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.

His response was he thought the relationship would work out (he’d known her only a few weeks) romantic sure but anyone with half a brain cell surely knows they’re going to end up the forth wheel in a 4x4. These people were over twice my age when I had my eldest and knew it would be taking the piss to have more before I had a job. They should keep the two child cap or maybe raise it to a 3 child cap but make it so under 25s get the same as over 25s. Just my opinion

well I just went to the change username bar and punched ladbrokes in and it’s taken, so clearly it’s been done before

Reported.

for naming myself 888casino ? Really? Because someone’s going to see my name and plunge into a gambling addiction 🙄

There really isn't evidence that pro-natalist policies work.

There is limited evidence that it has a short-term uplift, but in terms of driving population growth, the package has to be SIGNIFICANT and far-reaching - increasing the length of paid maternity leave, heavily subsidising childcare, introducing flexible working practices - for it to do anything meaningful to shift the needle. You mention France - yes, they have a very long-established framework of support that is comprehensive and would make people shit a brick if it was introduced over here (the taxes! Dear god the taxes!). Their fertility rate is still in decline at the moment though.

I don't know why you reference Poland - yes, they proudly introduced a very generous cash transfer to incentivise people to have more children. It didn't work. Birth rates saw a modest lift, then immediately flatlined and are now in decline - it is not an example of pro-natalist policy working.

You know what it did do though? Evidentially lift children out of poverty. It's a brilliant example, though I'm sure you didn't introduce it with this intention, of how targeting families with additional cash resources benefits existing children, rather than encourages new ones.

I genuinely hope that if, in the future, you or someone close to you ends up in a bad place, there are fewer people like you around. Because your post is, again, based on vibes, not evidence, and is full of contempt and hate for people that need help.

Lifting the child benefit cap, evidentially, won't encourage parents, feckless or otherwise, to have more children.

Increasing benefits to low income families, evidentially, lifts children out of money, with the evidence showing that it is spent on household essentials.

It's advertising and I doubt you're doing it free of charge.

@HelenaWaiting paddypowers taken too apparently but betfred isn’t! Although I’ll try to remember not to pick it when I have to make a new account because this one got deleted for illegal gambling and vice promotion 🙄

Your 'research' is questionable at best.

The fact that some feckless parents have children irrespective of the cap doesn't mean that it's not deterring others.

There is plenty of evidence that pro-natalist policies work. Look at Poland and France. Lifting the cap is a pro-natalist policy.

The studies you cite regarding low income families are actually conducted on low income individuals which includes students and responsible families with two or less children. It does not focus on families that have already made the reckless decision to have more children than they can afford and then to keep bringing more and more children into poverty. There is no evidence that these parents spend additional benefits on household essentials at all.

But I suppose if you're not intelligent enough to critically evaluate the research that you have found then you wouldn't be able to understand that the concerns being raised are completely valid. We will all be able to judge in a few years time when the same families continue to need high levels of state intervention and have the same terrible outcomes whether the benefit cap was the real issue or whether correlation in fact did not alight with causation and there are far more important factors at play.

go to settings. Go to change user name. Type in the name of any famous shop or company you can think of. Half will be taken.
and you can’t seriously think a gambling company would pay someone to pick their username on mumsnet and argue over politics

Poland is a real outlier having had an exceptional 30 years in terms of wealth, income, education and other societal progress. I can’t see that we can replicate any of their initiatives

Honestly, you're wrong. I mean, fair dos for trying, but the evidence base into this is so broad-reaching and consistent across multiple studies over a long period of time, that the line you are trying to draw between low income families with 2 or less children, and 'feckless' parents having kids they can't afford, isn't there in the data.

If it was one study from one source showing it, maybe. But multiple studies from multiple sources, repeated over time, both pre- 2010 when ideological austerity came into place, and post, both pre the cap being introduced and post.... They all say the same thing.

The language you use tells me that you are coming at this from a point of view of bias. I don't really know why I am engaging with you to be honest.

@HelenaWaiting i have changed my username to 777holyandsinless won’t kick in until I post on a new thread though , I apologise if my promotion of vice offended anyone

It also didn't work: https://notesfrompoland.com/2020/01/23/no-boost-to-birth-rate-from-polands-flagship-child-benefit-scheme-government-admits/#:~:text=The%20government%20has%20for%20the,as%20before%20the%20programme%20began.

You have to account for the fact that pro-natalist policies have different impacts on different socio-economic groups. Looking at a population as a whole, Poland's birth rate increased and then dropped back but this was at a time when the more wealthy were having less children. The pro-natalist policy was more successful with lower earners than it was higher earners. The two child cap is targeted specifically at low/non earners so is more likely to have a stimulating effect.

If you don't like Poland, look Czechia and Israel.

My posts aren't based on vibes at all. What nonsense. You are claiming there is evidence when there simply isn't any! No study has proven that lifting the cap won't raise birth rates in the relevant groups. No study has proven this extra money will be spent on household essentials. You are manipulating studies and data that are focused on completely different groups of society and demographics and pretending that their findings will be able to be applied to this very specific group of people that have a history of making reckless decisions.

Israel's high birth rate has nothing to do with pro-natal policy and everything to do with religion and culture.

Czechia falls into the same pot as France - a holistic framework that no one over here would want to pay for, and in spite of it, birth rates are declining again.

Poland - yes, the very modest bump in birth rates was seen in lower socio-economic groups, but it was extremely short-lived, and the Polish government itself declared the incentive a failure in terms of driving up birth rates, though noted its welcome impact on childhood poverty. Why do you have more skin in the game defending the policy than they do? It isn't an example of a pro-natal policy working.

There is absolutely no study to support what you are suggesting. You are using studies that focus on completely different demographic groups to extrapolate that their findings will apply to a very specific group of people and within that group there are lots of different factors at play.

The reality is most people will view those who have more than two children, especially those who have lots more than two, as irresponsible. Put simply, you can't have it both ways. You want us to believe that parents that have *knowingly" chosen to have more and more children whilst living in poverty aren't automatically selfish and feckless. Then what are they? Kids don't ask to be born. You then expect us to believe that the same parents making these terrible decisions are going to make sensible decisions with the money they receive from the state and prioritise their children? Someone that prioritises their children doesn't keep having more and more children at the detriment to their existing kids. They are putting their own selfish desires for more children above the welfare of their own children.

Correct Israel’s birth rate is kept high by ultra orthodox Hasidic Jews, among secular Israelis the birth rate is much like most western countries

My point is that it did have a stimulating impact on fertility in the lower socio economic groups and this has persisted. It has been offset by a decline in fertility amongst the better off hence there is no overall gain. This is very relevant as this is the group that is being explicitly targeted by lifting the two child benefit cap.

Birth rates are declining everywhere apart from in certain groups. The middle classes don't respond to pro-natalist policies as much (or at all) when compared to low income women. This is the pertinent point it's been proven time and time again.

I don't have skin in the game. I just want reality represented properly. People suggesting that lifting the cap won't have any impact on fertility are not looking at the research that exists in enough depth and how this varies by socio-economic groups.

@888casino I’m not arguing for or against removing the cap. I am pointing out trends in the published data about factors that impact child poverty and attainment.

Nope, the non-orthodox birth rate is 2.5 babies per woman.

Fair enough thought you were responding to me, so much is made of removing the cap “for the kids” but I’ve never heard anyone mention how under 25s get a lot less even though they may have kids and a home of their own

It's not that I expect you to believe me on anything.

And I could just as well ask you - or anyone here - to show me the study that proves that 'feckless' parents spend any uplift in benefits irresponsibly, on non-essentials. No such study exists.

So all we can do, to make evidence-based policy decisions to support children, is look at the vast amount of data that does exist, that shows that increasing benefits DOES lift children out of poverty, that most low income families DO spend that uplift on household essentials, and that lifting the child benefit cap evidentially WON'T drive birth rates up.

You are undoubtedly correct that within this pot, some children won't benefit because their parents are dickheads. Some parents are irresponsible dickheads - I'm with you there.

But we can't make policy decisions based on the few, when so, so many children evidentially will be positively and directly impacted, and that impact has far-reaching, lifelong consequences. One of the biggest and most cost-effective things we can do to reduce long-term NHS costs, improve educational outcomes and reduce the costs associated with low paid work and unemployment, is lift children out of poverty. It will more than pay for itself, in terms of your tax-payer money.

As is the case with all Labour Governments, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

I think they genuinely believe that they are helping people, but seem to be incapable of understanding that throwing money at a problem simply won’t help, and in some cases, will encourage people to be even more irresponsible with their life choices.

In OP’s “rant” she points out the blooming obvious! Caring parents, who want the best for their DC, will normally procreate only the number of children they can afford, on their salaries, because they will want to ensure that they can give their DC a good life. IMO the cap on two children was a good thing…

Thankyou so much. I bloody love working with those kids, I genuinely enjoy their company and they know that. They get from me what they dont get at home.

YANBU at all OP and I believe a huge amount of the issues children have with autism and mental health issues is a direct result of shitty, neglectful parenting. Not all, but a lot of it. These parents should be castrated, not financially incentivised. Thank you for doing such a hard job.