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

Apologies Doodledog for omitting ‘for everyone’

FWIW - I’m with you on universal provision.

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!

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!

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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

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.

Totally agree with you!

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!

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

missdeke

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

Agreed. I wish people would read the thread. I explained all this on page one. To repeat:

The two-child limit is not on Child Benefit but on Universal Credit and Tax Credits and applies for families with children born after 5 April 2017. (There are exceptions to this, for example, for multiple births and other circumstances - all explained upthread.)

Child Benefit is a separate benefit and paid to families for every child at a rate £25.60 pw for the first child and £16.95 pw for subsequent children. So, if you have four children you can claim £25.60 + (3 x £16.95) per week = £76.45. But this is subject to an overall benefit cap.

The overall benefit cap for families, couples and single parents is £1,835 per month for those outside London and £2,110 per month in London. Child benefit is included in calculating the total for that.

Martin Lewis explains more here:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLbr3k6POg4

I have to say, I do wonder how many other people are misunderstanding this. My LibDem MP refers to having voted Aye to the King's speech amendment not to cap Child Benefit. Luke Tryl's polling company More in Common have polled people using the term Child Benefits. The comments on X in response to him posting the poll show very clearly that people think it's an automatic cap on Child Benefit which used to be called Family Allowance.

The trouble is the benefits system is a "one size fits all". There is no allowance made for the parent who has more than 2 children before they enter the benefits system so were managing to support their choices before falling on hard times and those that use the benefits system as a means for providing for their children as a life style choice. There must be a way that those who have fallen on hard times can use the system without falling into the poverty trap and those that are already on benefits but choose to have another child just because they can.

I mentioned the 'revolt' to a friend the other day, and she insisted that it was CB that had been capped.. She was quite insistent (but wrong). It is badly worded, to be fair.

In Croydon, so not the dearest part, for four days nursery per week with 35 free hours the cost for two children is twenty thousand pounds per year. A three bed semi house is five fifty to six hundred thousand pounds so high mortgage costs. So hard working parents of children cannot afford more than two children and some get no benefits at all. I am working class so feel strongly that working families need more support as well as those who cannot work.

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!

Almost 40% of UC claimants are in work on low incomes.

A better way of dealing with child poverty is:-

Increase the personal tax allowance
Increase the minimum wage
Ensure all children are actually in school
Provide free breakfast clubs SND free lunches for all children