only given if that diagnosis seriously affects your life. Many people who get PIP use the money to help them to stay in their jobs.

Do you know that PIP also has the lowest fraud rate of all UK benefits. It has an actual 0% fraud rate. If you want to find people who are lying about their situation to claim benefits or avoid paying tax, look elsewhere. Disabled people have enough shit to deal with already.

Universal Credit (for example) has a fraud rate of over 10% and much more significantly we all know about the billionaire owned goal corps who refuse to pay proper tax in the UK.

https://www.benefitsandwork.co.uk/news/zero-percent-fraud-rate-for-pip,-dwp-figures-show

I’m sorry to pick out this one example to quote because I I know it’s a very commonly held view, it’s just so depressing seeing people being sneered at for daring to continue to live in bad financial situations beyond their control.

I think trying to lift kids out of poverty is a very good thing to spend taxpayer’s money on.

Indeed - I was responding to an earlier poster who said they will spend it on vapes etc. I’m sure they will spend it on food clothes etc but my ( or the economists) point is that because they won’t do what the government don’t want us doing ( save in cash ISAs- restricted in case you didn’t notice) it should grow the economy. How much, is questionable. I am very aware of the issues regarding poverty, benefits and stigma as I work in that field.

I’m torn on this having been outraged when it was first announced.
The studies (having looked for the opposite) clearly show that it removes children from poverty. My question would be whether that is on a metric basis on whether it really improves outcomes.
I think the better route would be funded sure starts centres and early years funding (state run) so that you know that the support is reaching the right place.
But as I said, in torn.

I agree.

I was responding to a poster who implied that many of the people this will affect are educated professionals who choose not to work and have more babies instead. Unfortunately it’s a lot more complicated than that.

Imagine you’re a young woman who has grown up in difficult circumstances and as a result has three children by different men, no qualifications and low intelligence. She lives on benefits, has no family help and doesn’t get maintenance from any of the kids’ dads.

Even if she took on a minimum wage job (which, believe me, are not that easy to find) AND managed to find local childcare to cover her hours, she would get reduced payments due to her income. As she gets the childcare element of UC she may be slightly better off or, more likely, about the same.

Then, when one of her children is sick she loses a day’s pay. When one of her other children has an appointment she has to ask her boss for time off to take them. Then she has to ask to leave work early to collect her child from nursery because he’s hit another child. Her boss gets annoyed. She is exhausted, and despite working she still can’t afford to buy nice things or take her kids on holiday. Her level of life is about the same.

In this scenario, I wonder what posters would suggest she does?

Under 16s can't receive PIP, genius.

Children are indeed not mandatory. However the child doesn't get the option of not being born, so we need to ensure that children aren't living in poverty
I was 1 child with 3 siblings
My mother and father worked until they had children when my mother eventually gave up work as the child care would have far exceeded her wages, no benefits involved.
Then my father leaves, my mother couldn't return to work with 4 young children needing to be looked after. She did claim benefits until we were old enough that we didn't need her to look after us so intensely. I was also a pretty ill child so I imagine my mother would have been regularly fired trying to work part time with having to skip work to look after me.
She worked prior to having children, had a few years on benefits after my father left and then went straight back to work until retirement when she could. With benefits we certainly weren't rolling in it, never went on a holiday abroad until I was working myself. My father went on with life not taking any responsibility for his own children.
Benefits aren't just supporting people who knew they couldn't afford the children in the first place, they support people who's situation changed but the children have already been born and they were affordable at the time.
If benefits were reduced any further we'd have been on the streets. Now all 4 children are grown up we all work full time in decent jobs contributing tax.
People always concentrate on the mothers having children just so they don't have to work, but there are plenty who's situations change or are working and get benefits as a top up so they can afford those children.
I would encourage a change in child care that meant more breakfast clubs/after school clubs that are free to allow parents to work full time without having to weigh up child care costs Vs wages. This would reduce the reliance on benefits in the first place

So, this is just another excuse to bash people on benefits then.

I am a self reliant tax payer, coincidentally with no kids, and I definitely do not feel slapped in the face.

I thought the cap was bizarre. Removing it is humane.

I will still be voting Labour.

I am aware that not all policies are made to suit me. Because I'm an adult.

They get a fair bit more because they have rent to pay! Unless they are feckless or reckless, a big chunk of their UC will go to their landlord. The alternative to including rent in UC would be families falling into arrears and at risk of becoming homeless, which would be far more costly.

The amount that can be added to UC for rent is capped, at a level based on size and where it is, and rarely covers the full amount of the rent. Most families have to use some of the money they're meant to live on to top up the housing element of UC.

But just giving money isn't going to break that cycle - it is more complex as you say. The government need to tackle the root causes to improve the position for the children growing up in these environments.

If they were working-age people, there'd be something of a labour shortage though.

We'd have to positively encourage immigration to make up for it.

Absolutely this.

I am quite content with my tiny little family consisting of me and my dog thanks!

Benefits should be used to support people in times of hardship, and not abused as my sister is doing.

Knowing you’d always be on minimum wage was it a sensible decision to have four children?

She works and has tried to get a better paid job.
Do you want there to be a minimum income for a mother before they're allowed to have children?
People seem to complain this generation aren't having children and we're going to cause an issue with too few working age and too many old people soon due to low birth rates. But a working woman has children and people judge them too.
Those 4 children may well go on to be tax contributors far outweighing what universal credit cost to help their mother afford to keep them alive. As long as they are raised properly, educated as much as possible and go out to work, then they will be beneficial to society. If we strip benefits from the mothers raising them, allowing the children to live in poverty, then it will ultimately impact on the chances of that child growing up with stability and therefore making it less likely for them to grow up to get a good job and contribute in the future

It's be nice if they'd simply offered free childcare that was actually available to families instead. Incentives work.