What is this 2 child cap benefit anyway? Who does it affect?

The Child Support Agency won’t help to make th father pay if the mother works. That was my experience. He claimed tax relief because of what he said he was having to pay for me and our two children. In reality, he never qnteibuted a penny to their upkeep. It was all down to me. I put them through uni - debt free and it was HARD.

People get paid to look after children
We either look after them ourselves or we pay other people to do it

MissAdventure

Batch cooking, anyone?

Oh and from scratch, of course

Paperbackwriter

JenniferEccles

To my astonishment, saying people should only have the children they can afford, is often not very well received on GN !

Thing is, people's circumstances change. You might, with a lovely husband, have four children that you can afford at the time. Then things alter - he dies, or runs off with your best 'friend'. Suddenly you're on your own and what do you get? People like some on here, dissing you for being feckless and selfish because you now have children you can't afford... Walk/shoes/mile in etc.

This, in a nutshell. As the saying goes, life is what happens when you're busy making plans. None of us knows what is around the corner. I'm sure most people start off married life or living with a partner in the hope that it will all be 'happy ever after', but it doesn't always work out that way - and often through no fault of their own.

Presumably every single person who worked hard, b.ah blah blah also had huge handouts from mummy and daddy.
Should I assume that, based on how many times I see it on gransnet?

Huge handouts, almost round the clock free childcare, which probably includes feeding the children.

Is everyone like that?

JenniferEccles

To my astonishment, saying people should only have the children they can afford, is often not very well received on GN !

Thing is, people's circumstances change. You might, with a lovely husband, have four children that you can afford at the time. Then things alter - he dies, or runs off with your best 'friend'. Suddenly you're on your own and what do you get? People like some on here, dissing you for being feckless and selfish because you now have children you can't afford... Walk/shoes/mile in etc.

Years ago isn't now.
It's that simple, for those who choose to understand.

HattieTopper

Years ago I worked in a clinic where baby andmilk and vitamin drops were given out freely to young mothers on child benefit. They handed over their tokens, were given 3 tins of SMA milk and vitamin drops. They then went to the phone in the reception area, rang for a taxi to take them to a shopping centre. then went outside and lit up a cigarette.

She was on benefits but could afford to get taxis and smoke. Other mums who could not caim benefits as they were above the threshold for claiming them were having to pay a lot of money for their baby milk so were worse off than the mothers on benefits.

There is something wrong with our system.

All mothers were/are entitled to child benefit. I expect you had it back when your children were young. I certainly did. I remember campaigning for it to continue to be paid weekly in cash over the post office counter rather than being paid monthly into a bank account. That is not at all the same as 'being on benefits'. For many women it was the only money they had any personal access to. The same applies now.

undines

Yes we should try to proceed in an organised fashion from birth to death but life - and conception - isn't usually like that for many people. Society needs to pick up the slack with these people, for the sake of the children and for the sake of society itself. As for getting money off the fathers, I presume the dad in question isn't working, because my policeman son is docked some £250/month directly from his salary for his two children, when he has them to stay 3/7ths of the time anyway, plus his ex gets family allowance for the children too. There are lots of forms of unfairness, and many of them are suffered by a non-vocal and often despised section of the populace - the white, heterosexual, middle-class male.

£250 a month isn’t a huge amount to contribute to the care of your children.

I recognise you are aggrieved but honestly -* non-vocal often despised section of the populace -the white, heterosexual, middle class male* . I don’t recognise the world where this is true

LailaAnn, welcome to gransnet. Please keep posting.

Barmeyoldbat

So as a so called single mum with 2 children (divorced) and I take up with a dad, a widower, with 2 children we find ourselves with 4 children but only child allowance for 2. How is that fair. It is not the childrens fault and they shouldn’t have to live in poverty because of the government.

Absolutely - that is one of the situations I was going to point out, but thought I had gone on enough.

Ilovecheese

LailaAnn I am so pleased that you have joined this discussion, I have been getting so disheartened at the level of callousness towards children on this thread.

Thank you! And also want to echo what grandtanteJE65 says better than I had said it - those who are children now are the future for all of us, our country, our society, our world. They are the responsibility of all of us. I remember seeing a book years ago called The Children We Deserve and I think of that phrase often. If we want them to build and be part of a decent world in future and grow into people who respect other human beings and their needs and rights, then we should collectively be nurturing and respecting them now. We should want them not only to have enough to eat and secure and healthy houses to live in but also want them to have schools which are not falling down, enough teachers for them to get enough attention to help them learn, safe outdoor spaces to play in and so on and so forth. I have grandchildren who live on state benefits, who are or have been at risk of going into the care system, who are disabled and have special educational needs. They are exactly the sort of children that some people feel too much public money is spent on. But I know exactly how much they have needed and have not had. And I know how each one is clever, determined, funny, creative and more besides, how worthwhile each one is as a human being. I hate the idea that some children are valuable and others are not.

Batch cooking, anyone?

Many two parent working families would love to have another child, but cant afford too time they add up all the costs involved so they don't, so why should the government keep handing tax payers money to parents who have know for a number of years, since before 2017, to have more children.
I know plenty of people with more than two children to more than two fathers because they dont want the hassle of working and having a young child means UC cant force them into work.
I also know more than one family who are so capable of looking after multiple children even in a two parent household who have social work involvement from the time the child is born and they are off to social work supported nursery places, at they tax payers expense because the parents have no idea how to parent and their children stand no chance in life.
Remember in Scotland the government also give £26.70 ON TOP OF any other benefits per child per week to any parents on UC, Tax Credits, Working tax credits so no excuse for child poverty. This would easily feed any child a healthy diet.

So as a so called single mum with 2 children (divorced) and I take up with a dad, a widower, with 2 children we find ourselves with 4 children but only child allowance for 2. How is that fair. It is not the childrens fault and they shouldn’t have to live in poverty because of the government.

I am in two minds about the benefit cap. Of course I am concerned about child poverty but cannot help thinking that some families do not perhaps think through how many children they can actually afford as opposed to how many they would like. I do not think that the state or the tax payer should have to pick up the tab! There is the situation where families who are both working can only afford one or two children but others who are not or who are on a low income ignore that fact and go on to have several children and rely heavily on the state subsiding their decision. This is blatantly unfair. I myself would have loved a fourth child but knew our family finances simply wouldn’t stretch. Families need a society where hard work and enterprise are rewarded, public services run smoothly and everyone is encouraged to reach their potential. Throwing money into the bottomless pool of the welfare state won’t fix it.

LailaAnn I am so pleased that you have joined this discussion, I have been getting so disheartened at the level of callousness towards children on this thread.

Allsorts

Why is it up to tax payers to raise others larger families. I had 2 children, I could afford 2 no more and I had a husband. When I hear of single mothers with children by different fathers it sickens me. Do they care or even think about the life that child will have? We need proper social workers being paid a good salary without back breaking case loads. A lot of them afraid to go into some homes now.
Why have children with a man that won’tsupport his child when you already have children?

You make it sound, perhaps unintentionally, as if single mothers deliberately choose to have children with men who are not interested in having children.

There may indeed be some women, there certainly were in the 1980s, who want a child, but do not want either to marry or have a permanent relationship with a man, and who either do not tell the man who fathered their child that he has in fact done so, or assume the entire responsibility for the child's upkeep themselves. When I was young, in the 1970s to mid 80, this was considered acceptable, as long as the woman had a well-enough paid job to bring up the child alone.

There are, presumably, still women who can do this, but those were not the ones you or others were talking about.

Many a woman has made the mistake of assuming that if by a mischance she should become pregnant and wish to keep the child the child¨s father would accept responsibility. A great many men do, let us be clear about that, but some don't,

Their reasoning being that they assumed the woman was using contraceptives, or that having a child had not been discussed, and they are probably quite right about that too.
Some women who discovered too late that the man they were sleeping with was not prepared to accept responsibility for a child are undoubtedly in the category this thread is about.

But not all are: Some were in a stable relationship when they had their babies, but the relationship has ended since. Some are still living with the children's father, but now both parents are out of work. These people, and to a greater extent their children, are being kept in poverty, if no help can be given to a third child in a family, or any sibling after no. 2.

We are continually told that the birth-rate is falling (true) and that western society is increasingly composed of middle-aged and old people (also true) and that this leaves us with a society with fewer and fewer wage-earning taxpayers (also true).

So it makes sense to help all children whose parents are for whatever reason at all incapable of supporting them on their own.

JaneJudge

and everyone had to give their 'club' money in on a Sunday at family tea

Yes
Once the,pages started flipping over on the club book it was almost impossible to hold.

Classic

It was brought in because the UK was attracting a lot of very large families, from overseas that could. Live better on benefits here than they could even dream of earning back home. For all those about to jump up and down and call me racist, it's actually about economics, the UK simply can't afford it. It was also paid to families left at home in much cheaper to live in countries in Europe provided that one parent came and worked here.

Sorry - meant to add that it is meaningless to say the UK can’t afford it. If people and companies with a lot of money paid tax properly we could afford for everyone to eat. If we can’t afford as a society to feed all our children, what are we worth?

and everyone had to give their 'club' money in on a Sunday at family tea

My mum ran the Kay's catalogue.
I can remember lugging the damn thing up and down the road to aunt Joycie, aunt Doll, aunt Carol.

Classic

It was brought in because the UK was attracting a lot of very large families, from overseas that could. Live better on benefits here than they could even dream of earning back home. For all those about to jump up and down and call me racist, it's actually about economics, the UK simply can't afford it. It was also paid to families left at home in much cheaper to live in countries in Europe provided that one parent came and worked here.

Not about to jump up and down and call you racist but I couldn’t let this pass without pointing out it is complete and total nonsense as a reason why the 2 child limit was brought in. The government at the time wanted to cut the benefits bill and look tough towards the poor. Saying it was about large families coming from somewhere else is an explanation produced after the event to encourage people to believe that all our country’s problems are down to foreigners rather than to huge inequality, under-investment in public services and the like. I don’t think everyone who believes this kind of stuff is racist but I do think you are easily distracted from the real issues and maybe just don’t like to think about ordinary people, just like you, not having enough food to keep body and soul together, day in, day out.

Nope.
Nobody could ever know for certain what might befall them, all we can do is make the best of where we find ourselves.