Is this fair?

I stand by my opinion that benefits should be a safety net not a lifestyle choice

The example in the OP appears to be a lifestyle choice

GrannyGravy13

I stand by my opinion that benefits should be a safety net not a lifestyle choice

The example in the OP appears to be a ^lifestyle choice^

This is what I have always said.

I once went to see a doctor regarding a health issue, she just asked how long I wanted to be “signed off “ for.
When I said I didn’t want a sick note and that I was self employed she was surprised.

It would have been easier to get a sick note than a prescription.

ROMILO

I know this post will be controversial.
The minimum wage for 40 hours is £26,436.(2026 rates)
The basic retirement pension is £12,457
The personal tax allowance is £12,570
Our retirement pension is one of the lowest in Europe. If you were prudent enough to save even the smallest amount into a pension scheme you will continue to pay income tax throughout your retirement.
A lot of pensioners are paying income tax. They are also paying VAT, road tax, fuel duty, insurance tax, council tax, stamp duty if you want to downsize, and no doubt if you scrimped to pay a mortgage inheritance tax on the increased value of your property once you 'pop off'
Before the budget a lady with 5 children ,one a very small baby said that the 2 child benefit cap meant that she could not feed her children without the help of food banks. Her husband could not work because of mental health problems. No one asked why she was increasing the size of her family if she couldn't afford to feed them. The family income was £1900 per month family credit.
After the budget and the removal of the cap she was pleased to say their monthly income would increase by £900.
To have a monthly income of £2800 some one in work would have to have a salary of £42,000 plus.
If her husband overcame his health problems or she decided to go to work the would have to earn well in excess of that to make it worthwhile. Effectively the government is giving them the green light to stay at home and have more children they can't afford and this is just one family of many more.
Is this fair?

Absolutely not fair at all. Kick the Government out at the earliest opportunity.

No it isn't fair and why the 2 child cap should have been left in place.

Send it to Rachel.
We had two children because we decided that’s what we could afford. Even then I went to work in the evening for 4 hours 5days a week so we could have a few extras.

Why isn't the total child benefit for 5 £412?
So gross of about £33,500 required?

I’ve noticed on this forum that anyone agreeing that parents on benefits shouldn’t have more than 2 children (=more benefits) is told to consider the poverty those children live with.

However the parents themselves aren’t told to consider it before they have those children…🤷‍♀️ why’s that?

I agree with all the above posts. Some feckless parents will spend the extra money on drugs and booze and the child poverty situation won't improve.
It is irresponsible to have more and more children that you can't afford and expect others to pay for them.

My DD and her DH decided to have just one child as they could not afford any more. They are both working in reasonably well paid jobs.

It’s not the actual child benefit payments which were capped by size of family, child benefit is capped by income.

It’s the child element of Universal Credit which had the two child cap. Is it fair? It’s certainly not a “true socialist” theory to punish children for their parents choices.

In terms of State Pensions, which is a totally different ballgame, I feel the whole system is flawed. Personally, I think it should be ring-fenced, and payments based on how much is paid in. Yes, this would be complicated to set up now, but I don’t think it’s done fairly for many reasons and it’s far too low.

Btw, a very large proportion of those claiming Universal Credit are actually in work, on low salaries. There are many many adults with children who earn far less than the national average, are likely to be living in privately rented accommodation, and the amount paid towards rent is capped using out of date local housing rates.

Pantglas2

I’ve noticed on this forum that anyone agreeing that parents on benefits shouldn’t have more than 2 children (=more benefits) is told to consider the poverty those children live with.

However the parents themselves aren’t told to consider it before they have those children…🤷‍♀️ why’s that?

I agree Pantsglas
We get told “it’s not the children's fault they need breakfast clubs”.

Puts me, you and others in the frame for sounding like heartless judgemental bitches.

People know, after two maybe three, if they can afford more children. It's not rocket science and in this day and age there is no excuse to keep having children if you can't afford them.
I don't think the two child benefit cap should have been removed.

I would have loved a third baby but knew that we just couldn't afford it.

GrannyGravy 13 I agree with you, benefits are to help and support in times of need not be a lifestyle choice. The 2 children cap should have remained, the only flexibility I would have made is if you have triplets/quads etc...or your second child turns out to be twins and you go from onto three.

No one should be working FT and have an income that is less than they could get on benefits. It’s up to employers to pay a decent wage. If their business can’t sustain that, then maybe they need a different model. It’s crazy that someone working for low wages has to pay income tax to sustain others who live entirely on the state.

No one in work gets a pay rise simply because they decide to have another child. One of my family would dearly have loved another baby but they know it would be very difficult financially so they’ve stuck at two as they want to give those two the best chance in life.

I don't think the cap should have been removed I would have loved to have more than 2 children but simply couldn't afford it with the high mortgage rates at the time. Now if someone on benefits wants more income they have another child 🙄

No one on benefits should have an income higher than a person working full time.
I have seen an increase recently in people who only work part-time because for some reason they are allowed to claim benefits; they flatly refuse extra shifts, overtime and extra hours 'because I would lose my benefits.' (a delivery driver, a supermarket assistant and a teacher whose husband was re-training, as a teacher.) How are they allowed to do this?

Equally, I know people who have three jobs; who work every Saturday shift so they can share childcare to enable their partner to work, a farm worker who eventually couldn't cope with the hours demanded in a six day week to make a living wage and it took two men to replace him.
This is pure socialism; make all dependent on the State and do not reward enterprise.

There are ways and means of preventing conception (free) (who knew!) but they are not infallible, as many of us might know. There are ways which are of course.

Is it fair on the children themselves to bring them into a world where your parents have to rely on others, ie working parents who might have limited their own families because that is the number they know they can afford?

Sudden changes in circumstances can happen to anyone, loss of a job, illness, and of course a safety net should be there but it is defining the line between safety net and lifestyle choice that is the conundrum for Governments.

GrannyGravy13

I stand by my opinion that benefits should be a safety net not a lifestyle choice

The example in the OP appears to be a ^lifestyle choice^

That's it exactly.

I did see that parent on the television and did wonder why they would add to their family if they couldn't feed the four they had without having to use food banks.

It is not the fault of the children, of course, and I'm sure everyone hopes they thrive.
It is why that is puzzling.

I don't think the two child benefit cap should have been lifted. And certainly the 50-ish waitress in our local cafe didn't think so either, she was almost incandescent with anger that she (on minimum wages) was having to pay taxes to cover this allowance. RR might have been pleasing her back benchers but probably not the electorate.

If the extra money could have been allocated in vouchers, eg food, uniform, clothing, school expenses, childcare, clubs, books even toys etc, could have gone directly to support the children, not increase the parents’ income eg food, clothing, school items.

I'm not sure about food vouchers, unless they can be used discreetly.
I remember children being embarrassed because others knew who had free school meals and who didn't.

Allira

I'm not sure about food vouchers, unless they can be used discreetly.
I remember children being embarrassed because others knew who had free school meals and who didn't.

The food vouchers during the school holidays for those on free school meals come via an email with a code that is scanned at the checkout.

How about if the government removed the third, and any subsequent, babies at birth?

Would that keep you all happy?