The two child limit for benefits

From the study
"“We found that, rather than increasing employment, the two-child limit increases poverty and hardship – and that this can actually make it harder for parents to take up work,” said Kitty Stewart, a co-author of the study and an associate professor of social policy at the London School of Economics."

Casdon
an academic study by The London School of Economics, Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion. "Making Work Pay?"
sorry can't do the link but is on the LSE website.

We are an ageing population, we need young people, we should welcome children, they are a resource, not a drain.

Some women are encouraged by their faith to produce large families.

A couple of years back, figures indicated that the birth-rate was "plummeting".

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/apr/20/britain-falling-birthrate-covid-pandemic-conservatives-removed-support-for-parents

NB... Toynbee is not one of my most favourite columnists - but this is an interesting article.

I think you are being unfair to most GN members, JenniferE. Although there may be a few people who would take advantage, the amount of cash received per child is not untold riches you know, and despite the best laid financial family plans, disasters can happen. Loss of income, occupation, death of parent, birth of a child with additional needs which necessitates one parent giving up work.

Whatever the reason, feckless parenting or otherwise, the child should not suffer.

Not all families with two children get Family Allowance there is also an upper earnings cap.

And if the second child turns out to be twins or triplets?

I have always said the same thing about only having the size of family one can afford but extraordinarily it doesn’t seem to be a popular opinion on GN.
Or at least those who have responded when I’ve said that and claim to be appalled at the very idea.

Obviously if circumstances change for a larger family then the State should and would step in, but the present limit on benefits for only two children is sensible and should help to prevent the feckless having child after child they can’t afford.

We, the taxpayers of course pay for their irresponsible behaviour.

I do understand where people are coming from when they say people shouldn't have more children than they can afford to support themselves, but circumstances can and do change and people can easily find themselves struggling through no fault of their own.
And let's not forget that whatever the circumstances, it's never the fault of the children. In a country like ours, in this day and age, no child should be going to bed hungry.

*my children are adults now but this was my view when they were small.

I have three children and remember when this was brought in. There were many women having numerous children, often with different fathers, and the cost in child benefit was enormous. I always said that there should be a two child limit for child benefit. Women could have as many children as they wanted but could only expect the state to help support the first two. This included my family and, before anyone accuses me of smug middle class hypocrisy, we were on a small income at the time and cut our clothes, as well as the number of children we had, to fit our cloth.

Nor are we feckless - we had 5 because could afford it. However, had something catastrophic happened, we would have been up the river without a paddle.

I think your post is a bit misleading Ilovecheese, because this two child payment policy has been in place since 2017. It does affect children born before that date, but children under the age of six will have been born in the knowledge that was the case.
Do you have something you could post to prove whether or not the number of women of childbearing age who are working has not risen as a result of the policy?

Grantanow

In times past there was no Family allowance for the first child, I believe.

True. My brother received no funding.

I can see the point of only having the children you can afford without depending on the state to fund them, but what if you could afford them and circumstances change, e.g. job loss, divorce, death?
Should there be a number limit on what you are likely to be able to afford in circumstances like that?
Should you plan your child rearing capacity like you plan buying a house?
Maybe if the cap was put on with a starting date, e.g. No funding for children beyond the two child limit conceived after 17.7.23 it would mean people are warned in advance.

Dinahmo There are some feckless people out there who will no doubt produce more than two children.

I will assume you did not intend to be rude. Producing however many children a couple chooses is not good or bad, it's a choice.

We have 4 daughters and we are decidedly not feckless.

Grantanow

In times past there was no Family allowance for the first child, I believe.

I'm sure I remember my Mum saying it was allowed for in my Dad's tax allowance.
It was paid to the mother for subsequent children.

That’s right Grantanow. I’m an only child and my parents didn’t receive family allowance but that had changed by the time I had my son in the 80s.

Before moving to France I was a volunteer for Save the Children. When people complained about some of the projects the answer was that it's not the children's fault that they are in a particular situation. The charity existed to help those children.

By restricting the child benefit to 2 children Starmer is continuing the harm already done. There are some feckless people out there who will no doubt produce more than two children. But it's not the child's fault, if it happens to be number 3, or number 4, or maybe number 9. the child should not be made to suffer.

They used to encourage everyone(2002) to have 3 here- one for mum, one for dad and one for your country. They were worried that the birth rate was dropping.

In times past there was no Family allowance for the first child, I believe.

Life is not always that simple though, family circumstances can change, these children are already here.

I'm child free so am making up for two of those extra children. That's fair!

I have always believed that one should only have the number of children that one can afford to look after properly without recourse to the State beyond the standard child allowance.