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.

Yes. The actual stats are surely important here.

Not when you can have a sanctimonious bosom hoick about irresponsible parents.

Of course anyone from any walk of life can be selfish with money, and not prioritise their kids.I'm not by any means 'anti-poorer people' as you seem to be implying.But the difference is, that benefits are taxpayers and government money.

As regards your comments about social services, you would probably be suprised how much it takes to get them involved nowadays! (I work in the sector) They often won't do unless it's extreme neglect.And it's hard to evidence neglect too sometimes.
This is especially the case in relation to cannabis, which is given the 'green light' mostly it seems.

I think we will have to agree to disagree about the vouchers, but I think its all too easy for people to see a lump of money go into their amount and get 'tempted' by things other than the essentials.

Yeah I know. Too early in the morning. 🫣

Benefits are hardly any money, having vouchers and ppl checking expenditure would cost more to administer?

Who provides the vouchers? How much will they charge? Who will administer and oversee the transactions so supermarkets get their hard cash?

Ppl who use benefits to supplement rent, buy a fridge - how?

Who decides what the money can be spent on?

And should we include making state pension a voucher?

I’d prefer more scrutiny of the transfer of public wealth to private companies via contracts, they are killing the country.

If anything we need to spend more money in improving services (sure start, Connexions, addiction help, social services etc) pay those workers more, ensure a career pathway etc and chances are many of the social ills will stop in a generation.

Benefits are not "hardly any money" they are the governments largest expenditure.

When you receive them they absolutely are 'hardly any money'.

The idea that people on benefits are more likely to buy the wrong things than those whose pounds are entirely earned or provided as pensions is nonsense on stilts.

How? How do vouchers protect children? They couldn’t be sold on? Used for food a child doesn’t like? Exchanged under the counter for vapes or cigarettes?

But the difference is, that benefits are taxpayers and government money

loads, absolutely loads of people who claim benefits are also tax payers, And we all pay VAT.

At least it is some barrier to help children. At my school children eat plain pasta for dinner every night, the only proper food they get is at school.

I'm sick of left wing people protecting any sort of benefits at all costs - including the well being of children.

Pensions make up around half of the bill.

interesting that I cannot find a more recent graph, but with welfare cuts and increase in retirees, I cannot see that this chart has changed much.

https://fullfact.org/economy/welfare-budget/

But the point being made is this:

put money in my bank account: One person required to process the payment.

give me vouchers: one person required to send me the vouchers. Another required to liaise with the supermarket to supermarket gets its money. Another required to manage non arrival of vouchers.

Double or triple the cost to tax payers?

Not cost effective. No guarantee the most vulnerable eg. children will be better fed.

@notbelieved Don’t forget - who supplies the vouchers and how much of a cut do they get?

Some ppl would probably transfer/sell them - use £20 of your vouchers to buy me shopping that I’ll give you £15 cash for.
win/win

I'm far from left wing but making all benefits parents have to pay for everything with vouchers is not the answer to that issue. Years of working in a casino I've seen high income fathers blow More money in slot machines in one day than benefit claimants get in a month. Then I see their children around town wearing falling apart rags.

So are we going to make everyone who has children have their grocery basket inspected?

I'm sick of ppl, often right wing, always looking for punitive measures against the poor/disadvantaged instead of investing in services that 1. Improve society, 2. Employ ppl to further improve their life chances.

www.theguardian.com/education/2025/may/22/sure-start-centres-saved-uk-government-2-for-every-1-spent-study-finds

The vote on this is majority it should stay, it feels like politicians are scrabbling to do this.

Sounds a bit like the Brexit argument. I don’t want any child living in poverty. I sincerely hope it will be reversed.

Why are you replying to me about this? I haven't even mentioned sure start. All I've said is that the welfare of children needs to be central - more than well-meaning ideas. I'm sick of seeing children at our school only fed plain pasta at home, or not bought shoes. Our school provides a huge amount of parenting support to deprived families - some take it up, others dont.

Brilliant post. A lot of people are clueless about realities.

If children are living in poverty, it is their parents that are to blame. Not the government.

@Sleepingmole6 Because you said you are sick of left wing ppl protecting benefits at all costs.

I consider myself LW, not claimed a benefit in my life thankfully, but believe that the current benefits are too low, poverty too high and services too scant.

It shouldn’t be down to your school to provide such support (what does that entail?), it should be a national aim - like sure start/connexions- to reduce poverty and raise lifestyles.

However are you sure your schools approach is even working if you still have purely fed children?
And how do you think reducing benefits will help your children?

True, but the government can help reverse this.

The social contract should ensure we have conditions in which ppl can thrive.

At present I’m not even sure how ppl cope - living in precarious, expensive housing is a large part of the issue I think.

Low oppurtunities.

Poor education.

Poor support (mental health, substance abuse, DV etc)

No it doesn’t what an odd claim. And not everyone agrees with you going by the vote.

Are you even real?

Aside from the abusive relationships mentioned above, people get ill and die, or are killed in accidents.

The four children they could afford at birth are only getting half the money they need to live on.

In what world is that fair or reasonable?

I know life insurance is cheap when you're young but critical illness is way to costly for people on ordinary money.

I don’t think disagreeing with not wanting any child to live in poverty is anything to be proud of.