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

HousePlantQueen

Much confusion everywhere. Child benefit replaced Family Allowance
but csn be reduced if one parent is high earner (unsure of new limit).The 2 child limit applies to universal credit or child tax credits (being phased out). Universal credit is claimed by many working families, not just the demonised "babies on benefits" single mums so beloved of the right wing press

Completely correct.

Labradora

Urmstongran

^I think Paul Johnson (The Times Monday) is nearer the mark. ‘If middle income people have to make financial trade-offs and sacrifices when deciding how many children to have, is it really fair to have an open- ended commitment to poorer families who decide to have more children’.

Well said that man! 👏👏

👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏

It's not well said though, it is just short sighted and lacking in imagination. as has been stated on this thread many times, circumstances can change for any family. What was once perfectly affordable is no longer, the families cant suddenly reduce in size the suit their reduced income.

That is apart from the immorality of keeping children in poverty because they were born to the wrong class of parent.

Cossy

dalrymple23

I seem to recall that Child Benefit was introduced, so that the mother had some money. The main breadwinners (men) were historically paid in cash and would drink most of it on the way home on a Friday or just not give anything to the wife.

As for ex-husbands not contributing, whatever happened to Garnishee Orders?

My understanding is that family allowance, which later became child benefit, was introduced post war to raise the birth rate due to the deaths during WW2

I’m an only child, born 1958, my mother always claims back in the day CB wasn’t paid for the first child?

My son was born in December 1975 and I didn't get any Child Benefit for him, until he was 18 months in 1977 when the Law was changed to include first born children. Then I received the princely sum of £1 a week!

This Government is expected to clear the damage carried out in the last 14 years in weeks

I disagree Anniebach. There’s much to do. I’m happy to be patient providing I see steady progress.

immorality of keeping children in poverty because they were born to the wrong class of parent

Why are we so mawkishly sentimental about so called "child poverty" Children contribute nothing to society until they are old enough to get a job and pay tax - assuming they are not low paid and so being subbed out by the taxpayer. Children consume huge amounts of resources and generate huge amounts of waste. As for their potential, they have just as much potential to become criminals, drug addicts or scroungers as they have to become a contributing member of the community.

Maybe if the children are hungry it will be more of an incentive for their parents to get up off their lazy backsides and work more than 16 hours a week (subbed out by the tax payer) or improve their qualifications and get a better paid job.

Oyr society seems to be all about supporting the scroungers and the no hopers and taxing those who work hard, budget responsibly and limit the children they do have.

I was an only child born in 1946 and my parents never received any child allowance for me. I didn't receive any allowance for my first child,born in 1975, until the law was changed.

We would have been called middle class parents but my husband was feckless with money, and until I went back to work until my second child was two child allowance was about the only money I could rely on.
But I do agree with Paul Johnson; I had to make financial trade-offs and sacrifices, including no more children, which was not how I expected my life to be. Nobody else's fault, no body else's responsibility.

So many dreadful right-wing comments on here, I'm just waiting for someone to quote Norman Tebbit......

I think that the only fair way is be to radically reform the system. It is insane that people who work full-time should still be unable to pay for a roof over their heads and support their children. I think the vast majority of people would much prefer to earn their own money and not be humiliated by having to claim benefits, but the system works against them.

I would like to see child benefit made universal and not means-tested (as it used to be), all children given free school meals and childcare to be subsidised or free. I would also like to see rent controls and nationalised energy so people have spare money and an incentive to aim for a better life. That way, parents could work, and pay taxes which would circulate in the economy instead of being diverted to the pockets of landlords and low-paying employers. If employers 'can't afford' to pay decent wages they could be given loans to tide them over, and pay the money back when things improve, but they should not be subsidised by taxpayers, and taxpayers shouldn't be paying mortgages for landlords either. If interest rates rise to the point that landlords 'can't afford' to pay the mortgage with fair rents, then councils could buy the properties and take over the rentals.

Those who work should be better off than those who don't, regardless of the number of children. I fully understand people resenting seeing non-workers getting paid to have children that workers can't afford, and those who work full-time being annoyed when part-timers get their money made up by the State; but when rents are ridiculously high, wages are low and basics such as energy eat into family budgets, I can see how hopeless it must be for many people.

It needs to stop, but doing so will be like unravelling a tangled ball of wool. If something's not done though, the likes of Reform will continue to gain supporters, and heaven help us all.

Well said Doodledog. Maybe now, some of it might come true.

I'd really like to think so, J52.

Good post Doodledog. Let’s hope we have a government with similar views.

We need to invest in our children. They’re our future.

biglouis

*immorality of keeping children in poverty because they were born to the wrong class of parent*

Why are we so mawkishly sentimental about so called "child poverty" Children contribute nothing to society until they are old enough to get a job and pay tax - assuming they are not low paid and so being subbed out by the taxpayer. Children consume huge amounts of resources and generate huge amounts of waste. As for their potential, they have just as much potential to become criminals, drug addicts or scroungers as they have to become a contributing member of the community.

Maybe if the children are hungry it will be more of an incentive for their parents to get up off their lazy backsides and work more than 16 hours a week (subbed out by the tax payer) or improve their qualifications and get a better paid job.

Oyr society seems to be all about supporting the scroungers and the no hopers and taxing those who work hard, budget responsibly and limit the children they do have.

Your cup of generosity and understanding overflowing again I see.

Biglouis, you have expressed often your disdain for children. I will repeat my response.
If you eat, the food will have been planted, harvested, and driven to you by a person who used to be a child.
If you have a need for pharmaceuticals, these will have been developed, manufactured, and delivered by a range of people who used to be children.
If you travel in a bus or a taxi, need surgery or dental work....there's a theme here, I think .
Of course, some children do grow up to be criminal, but, as we're unable to predict this at infancy, we simply must do our best and hope for the best.

Clawdy

So many dreadful right-wing comments on here, I'm just waiting for someone to quote Norman Tebbit......

Yes. My Grandfather got on his bike, rode 10 miles to work, 10 miles home.
A proud man. Agricultural worker, as is my Grandson, most of his life.
People move for work, they always have. People work away to provide. Nothing right wing, whatever that is, about it.

Doodledog

I think that the only fair way is be to radically reform the system. It is insane that people who work full-time should still be unable to pay for a roof over their heads and support their children. I think the vast majority of people would much prefer to earn their own money and not be humiliated by having to claim benefits, but the system works against them.

I would like to see child benefit made universal and not means-tested (as it used to be), all children given free school meals and childcare to be subsidised or free. I would also like to see rent controls and nationalised energy so people have spare money and an incentive to aim for a better life. That way, parents could work, and pay taxes which would circulate in the economy instead of being diverted to the pockets of landlords and low-paying employers. If employers 'can't afford' to pay decent wages they could be given loans to tide them over, and pay the money back when things improve, but they should not be subsidised by taxpayers, and taxpayers shouldn't be paying mortgages for landlords either. If interest rates rise to the point that landlords 'can't afford' to pay the mortgage with fair rents, then councils could buy the properties and take over the rentals.

Those who work should be better off than those who don't, regardless of the number of children. I fully understand people resenting seeing non-workers getting paid to have children that workers can't afford, and those who work full-time being annoyed when part-timers get their money made up by the State; but when rents are ridiculously high, wages are low and basics such as energy eat into family budgets, I can see how hopeless it must be for many people.

It needs to stop, but doing so will be like unravelling a tangled ball of wool. If something's not done though, the likes of Reform will continue to gain supporters, and heaven help us all.

Child benefit was never means tested, until the last Government said you're earning to much, so you can't have it,but pay your taxes so others can.

Nothing right wing, whatever that is, about it.

Do you really need someone to explain what right wing means?

Basically the split between left and right is on an axis with ‘large state’ at one end (left) and small state at the other (right). A large state provides education, health welfare etc from the centre with everyone contributing via compulsory taxes, and a small one has low tax and leaves provision to the individual.

The other axis has authoritarianism on one end and liberalism on the other. Both left and right can be authoritarian at the extremes - think Mao (total state economic control) and Pinochet (virtually complete free market) at the other, but both highly authoritarian.

There are dictators at both ends, so the important axis is the economic one. I can’t think of examples of either right or left that have liberalism at the extreme. Dogma always has to be ruthlessly enforced I suppose, but that axis shows where ‘centre’ is and how far towards the extreme someone’s views are positioned.

A right wing comment in the context of this thread is one that suggests parents should provide for children or let them do without, and a left wing comment is one that suggests that children are a collective responsibility so the government should provide everything.

I can’t believe you didn’t know that, but happy to help anyway.

👍🏻

Absolutely, Doodledog. It also saddens me when people insist on harking back to the past and saying things like 'oh well, in my day, we managed without it' etc. Yes, maybe we and our mothers and grandmothers had to struggle, but shouldn't we want better for the current and future generations?

Working parents have to make a choice as to how many children they can afford. It is totally immoral that non working parents can expect benefits for unlimited children. I also feel the child benefit system is flawed a family with one stay at home parent and one working parent earning over £60000 is penalised. A family with 2 working parents earning £59000 each is not

Yes you can afford to have as many children as you like if the government is paying you benefits so it seems, more kids equals more money from the taxpayers who have to go to work and have to think twice before deciding they can start a family and pay their bills.

biglouis

*immorality of keeping children in poverty because they were born to the wrong class of parent*

Why are we so mawkishly sentimental about so called "child poverty" Children contribute nothing to society until they are old enough to get a job and pay tax - assuming they are not low paid and so being subbed out by the taxpayer. Children consume huge amounts of resources and generate huge amounts of waste. As for their potential, they have just as much potential to become criminals, drug addicts or scroungers as they have to become a contributing member of the community.

Maybe if the children are hungry it will be more of an incentive for their parents to get up off their lazy backsides and work more than 16 hours a week (subbed out by the tax payer) or improve their qualifications and get a better paid job.

Oyr society seems to be all about supporting the scroungers and the no hopers and taxing those who work hard, budget responsibly and limit the children they do have.

Blimey biglouis that's quite a Dickensian outlook you have there.

"Children contribute nothing to society"

Firstly, we need to have more children being born to support an ageing population, that's the same throughout the western world.

Secondly, whether you like it or not the continuation of the species is hard wired into most living creatures, human beings included, it could be argued that to procreate is one of the reasons were are on this earth, we invest our hopes in future generations, it's simply part of the human condition, even when at times the future seems pretty bleak. That's not to say I don't respect the prerogative of the individual not to have children.

Of course children consume huge amounts of resources and generate waste, although quantify huge, we were all children once and if you buy into that argument, you might as well question does anyone have the right to exist on this earth including ourselves. It's kind of self defeating. All children should unquestionably be properly nourished irrespective of their parents circumstances, to say it might incentivise their parents to get off their backsides and provide if the child goes hungry is inhumane. Some children are born to feckless parents, that's not their fault, no one has any control over the circumstances into how they come into this world. Yes sometimes it's been patently obvious that in certain cases those children should be removed to a stable and safe environment where they could have the potential to flourish. You cannot write children off as potential criminals and drug addicts if they are born to such people, not everyone replicates their beginnings, there have been numerous testaments from those who have risen above those difficulties and gone on to achieve.

Maria59

Working parents have to make a choice as to how many children they can afford. It is totally immoral that non working parents can expect benefits for unlimited children. I also feel the child benefit system is flawed a family with one stay at home parent and one working parent earning over £60000 is penalised. A family with 2 working parents earning £59000 each is not

I agree with your first sentence, although I don't think morality comes into it - it's about fairness and political choice. That's why I think there should be a restructure of the system to give all children a good start, and that CB should be universal and not means-tested.

I'm less convinced about the second sentence. If there are two workers, both are contributing labour and taxes, and as a couple they will be paying for commuting, general work expenses and probably childcare. A family with one worker earning £59000 is a lot better off than one with two people on £30k each when you take that into account.

I think the cap discriminates against single parents, though. I would remove the means test, but I don't think that making two-worker families subsidise single-worker families is remotely fair.

If you eat, the food will have been planted, harvested, and driven to you by a person who used to be a child. If you have a need for pharmaceuticals, these will have been developed, manufactured, and delivered by a range of people who used to be children. If you travel in a bus or a taxi, need surgery or dental work....there's a theme here, I think

Thats the kind of dumb argument my parents would have used.

The "theme" is that yes of course I use these facilities - and so do the breeders. So my taxes are still going to support "family life". However childfree people - the least selfish group in society - are not getting anything equivalent in return.

I'm sure there are facilities which some of us don't or will never us, but still pay for through our taxes. That's part and parcel of being a civilised society.