The two child limit for benefits

I did not get child allowance for my daughter (only child ) until she was 12.(1975)

GSM Family Allowance was introduced in 1946 and was not paid for the first child, only the second one onwards. As I remember it was 8 shillings a week.

Norah

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.

I onlt got it for my first child . It was just enough to buy a bottle of wine .

It's all very well going back to what happened with Family Allowance before, but we are now in 2023. In the 70s a married woman couldn't get a mortgage based on her own income, even if her husband was not earning. Would we want to go back to that? (Nothing would surprise me now if some of you did think that was better...)

Franbern your story is an example of just how quickly things can go wrong. Thank you for sharing it.

M0nica

GSM Family Allowance was introduced in 1946 and was not paid for the first child, only the second one onwards. As I remember it was 8 shillings a week.

Our children were spaced such that, though we never desired any benefits, I recall no Family Allowance or Child Benefit applicable.

Occasionally this comes up. Once I asked my husband, we searched records out of interest - found nothing. I think CB is vague at best?

Just googled it and it’s £24 a week for the first child and £15.90 for the others, up to age 20 if in full time education.

I was surprised how little it was, when one of my lot told me.
I dont think the amount has kept pace with the cost of living?
But I presume there are other benefits nowadays, to sort of compensate.

fancythat

I was surprised how little it was, when one of my lot told me.
I dont think the amount has kept pace with the cost of living?
But I presume there are other benefits nowadays, to sort of compensate.

Appears so inconsequential. Perhaps another system could be found?

From family in Germany, 250 euros per month.
To prove....
How much child benefit will I receive? The child benefit is paid monthly, usually directly into the parent's bank account or in cash. The same amount is paid to everyone, regardless of the parents' income. As of 2023, the amount is fixed at 250 euros per month per child, no matter how many children you have.
www.iamexpat.de › expat-info
Neither party would even consider this amount.

I must admit to being a bit surprised at how many people don't really care about children going hungry. Including the leader of the Labour party.

rafichagran

Germanshepherdsmum

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.

Agreed.

I agree as well as an only child. My mother always pointed out that in the main the families with 5/6+ families were the ones who did not budget or think about what they were doing. I think unfortunately that today she is still right.

It’s not about children going hungry Ilovecheese, it’s about parental responsibility. Why should the taxpayer indulge anyone’s desire to have children they can’t afford to look after?

Because children are a resource not a drain.

And they are human beings.

Germanshepherdsmum

It’s not about children going hungry Ilovecheese, it’s about parental responsibility. Why should the taxpayer indulge anyone’s desire to have children they can’t afford to look after?

Indeed.

We have 4 children, plus I miscarried 4 additional children.

We well and truly thought precisely what we could afford. We took/take responsibility for our family - it's not down to the taxpayer to provide.

They are not a resource for at least 18 years, maybe many more. If they go on to higher education how long will it take them to repay their student loan? In many cases, it will be written off.

Freya5 From family in Germany, 250 euros per month.

The same amount is paid to everyone, regardless of the parents' income. As of 2023, the amount is fixed at 250 euros per month per child, no matter how many children you have.

Interesting. I wonder if such has been considered here?

Ilovecheese

Because children are a resource not a drain.

Children should be conceived because they are going to be loved and nurtured not as a resource. What do you mean by a resource as a way of getting extra money from the Government? If so I pity the poor children. It also goes back to the reason the money was paid to the woman as GG said so the men would not drink or gamble it away.

Oh dear. What a lot of really mean and uncharitable comments on this thread. No wonder this country is becoming unrecognisable to some of us. Children are, as some have said, our future. For those who don’t seem to care if other peoples’ children go hungry, who do you think is going to pay for your pensions in the years to come? Or do you think that the taxpayer shouldn’t have to support old people either?

Married or not, one parent earning over 50000ish means no child benefit (it's best to claim in and then pay it back as you then accrue years towards the state pension)
DD1 was earning around 48000 and her husband about the same. They got full child benefit.
DD2 was a stay at home Mum and her partner earned 52000. They didn't get a penny.
A very unfair system that needs an overhaul.

There is another way to look at that situation though. The first family are paying 2 lots of tax, NI, commuting charges and probably childcare, which is ruinously expensive for many people. The second will be paying only once, will have no travel or childcare costs, and it was, presumably, a choice to have a SAHP.

I have no problem with workers contributing to support families on low incomes, but I see no reason for them to be forced to support those who chose to stay at home.

Having said that, I agree that children can arrive in multiples, (or just unexpectedly), and in a rich country like ours, there is no reason why that should push a family who were managing into a situation where they are not. I feel similarly about when people's circumstances change. For that reason, I support CB for all, even if it is only for the first few years (I think there was no reason to keep paying it until the youngest child was 16). I don't support a means test, for all the reasons I usually object to means tests, plus the fact that IMO it is anomalous for families who can afford to have a SAHP to be subsidised by those who can't.

Doodledog you are not taking into account that one parent may be staying at home because they have a disabled child and have no choice.

GrannyGravy13

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

I was about to post the same thing

M0nica

Doodledog you are not taking into account that one parent may be staying at home because they have a disabled child and have no choice.

Or that the second parent would not be able to get a high paying job to afford childcare.
The first family were bringing in almost 100,000 a year.
The second were only on about 70,000 when both were employed.
I believe benefits should be based on total household income.

Mawmac

Very disturbing and disappointing to read terms like feckless and irresponsible.
How could young families budget for our current cost of living crisis when having a family 4or 5 years ago?
We should be delighted to contribute to a caring and safe environment for future generations.
Thankfully, a few more balanced comments as well and thank you for reference to the LSE study Ilovecheese

I completely agree. And perhaps if the government hadn't wasted billions on the Covid PPE fiasco, they could afford to increase the child benefit.

These children are already here and they are going hungry because of this failed experiment. No one seems willing to help. ( what I meant by a resource is that they are of value, just because they are human)