Funding everyone to have multiple children???

[MyLimeGuide]

Hello all, this issue seriously gets me down, as someone who has worked solidly since forever (im 45) always wanted 2 children. I have 1, realised I cant afford 2, seeing what labour have done, lifting the 2 child cap for benefits MADDENS me to the core! Not because of my own circumstances, im more than happy with one and I can give him everything.
Im a teacher, currently working in a SEN school, the majority of the cohort are from non working families with multiple siblings. Their biggest problem is neglect. Often these kids tell us their mum is pregnant again!!
i have seen this pattern with neglected children un every single school ive worked in. Unbelievable that Labour want to increase this!
It's not to help children, its the opposite.
Its unfair on hardworking people to be expected to fund it.
I believe EVERYONE is entitled to be a parent, regardless of circumstances, but NOT breed like its a hobby (a freeloading one with no care)

AIBU - Let everyone breed as much as they want regardless of circumstances its their god given right.

AINBU - This is unfair, children should be born into families that can afford to look after them fully and offer them the time and nurture they need to develop into humans with good mental health.

Presumably you'll have looked at the actual evidence of what has been happening to child poverty since the cap was introduced and seen that no effective measures were taken to address child poverty through the provision of "other services". The problem has got worse, not better.

It's all manipulation of statistics.

'Lifting' children out of poverty just means handing people money that the households move closer to the median earnings of a household in the UK. It does absolutely nothing to address the underlying causes of poverty or the impact that this has on the children.

A good example of this is educational outcomes. We are constantly told that there is a link between deprivation and poor educational outcomes. We know that imposing the cap did not lead to worse educational outcomes for those impacted by the cap. This implies that actually the link between educational outcomes and deprivation isn't about money but is about other underlying factors that we know matter hugely including parental involvement and education levels, attitudes to education in the family unit and other cultural factors. Without addressing these issues we aren't going to make any real difference, cap or no cap.

Statistics around birth rates apparently show that there was no real difference in the number of children being born into large families following the imposition of the cap but that doesn't mean it hasn't had a suppressing effect. We know that the demographics of the UK have changed since the cap has been introduced and some groups that are statistically likely to have large families e.g. Muslim families, have increased massively. We would therefore have expected the number of children born into large families to have increased. The fact that the birth rate has stayed constant shows that the cap has had some impact in disincentivising people from having large families.

Completely agree. Holding someone accountable for their own shitty decisions seems to be a thing of the past. It’s always someone else’s fault, it’s rich people’s fault, it’s the government’s fault.

Of course it’s not the fault of the children born to feckless (I don’t care if this hits a bingo card, they are feckless) people, but giving more money to said feckless isn’t the answer, whether there’s evidence to show capping doesn’t stop birthing or not. There has to be a limit.

Give food and clothing vouchers that are aligned to that person to stop them being exchanged for money, help with childcare to get them back into work, a time limit. Education to stop the generational cycle of non working/reliance on benefits.

More people should consider how they are going to support having their 3/4/5th child in the event of death, job loss, illness or relationship breakdown - not new concepts.

Child benefit is fuck all, I really doubt that families rely on it that much.

YANBU it winds me up. But on the other hand, despite people who irresponsibly have a mass of kids they can't afford, it's not the kids fault so they don't deserve to be punished. Agree with @ExtraOnions point

The top 1% of earners pay 30% of all income tax revenues in this country, so to say they are not paying their way is nonsense. Large multinational companies not paying any or enough tax is something that must be stopped, though.

Sorry but when I had kids I knew it was my responsivity to look after them
I do not work to pay for other people life choices

It is ,but child benefit has never been limited to two children
It's the child element of universal credit which is significantly more .

A penny is a penny too much
The increase to the treasury is 3bn that taxpayers are paying for

Scraping the two child limit is a joke. I’m not perfect got pregnant at 15 fave birth at 16 but 4+ kids and expecting other peoples taxes to pay is surely taking the piss? I think two kids was a reasonable cap at a push they could have raised it to 3. Shit happens but how did you not learn your lesson the third time
I mean seriously? Raising taxes for THIS?? I doubt many people will vote labour again

So I should just keep getting up at 6.30 for work and pay for other peoples life choices?

It's NOT Child Benefit.

How are you going to stop people breeding? You sound like a eugenecist.

Not you again 🙄is this the only thing you keep posting on threads. You are like a stuck record.

The OP itself says that she has seen negligent parents getting pregnant multiple times and this is before the two child cap is lifted. It's not the money inducing negligence

Why is it assumed more money for the parents would be automatically spent on the children, life is not Mary Poppins the money is better spent educating children to make choices and to know their worth is not just breeding stock

Yep.

Tried making my own thread it got deleted 🤷🏼‍♀️weird because it was exactly what I’ve said here and all the threads other people have made are still up

Yes, I am a bit fed up of people wheeling out excuses that they had 5 plus kids and then became ill, got divorced, was widowed etc and now it's somehow all of these children are our problem.

Having loads of kids is a hugely risky thing to do and for most of us it is is hugely irresponsible. The more children you have, the more vulnerable you are to any of life's catastrophic events that could strike any of us at any point. Every time you have another child you roll the dice, this child could be disabled which increases the likelihood that your relationship will breakdown and you will not be able to work. It all compounds and then people complain that they are the victim of misfortune when they have often actively made decisions that have played a huge part in bringing them to the circumstances they find themselves in today.

We need to disincentivise people having large families generally. It is seldom in anyone's interests apart from the selfish parents. Time, energy and money gets stretched and the family unit are far more likely to rely on the state than regular sized families.

Your premise is wrong for so many reasons.. Not least people's circumstances don't stay the same forever ,it's perfectly possible to be able to afford the children when you have them then through no fault of your own you are made redundant, your partner dies, your marriage breaks up. Etc
The policy has not made the slightest difference to the birth rate .all it had done is increase child poverty ..
But mainly are you saying that children should suffer because just because they have two or more siblings? That's cruel and I am shocked that anyone should believe it

I know in Australia they are trialling a benefits card. It's come with a lot of problems , but personally as right wing as this sounds, I wouldn't be against half going on a card and half as cash. The card can only be used for groceries, clothes, school expenses etc. I kind of hate it but it sort of make sense.

Our society needs more children and I don’t see that it matters if some people have more and others have none.

It's not about appeasing backbenchers - it is about trying to make sure that children are clothed and fed. They did not ask to be born.

I don’t think it was intended to reduce the birth rate.

Oh the horror! Do you object to your taxes having gone to bombs? To assist in the genocide in Gaza? To Boris Johnson's cronies during Covid? Or do you just object to poor children being fed?