The two-child benefit cap is social cleansing. Starmer must end it - Rosie Duffield

[IwantToRetire]

In an outspoken challenge to her leader, Labour’s Rosie Duffield says Tory rules penalising women with three or more children are worthy of The Handmaid’s Tale

Key points

• Labour MP condemns “anti-feminist and unequal” legislation, especially its “rape clause”
• Sir Keir Starmer has said scrapping the law is unaffordable at present
• More than a dozen backbenchers are forcing the issue with an amendment to the King’s Speech
• Like her friend JK Rowling, Duffield has previously attacked Labour’s record on women

The two-child limit is a feminist issue. It is a heinous piece of legislation and the reason above all others that I was driven to stand as a member of parliament. With the introduction of such a sinister and overtly sexist law, I was propelled towards Westminster to stop it.

article continues at https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/rosie-duffield-mp-two-child-benefit-cap-scncpn9dd

and at https://archive.ph/5On4a

... 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

I really don’t think it is. No one has to have more than 2 children. I wanted (note want not needed!) more but can’t afford them so stopped at 2. That’s just life 🤷‍♀️. No one can blindly pro-create without consequences. I am not a fan of 99% of the stuff the conservatives did but this was totally fair enough.

Sorry but I have to disagree. Many of us chose to only have 1 or 2 children before the cap was introduced because that's all we could afford, having a large family is a privilege not a right especially when you expect other people to pay for them

She says it curtails women’s right to choose how many children they have which is clearly untrue. Have as many kids as you like but the taxpayer isn’t going to fund it.

I just can’t get my head around her thinking at all… maybe I’m thick but to call it ‘social cleansing’ is bonkers. Two kids is fine. If you want more, then cut your cloth.

I could not believe that KS dared to say the country can't afford it. He's found plenty of billions to send to Ukraine.

No. We stopped at 2 so we could afford to look after them.

The cost to the state of scrapping this is over £1bn.

Starmer is already writing cheques that nobody can cash. So this additional money is a no.

The only time it should be waived is if the second pregnancy is a multiple.
I would like to see child benefit re- structured so the majority is received during the expensive pre- school years then the remainder comes during the primary years. Giving a flat monthly amount from 0-18 doesn't make sense. Any family on a low income could receive top -ups in the secondary years.

No one is actually stopping people from having as many kids as they wish. They’re just saying no one else is going to help you pay for them.
And anyone who is basing the decision for whether they can afford to pay for another child on whether they get child benefits for them can, sadly, NOT afford them.

I was surprised by this article-I don't agree with it at all....Responsible people only have as many children as they can look after & provide for. Tax payers should not have to pay for feckless parents who don't use birth control! Shame RD put her name to this as she's great in other areas

This idea that we should punish children with poverty for the choices made/circumstances of their parents is frankly nasty.

We have the money, it's a matter of priorities.

Strong disagree. Women having three kids is a choice, no one needs 3 especially if they can't afford to pay for them. There are much better things this money could be spent on to give the children more advantages than handing it over to their feckless parents.

I read that article this morning - I have a lot of time for Rosie Duffield but her argument makes her look silly. There are lots of people not remotely affected by the benefit cap who choose to have 1 or 2 children because that's what they can afford. You cut your cloth.

I'm personally with Rosie on this one, and I'm not much of a leftie.

Our birth rate is too low and is dropping further. Our govt (and prev ones) recognise this but their measures generally benefit MC families. Reading between the lines, they're saying they do want to raise the birth rate "but not poor kids, thank you very much".

We need more babies. We need to support mothers, and not just the rich ones.

As an aside, everyone here was rightfully up in arms about China's one child policy. (That was much more horrific as women were forced to have abortions etc.) But the similarity is that rich families could get away with more kids by paying large fines. It was a cruel social engineering. Finally, in the 20-teens China realised they shot themselves in the foot horrifically as the birth rate plummeted way below replacement rate, with bad economic consequences. So now, as of 2021, they are giving financial incentives for families to have more children.

That is a cautionary tale.

Could you explain how rich mothers are being supported at the expense of poor ones please?

I'm assuming this is a genuine question. I would have thought it's very obvious, there are myriad examples. Tax free childcare and other childcare subsidies for example, they primarily benefit MC families.

The upper salary limit for childcare free hours is 100k. So a couple who are both on 90k can get childcare subsidies. There is a lower limit too.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not complaining about that either. I think all mothers and children should get as much support as possible, even higher earning ones. We should incentivise larger families because we are in a spiraling birth deficit problem

Someone on MN created a thread. It was demonstrating how a person earning 90k gets the same as a single parent with two kids earning 30k once they got UC top up with rent childcare etc child benefit

So I like the cap!

From an environmental perspective exponential birthrates are unsustainable, 2 children is a good replacement number.

I would have loved more babies and am stupidly fertile, but it was not only affordability that stopped me at 2.

Totally disagree .

Most people consider how many children they can afford , how distressing to not have that additional child but see your taxes go to those who have no care whether they can afford children

Cant quite understand how this can be true!

But the point is that child benefit is about the state recognising its needs children (to become future adult earners / taxpayers) and so contributes towards the cost, in the same way as it pays for schools.

Added to which as is said over and over again, means testing is so expensive to implement that it is easier and more cost effective to pay the same to all.

There is nothing to stop a Government implementing a tax regime so that those earning more dont end up benefiting. (pa child benefit is £1,331 and £881 )

The issues with 2 child limit, isn't about those who chose to do it for whatever reason (highly unlikely to be knowing what child benefit you get), but for those circumstances where a family has more than 2 children but circumstances change because of health or death, should not find the 3rd of 4th child becomes a burden.

I really think those who say well I made the right choice so in no circumstances would I support someone who made a different choice need need to maybe be a bit less sanctimonious.

Spot on @hattie43

This is why a lot of my otherwise leftie friends are struggling to accept calls to abolish the two child limit. No one wants to see children suffer but it feels fundamentally unfair to people who have limited their family size for financial reasons.

Not going to get much agreement on here, poor people should have less children, rich people should put any excess income over 100k into their pension so they can claim childcare

I hope the cap stays in place. No one is forcing people to have more kids they can't afford.

Why should the rest of us pay? Also, people without kids always have to pay for them, why should they pay more?

I do not agree with people purposefully having children they cannot provide for but once they exist society should not be punishing the children for their parents actions.

I do agree this is a feminist issue. When couple split the woman nearly always takes the kids and the 4 kids that were affordable as a couple become impossible as a single parent with standard maintenance.

I’m a Labour voter who agrees with the 2child cap for the reasons already explained. I think that sensible family planning is to be encouraged.