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.

It is best for everyone for the poor to have no children, the middle classes to have few, and the rich to have lots. It will pretty much solve the inequality problem within a generation.

Historically I can see why politics and social norms pushed above replacement rate. But we can’t really just keep going up.

Resources are being fought over already, population growth has been swift in past decades and AI is going to change things a lot.

We should look forward and think about how many young people we want to enter a workforce and think of policies and their long term impact.

Has the population grown in the last few decades? I always thought the birth rate overall was now below replacement because Western countries have stopped having as many children, and although some non-Western countries still have a higher birth rate, there was still an overall drop.

AI is an issue in terms of employment, taxation, and the environmental impact, I agree.

@FrequencyI nearly put century but mostly I’m thinking of this leap from a billion to where we are now.

I think we need to factor in population v resources and also consider AI. The latter might get us out of some issues if we can reduce by a fair amount. Not just U.K., but generally.

Reduce via falling birth rate that is.

Actually it leads to instability. Everyone of Boris Johnson's 9 children will aspire to become an influential journalist, a politician or a King's counsel like their parents. How many King's counsels or MPs are there . In the hundreds. Some people will inevitably get pushed away. JD Vanc

This is why we have such polarised politics today, majority of the far right are wealthy people who feel they don't have the influence or power they crave and so they take more and more extreme positions to gain power.

Ideally the middle class and the poor should have more children and the rich should try to avoid a situation like in Saudi Arabia where there are hundreds of eligible crown prince's (and lots of intrigue and infighting!) When uk had the empire, they could import the excess elites to the colonies where they could lord it over the natives. Hence why first son would inherit the land, one would go into the clergy, third and fourth son would go into the army or the law. These social structures were to prevent elite infighting and this is why the uk probably still has a monarchy and a long standing tradition of parliamentary democracy. Unfortunately there isn't such a strict trajectory for the children of the wealthy now so I suppose it is a fight to the death with us as collateral damage.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/jun/10/how-to-avoid-a-civil-war-by-the-man-who-predicted-trump

Having 1 child may ensure better outcomes for 1 child, like for me I am having 1 child so I can pay for quality childcare, stay in my tiny flat in an excellent school catchment area and also pay for private education. Many people will make those decisions anyway. But not everyone values education nor can we force people to.

The middle classes tend to have 1 or 2.

It's those who expect everyone else to pay for their kids and lifestyle that have loads. There was a reason the cap came in. I'm sick of funding the lifestyles of freeloaders. It's bad enough with the illegal migrants.

The housing issue is also down to the high rate of divorce.
We have many more homes inhabited by one individual these days. They still need more than one bedroom so the kids can stay every other weekend.

Factor in the rise of ai and the job roles that won't need filling and you can see a clear case for less people on the planet (quite aside from how destructive we are as an animal).

Less people can only be a fantastic thing.

The earth can only support a finite number of people, we can't just keep increasing the population to keep the last generation in pensions etc. People are going to have to learn to live with it.

This

It took seven hundred (from 837 AD to 1534) for the world population to double from 0.25 billion to 0.5 billion.

Then 260 years between the 16th century and 18th century to double from 0.5 billion to 1 billion.

Then 125 years between the 18th and 20th century to double from 1 billion to 2 billion.

Then 47 years (1928 to 1975) to double from 2 billion to 4 billion.

Then 48 years (1975 to 2023) to double from 4 billion to 8 billion.

From an environmental, resource, economic and social perspective there are simply too many people in the world, including the UK.

A shrinking global and UK population should be something to be encouraged and not discouraged.

This was a nonsense and was only ever going to damage women and children. I think the current levels of childhood poverty hold this out.

Traditionally its always been paid as a monetary sum originally as cash then as a direct payment and usually to the Mother. This was originally so that there was always some money the Mother had discretion over even if it was for buying things for the children. It was if you like a bit of a safeguard for those in abusive or controlled situations. I think it originated from the number of Fathers who would collect pay and head for pub getting home with tuppence in their pockets!!

Vouchers are belittling and controlling and I think that we should leave that well alone.

I also think ALL children should be fed at school lunch time, for those with issues it should be flexible and where possible provided at school. I don't like breakfast clubs that are not whole school either.

I think secondaries need to rethink how they do food as well. I well remember when mine was in secondary and we were hand to mouth the possibility of her over spending scared me to death when I was literally counting miles worth of petrol.

This would require everyone to pay higher taxes and / or a reduction in UC

No it would just be focussed on paying that rather than the million little hits on tax for eat well, kid weight monitoring, breakfast clubs, other schemes

I think we have to look at the whole system rather than piecemeal "This is a good thing"

I do think monies are wasted elsewhere.

I also think transport to school should be better organised esp at primary level - OK we may pay more council tax to cover that expense but think of the savings in terms of traffic management, need for vehicles, time wasted travelling to and from school for the pick up parents etc

I think we have to rationlise where the money is going and get back to good solid basics, 1 hot meal a day at school for ALL

I am pretty annoyed with the recent announcement that Labour is considering removing the child cap. No I am not annoyed that children will be supported but I am annoyed that those who choose and it is a choice (aside from multiple births) to have more than 2 children and not properly budget for them, especially in a cost of living crisis, get out of being held responsible for a situation of their own creation.

For me, it not just about having the child but all the support/facilities/infrastructure that need to be in place for a third child in this day and age. Where is the additional money going to come from to fund this?

In London affordable family homes are not being built, if you have a family of 5 they will need a 3 bed house minimum. This will just make overcrowding worse and put the responsibility on individual councils to house more people. How will they fund it? By pushing up council tax, so those people who are responsible will have to fork out more and be unable to have additional children themselves.

If I could hold back my tax at this moment I would. And before anyone says it no I am not a Reformer, far from it but it is just so unfair. You work hard to get qualifications, gain a student debt in order to get a decent job, you work hard to get a house that you either have to sell for IHT or care home fees, you can't get your state pension until you are 67/68, you can't afford to quit work to look after your grandchildren , so your children end up having to pay extortionate childcare fees and the cycle continues. It shouldn't be this hard to do the right thing.

And to top it off from 2028 you have to be 57 before you can draw on your own private pension but yet 18 year olds who have not paid a penny in tax or NI can leave school, claim benefits and not have to pay a penny back.

Tinkering with the benefit system is not dealing with the issues that have caused people to require benefits in the first place. I would rather that Labour had the balls to admit this, have the difficult conversations, find solutions and make necessary changes.

IF and it's a big IF there are good reasons for the state to 'punish' fecundity amongst the poor then the two child limit is a crude and ineffective tool.

@Bromptotoo It is not about punishment. It's about responsibility. No one is saying you can not have any children but if you would like more than two, plan accordingly.

What is so wrong with that? I am genuinely interested in what you think.

I put punishment in inverted commas but when George Osborne announced the 2 child limit he was, IMO, appealing to those who wanted to punish.

Given we're not replacing ourselves at the moment, both my kids only intend one child, then I worry about who will pay for my daughter's pension. For that reason I'm not sure we need to drive behaviour of people having more than 2.

If society really thinks no more than two unless affordability is planned for then I question whether the welfare system is the right tool.

Two child rule doesn't seem to have changed the so called baby fathers, or the mothers of their multiple kids. People's lives are disorganised.

I work as a Welfare Rights Adviser. Helped somebody yesterday who had three children. Planned, conceived and born when her husband was with her and earning enough for them to not get Child Benefit.

He dropped dead just after Easter - heart failure.

Should she have to bring up her third child without the help she'd otherwise get from UC?

China is currently reaping the rewards of its one child policy. With a rapidly falling birth rate we should be encouraging people to have children not making it harder. I don’t imagine opponents of the two child cap would disapprove of tax breaks for working parents.

@Bromptotoo Thanks for the explanation. Sorry to hear of your client's loss but did they take out life insurance, add nominees to their pensions and write wills following the birth of their first child.

I am not trying to be difficult or blame anyone but we live in different times and I think that this should be standard advice when you have children as you can not predict the future.

On worry over your dc’s pension are you not also concerned re what a rising population will do wrt volatility related to resources and if AI will impact the workforce she enters?

I think that’s one of the grey areas that needs to be bottomed out but
Most families don’t lose one of the parents when kids are young

In terms of needing an increased population to pay someone’s pension. I disagree that this should be a reason to increase the two child benefit.

Im assuming our Governments are banking on many more people having private pensions in the future. We know this is the case and has been encouraged with policies over many years.
So, in the not too distant future, I am guessing the state pension bill will reduce for those with good private pensions thus making it more affordable for the State to support the disabled ( for example) that don’t have a private pension. It’s a long road but I think this is the plan.

We can’t just keep increasing our population to pay for those on benefits…as a world we don’t have the resources.

@StandingSideBySide

"We can’t just keep increasing our population to pay for those on pensions…as a world we don’t have the resources."

Exactly it's like an ever expanding pyramid scheme where the price of a bigger and bigger population is the environment, quality of life and the economic well being of everyone.

We can’t just keep increasing our population to pay for those on benefits…as a world we don’t have the resources.

Our population isn’t increasing, it’s falling. We’re not even replacing ourselves. It’s not about pensions, it’s about paying for all public services - health, roads, the whole infrastructure our lives depend on. Insufficient taxpayers = no quality of life or economic wellbeing for anyone. I don’t know why I care because I’ll be long gone by the time the effects of a diminished population hit. Just be careful what you wish for if your 50th birthday still lies ahead.

Of course it is, but we're getting to the stage where the only group that are paying for it are being outnumbered by those who pay nothing!!