Angry at scrapping of 2 child limit

[BearBuggy]

I know there are a few families that find themselves in rotten circumstances and this isn’t aimed at them . However I live in an area where having children to continue to receive benefits was the norm and only now the cap is in place has that stopped.

The Scottish government has now announced it will be scrapped. I am so angry I’m paying towards people breeding children they can’t afford. I didn’t vote SNp this time because of this, as did many of my friends. They lost heavily in my area but still seem to not care what the tax payer is saying.

Or do something to drastically reduce the population of pensioners 😛

Though in higher income households it has to be repaid by the higher income earner.

It was lazy use of a figure I heard Rory Stewart use last week. I didn’t check it so I’m at fault if you’re correct.

Rory Stewart and Alistair Campbell did both say that recently, but it's been fact-checked as wrong.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/alastair-campbell-office-for-national-statistics-british-northern-ireland-wales-b2660229.html

In 1948 it was 4.9 times
In the 60s it was 4 times
Currently it's just over 3 times

They don't mention it in the fact check, but I think you also have to balance that demographic shift against the productivity shift caused by advancing technology. Labour productivity in the UK (gross value add per hour worked) has tripled in real terms since 1948.

So it isn't really meaningful to just look at the demographic change in isolation.

At 1948 levels of consumption - but with current productivity - we could support a much larger pensioner population than we have. But we have much higher material expectations than in 1948! Where should the balance sit?

Thanks @strawberrybubblegum. It’s such a nice change to see a bit of nuance. That goes some way in explaining why successive governments have kicked the issue of ageing boomers down the road.

That is really interesting. I agree that the actual detail is more intriguing than the headline figures.

As well as the ‘baby boomers’ now (‘NHS babies’ with good bones and immune systems thanks to all that free milk and orange juice) the population of retired people in 1948/1960 was presumably much smaller than now due to shorter life expectancy and world war 1 having killed so many men in particular. I don’t know the figures on this.

Maybe that’s what AD is really all about

No it isn’t. Terminal illness within six months can’t possibly include old age.

The comment was made as ‘what if’.

It’s also worth noting I didn’t refer to people dieing of old age !
It’s also worth noting the chance of getting a terminal illness diagnosis increases with age.

It’s also worth noting that the assisted dying bill going through parliament is quite specific that it applies only to someone with a terminal illness with a maximum of six months to live.

I don't have children. But I would very very reluctant to place any kind of state mandate on procreation. What's wrong with people getting child benefits? It's not the kids fault their parent is poor.

Exactly

It is however parents responsibility to ensure, if they are planning a pregnancy, that they can afford the child.

@BobbyBiscuits

"What's wrong with people getting child benefits? It's not the kids fault their parent is poor."

It's a tricky one because it's the parents who decide whether to have children or not but the children who suffer the consequences if the parents are unable to provide for them. For example if I had say 5 children then I would be unable to provide for them- my decision but they suffer.

The problem with child benefits is the moral hazard that although it provides a safety net to stop children being brought up in poverty, it also creates an incentive to have more children than the parents otherwise would have done.

By limiting the benefits to 2 children then if the parents are poor then there is some form of safety net for those two children and hopefully it disincentivises the parents from having more children.

Life happens, circumstances change
.
I waw born into a family of 5 kids where dad worked very hard, run 3 businesses and mum took care of home and kids.
When I was 10 mum died and dad overnight became a single parent and had to liquidate his companies to look after us. We were thrust into poverty overnight.
It's nice to know you are of the opinion we should have starved.

I would rather advocate for situations such as yours, that are not the norm, are outside of the two child cap.
No one is saying you deserved to starve.
( My grandfather was in the same situation with seven kids in Ireland and it would have been great to get some, any in fact, support for my mum and her siblings. I’d like to think we’ve moved on.)

Thats not true. They don't need to look for work till their child is 3.

I doubt that it makes a huge difference. Yes we would hope everyone would make informed decisions about whether they can afford to extend their family but I wouldn't want to see their children, or those from changed circumstances, go without, so I don't like the idea of a cap. It sounds like punishing the children to me. 😢

I think it should be 3 child cap

@1dayatatime @StandingSideBySide I do see both your points. One of my main motivations to choose not to have kids was financial.

I'll be dead then and didn't create descendants to suffer this so I win :)

Maybe it should if the individual wants it to!

It can’t. It’s impossible to predict possible lifespan predicated on old age.

The individual could decide their own 6 months. Although that would be what those against it are calling a 'slippery slope'.

Yes. We got screwed by husband getting back pay which nudged him over the limit. If had been paid the salary increase from the date it was backdated to we wouldn't be having to repay a chunk of CB. But because it wasn't, it cost us more than the payrise.