The two-child benefit limit is a feminist issue

[zibzibara]

https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/elections/general-election-2024/67137/the-two-child-benefit-limit-is-a-feminist-issue

Discussion of the impact of the two-child benefit limit and austerity on households obscures the fact that they directly - and negatively - impact children. It also obscures the disproportionate impact on women, given that the majority of single parents in this country are female. Last month, the [Women's Budget Group] released analysis showing that women in the lowest income decile in the UK will have lost 26 per cent of their income on average because of social security cuts since 2010, compared to 22 per cent of men. The fact is, says Haque, "children are poor because women are poor."

This should be Labour's next priority, getting rid of the Tories' awfully cruel cap on child benefit. Starmer needs to U-turn here, and fast.

https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/uk/66802/the-scandal-that-isnt-poverty-and-this-election-campaign

I don’t disagree with any of that, but where will the money come from?

I agree. Austerity overall hit women harder than men

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/gendered-impacts-of-austerity-cuts/

The Conservatives were not a good government for women. Fingers crossed Labour will be better and I'd love to see an end to the 2 child policy

We will watch and wait.

Children in families hit by 2-child limit also lose most from cuts to public services, finds the Women's Budget Group

New analysis published today by the Women’s Budget Group finds that households with 3 or more children (which are hit hardest by social security cuts, and particularly the two-child limit) are also those that are most affected by cuts to public services since 2010 (projected to 2027/28 based on current government spending plans).

https://www.wbg.org.uk/article/children-in-families-hit-by-2-child-limit-also-lose-most-from-cuts-to-public-services-finds-the-wbg/

removing the two-child limit would come at a cost. We estimate that removing the two-child limit would cost the government about £3.4 billion a year. For a sense of scale, this is equal to roughly 3% of the total working-age benefit budget; it is also approximately the same cost as freezing fuel duties for the next parliament, or cutting the basic rate of income tax by half a penny.

https://ifs.org.uk/articles/two-child-limit-poverty-incentives-and-cost

Agree with this sentiment. It is a feminist issue and a child-focussed issue too.

It serves none of us as a society to keep the two child limit.

No because why are the taxpayers (50% women) paying for a man's kids because he refuses to pay maintenance. That shit is his responsibility we need to start going after dead beats and making them pay a reasonable amount towards their children.
I know someone who only pays SEVEN POUND A WEEK to his kids. The taxpayer literally pays more than that with child benefit *(about £20 a week). This country is notoriously shitty when it comes to making dead beats pay maintenance.

*Oh and child benefit is separate from universal credit child element which is more and the one that is capped

Didn't catch anything on this in the King's Speech.

There’s limited point in removing the 2 child limit unless you also remove the benefit cap.

Where did it come from before?

I agree that we need to get much stricter with making fathers pay child maintenance, its an absolute joke in this country. They need to ensure payments are made and collected directly from salaries/added on to tax returns. I know it would still not be perfect but women are left at the whim of their exes as to whether they get any money or not and the men get away with it. It would mean going against fathers for justice etc but the system really needs an overhaul.

I agree absent parents should pay for their children. If we can lock the entire country down and pay people covid payments overnight, we can achieve this. There just needs to be a will to do it. There's no way it's impossible. Perhaps it should be a focus for the WESC?

Child benefit is additional to whatever any parent contributes towards the cost of raising children.

It is the state's contribution to ensuring (minimally) that future citizens grow up well and healthy.

So for the state to say only 2 out of 3 children should be healthy is just bonkers.

And after all was only done as a gesture to appease mad right wingers by the Tories in the same way as the Rwanda deal. It isn't about real life, it is posture politics. And as usual with posture politics those at the bottome get hurt.

As to the cost to the Government it is minimal compared to others, that's why I posted the links up thread.

They give detail finnacial information.

And just to add to the stupidity of any of these, people are already talking about how we need to boost the birth rate and that in no time at all they may well be suggesting not just usual child benefit for a 3rd or 4th child but actually and increase. And no this isn't coming from families as the basis of society type groups. This is coming from econimists who use information from the census etc., to project forward to a time when there aren't enough people of working age to keep the economy going.

South Korea is a good example of a country that is trying really hard (and failing) to raise the birth rate in fear of forward economic pressure.

They are offering super enhanced maternity provision and even housing grants to making having more children attractive.

The conversation needs to move beyond the perception of paying for other people's children (though absolutely the whole CMS system needs urgent review) and growing awareness that the reduced birth rate is an issue and crucially the ability of children to have access to good education and support to become economically productive.

time.com/6962867/south-korea-low-fertility-rate-birth-cash-programs-quality-life/

Worth a read....