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

Well it was called family allowance when my daughter was a child, she's 37 now.

I'm an only child aa my parents simply couldn't afford any more children.
We uprooted from London to Hampshire in 1964 as the waiting list for a council property in London was many years long. The only way to get out of living with another family, renting upstairs in their house, was to move completely out of the area.
My mum often bemoaned that Family Allowance (as it was then) wasn't paid to the first child in any family. Only subsequent children got it. She thought this very unfair
I, as an only child, became eligible in 1977 when I was near the age for it to stop anyway. I wonder if, back in '77 that was the time it changed to Child Benefit.

Martin Lewis explains the 2 child benefit cap very clearly, it's nothing to do with 'family allowance'.

Iam64

Apologies Doodledog for omitting ‘for everyone’

FWIW - I’m with you on universal provision.

I wasn't being picky - it's just that it is central to my plans for when I'm PM

It affects people like my friend whose husband died suddenly and unexpectedly. It affects two parent families with both on work but so poorly paid they have to claim UC It affects every child in a benefit claiming household who is hungry and doesn't have a bed to sleep in or clothes that fit It affects the communities of multiple deprivation where I work Fortunately it's mitigated somewhat by the child payment from the Scottish Government

Around 40% benefit claimants are working! I think we should make employers pay decent wages so our taxes aren't used to subsidise their profits
On another point the government should really get to grips with absent fathers and make them pay towards their children's upbringing.
I also can't believe the number of people on here blaming the mothers as if men have nothing to do with it! I doubt very much a woman decides to have a child so the benefits can pay for her acrylic nails as one poster said.

Sooze58

All very well scrapping it because we need more babies but unfortunately the children of those relying on UC tend to follow in the footsteps of their parents in not working, so they are not net contributors and do not benefit society. Those who are working and sensible about how many children they can afford, will not benefit from removing this cap and therefore will not be encouraged to have more and they are the ones we need to have more children. Children who will grow up, work and contribute!

A very sensible and measured response.

Exactly, if you make a child you must pay to support the child regardless , too many deadbeat dads and sometimes mums who have walked away.
It’s your responsibility to pay for your child, benefits are meant to be a temporary safety net not a permanent right,
All children get child benefit it these refers to additional benefits, why should the state have to keep,paying for endless numbers of children

All very well scrapping it because we need more babies but unfortunately the children of those relying on UC tend to follow in the footsteps of their parents in not working, so they are not net contributors and do not benefit society. Those who are working and sensible about how many children they can afford, will not benefit from removing this cap and therefore will not be encouraged to have more and they are the ones we need to have more children. Children who will grow up, work and contribute!

Totally agree with you!

I'm not so sure that poorer families or single mothers 'decide' to have more children. It's more likely lack of thought before intercourse and that is an issue for education. Of course fathers should contribute but some find ways of evading and cost of (repeated) enforcement may exceed the benefit gained. For those families in work it may be a higher minimum wage would help so that the taxpayer doesn't effectively subsidize employers by providing credit to working families. For those not in work the State has to bear the burden. Anecdotal stories about claimants using taxis, etc., may be true but we all know public transport is wholly inadequate and for a single mum with several kids in tow and heavy shopping a taxi may be quite sensible.

The 2 child policy is just for universal credit. The child benefit (family allowance) is still unlimited as long as earnings are less than £60k

My oldest and his wife don’t any as earn too much. Why should they taxes pay for other ppls kids when don’t get for their own and has for dads my youngest is bringing up his own child and a step child who gets nothing from his own dad as he’s self employed and it’s being fighting in the courts at present he’s quite happy for my son to bring up his son and I think it should be kept at two. When I got divorced I was a single parent ok mine were older but me and hubby only had what we could afford.

I agree with Paul Johnson
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’.

However where there should be good practical support for children in poverty, breakfast clubs, free school lunches, Sure Start support etc.

Latest commonsensical comment in the Times today ‘It is not up to the state to subsidise lifestyle choices that families could otherwise be unable to afford - and a big family is definitely a lifestyle choice not a necessity. Wealthier couple often limit themselves to one or two children to ensure they are adequately resourced as they grow up. That is why the two child cap had to stay’.

I think we should scrap it. We need to increase the population so that more people are working in the future - otherwise we won’t have enough money to pay pensions in years to come.

I think it’s in everyone’s best interests to have children living above the poverty line.

One in four children in England live below the poverty line. Rickets is on the rise.

Children are going to school so hungry they can’t learn anything, and teachers are feeding them from their own low salaries, and doing the laundry too, as children often come to school with soiled clothes as they don’t have their own bed, and share with siblings on mouldy mattresses.

Sometimes the only monies that children get is the child allowance.

It’s really counter productive to cut money to children- pushing them further below the poverty line, and a false economy considering that children who are too hungry to learn in school won’t be high earners in the future.
High earners pay tax that pays the pension bill.

Declining birth rates across the world mean that the tax burden with be heavier for younger people who support a graying / chronically ill population, as diabetes and obesity are on the rise for boomers.

Uneducated ill children haven’t a hope in hell of contributing as adults economically to that tax burden.

Very shortsighted and stupid of Labour to cut this essential money to children… children already below the poverty line.

I thought that the laisse faire Victorian era was voted out with the Tories, but this new cap is just inhumane, and totally shortsighted.
Shame on you @KeirStarmer.

RAZZLEDAZZLE

In this day and age , why should parents be paid to have children, surely if you want a child, you should pay all cost involved!

I'm pretty sure no-one is deciding to have a child on the basis that they will get child benefit!

In this day and age , why should parents be paid to have children, surely if you want a child, you should pay all cost involved!

Apologies Doodledog for omitting ‘for everyone’

FWIW - I’m with you on universal provision.

Not if they were available to everyone and promoted as such. Means-testing brings stigma - universal provision doesn’t.

I suppose then people would be castigated for using the free school meals, by others who
, by their own grit and determination, didn't need to.

Iam64

*far better to increase CB and provide sone if the things children need, such as a hot meal and affordable childcare*

Good suggestion Doodledog, as well asa breakfast clubs for all chikdren, as the government propose. Children eligible for free school meals should continue that provision throughout school holidays

Agreed, but you missed 'for everyone', which finished my sentence . I would extend those opportunities to all children. My objections to means testing are well-known, but I will reiterate some of the reasons applicable to this case:

Children feel difference keenly, and singling out those who get free meals reminds me of when I was at school and free dinner tickets were a different colour from bought ones, so everyone knew who got them.

It costs money to administrate systems where some qualify and others don't, and that money would be better spent on the meals than on spreadsheets.

Once mass catering is under way, it doesn't cost much per extra meal, and not all children would want to partake anyway, so not doing the paperwork would probably pay for the extra meals.

Working parents often struggle financially in the holidays even if they earn decent money, so charging them takes us back to the 'why should A get extra help when B doesn't?' conundrum.

Parents earning above a threshold because both work should not be paying towards those for whom their lower income is because one of them has chosen not to. It's one thing to subsidise the lower paid and another to make workers pay for people who choose to stay at home, but separating children into 'deserving' and 'undeserving' is untenable.

Far easier to just let all children have free meals if they want them, and do the same with wraparound and holiday childcare - not compulsory, obviously, but not means-tested. It might seem unfair to give places to children who have parents at home, but at least the children would all be off the streets and taking part in structured activities and/or sports.

I am happy to help support that child to their full potential

Ilovecheese

The two child cap has not worked. No matter how many people on here would have liked it to work and stop babies being born, it has not. All it has done is make children in households with more than two, poorer.
Why go on pretending that it is a deterrent, just admit that people don't care.

That’s not actually true Ilovecheese. The number of children born per woman, regardless of education group, has decreased. That’s not to say it’s directly related to the child benefit policy though.

www.ox.ac.uk/news/2023-06-08-fertility-england-and-wales-lowest-recorded-level-women-all-education-groups-oxford