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.

Everyone doesn't get child benefit. Jf you earn over a certain amount you get taxed a huge amount and also get child benefit reduced by tax.

Agree! Why it isn't always given as vouchers anyway is beyond me...

And I say that as someone who claims benefits!

What if you need it to pay towards your gas or electricity etc? I used it to buy ice creams from the shop or clothes from vinted. Vouchers would be useless.

I also use it to pay for nursery fees. I can't use vouchers for that.

Whereabouts do you live OP? Apologies if you’ve already mentioned.

Then maybe the vouchers need to cover more?

Maybe it’s better not to have vouchers and give people actual money? Which is in reality a kind of voucher anyway.

But then they could be misused - sadly, there are a lot of parents out there who don’t use the money towards their children…

One person’s “misuse” isn’t another’s. This kind of control freakery is outrageous. How would you like someone telling you how to spend your money and propose replacing it with vouchers? And it is their money.

Thankfully these people are a minority. There are also better off parents not on benefits who spend all the income on gambling, alcohol and cocaine.
what can be done about that?

Obviously it's social services job to investigate these situations

Yes, that is true. However, we are talking about those in receipt of benefits right now, and considering it is state-funded, I do think there should be things put into place to ensure that it’s being used sensibly, and to benefit the children. I am not vilifying those on benefits at all.

But yes - social services are there to investigate all cases where there are potential safeguarding issues, no matter your household income.

again, if I was in receipt of benefits intended for my children, it should be going towards that. I do think there should be some flexibility of course and not all of the benefits should be vouchers.

People that waste their money on drugs, alcohol etc are thankfully minority why should the majority have to suffer the embarrassment of paying with a voucher every time they go shopping. There's already vouchers for kids recieving free school meals in the holidays and it's embarrassing having to pay with them yet alone every single shop.

It's social services job to investigate parents wasting their money on drugs and alcohol

Well, that’s simply my opinion. Thankfully, the beauty of Mumsnet is we are all entitled to our own thoughts and views. If I had to use a voucher, I wouldn’t be embarrassed. Sometimes misusing money can be really subtle as well, it’s not always on things as drastic as drugs and alcohol. I’m really thinking about child poverty here and how it’s the child that’s impacted.

Fair enough not saying you're not allowed your opinion I just disagree. I've personally seen high income fathers not on benefits blowing their entire income on gambling leaving nothing left for their families. So I strongly believe it's social services job to investigate these situations and shouldn't just be assumed that only poor people are financially irresponsible and that vouchers will solve the problem.

But the cap is harming children and to be honest we need young families. Ideally no one should be claiming benefits but we are where are and what we need is healthy young people with a good education to kick start the British economy....we don't need all the problems associated with poverty.

The solution won't be easy but cutting welfare might not have the desired effect people want ten years down the road.

I find myself not really knowing what the answer is and understand both sides of the argument. I think the solution will be something that encourages self sufficiency without the brutalness of welfare cuts. Can we not give welfare claimants a good wage in return for work....there's so much needs doing. In France people work lock keepers in the summer, plant bulbs in public areas..... generally making stuff look nice

I hear what you’re saying, but I feel you might be conflating one issue with another - that seems a bit separate to the point of this thread. It’s about the benefits system.

Does this only apply to poor parents or does it apply to the ones who save it all and don't use it for the children right now? I used it last week for a coffee in a cafe whilst child was at nursery. Shoot me. 🤷

I hardly think a coffee is disastrous 😬

But fundamentally, Child Benefit is income into a household. Most households are able to effectively manage their income to their personal tastes. So some people live in fridge whilst others prefer to be tropical - and budgets are adjusted accordingly. Sometimes shit happens - we need to visit a loved one at the hospital several times a week so we suddenly have out of the ordinary bus fares and/or car parking to pay for and we adjust our budgets accordingly. I spent about 3 years on benefits when my ex left - I kept a car going. I budgeted for it because it was a priority to me, living semi-rurally and 200 miles away from my mum. My mum paid for my MOT each year. I went back to work because I had a car - 3 children in 2 different settings for a year at that point which I would have not been able to manage on public transport.

Giving people food vouchers, or even a mix of food and utility vouchers just denies people the opportunity to effectively manage their own budgets to suit their own circumstances. It infantalises without actually being a parent and scooping up and helping when required. It just makes life harder.

It's beyond me that people can't see that. We need to trust that adults can make the right decisions for both themselves and their families.

Id like to see the UK because more self sufficient and less reliant on welfare. I don't think cutting benefits helps as it creates more desperate people. We need to give people the freedom and for that they are going to need skills, imagination, courage....what we have is fear, skills shortages and preoccupied with life's problems to even think out the box.

I understand these are valid points for your situation, but as someone who has worked for over 10yrs with many people who rely solely on benefits money, beleive me it's a huge issue that sadly some are definitely NOT able to budget effectively and prioritise spending it on their children.

I've seen parents many a time splashing it on fancy tech, branded trainers, drugs/cigarettes/alcahol, takeaways, new furniture, etc etc, whilst their children go without.
On one occasion, with one such family, their child's birthday was coming up.
When they were asked about him having a birthday cake, they answered 'we can't afford one' So sad 😢

You could have fuel vouchers.But fair point about the clothes thing.
I just think there needs to be more monitoring of what people are spending benefits on....it's taxpayers money after all.And whilst some may be genuinely using it for essential living costs, others certainly are not.
I use UC reimbursing childcare too, but that's abit different as it's a straight pay back for money spent on that specific purpose.

It’s not taxpayers’ money. It’s money that belongs to the benefit claimant. You might as well say my pension is taxpayers’ money and you should monitor what I spend it on. It’s none of your business.

1.If the state gives someone extra money because they have children, then the recipient should be spending at least that amount of money directly on the child. That includes bigger accomodation, food and clothes - but not tech or clothes for parents, alcohol, treats for the parent etc. It isn't their money: the state is giving it to them on behalf of the child. The state only hands the extra benefit money to the parent because that's practical.

2.If someone earns money themselves (or is given benefits for themselves - not the extra for having children), then that money is theirs. They still have a responsibility to adequately provide for their children out of it (otherwise social services get involved), but beyond that they can spend it on what they like, including themselves.

Where parents are acting in their child's interests, it's more efficient not to give vouchers, so that they can make best use of that money. But that efficiency does need to be balanced against the fact not everyone does.

I'd rather the money the state is providing for the child be used directly on the child wherever that's possible: so free school meals and the equivalent in the holidays, school uniform schemes, books, rent paid directly, childcare paid directly. That way child definitely gets the money which the taxpayer is paying for them.

This is exactly what I was pointing towards to, but more eloquently put by @strawberrybubblegum

Its like when people say “I’m getting paid on Friday” when that’s when their benefits are coming in 🥴 It’s not a salary.