The two child limit for benefits

Children are this countries future, we need to care for them. Yes even me, who has been accused of being rich, 😂, and not caring about the poor or the sick.

Wheniwasyourage

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?

No child is going to contribute to my pension until they are at least 18 years old. I and many of us won’t be around. It is not up to me or any other taxpayer to feed and clothe children that others have chosen to have unless an unforeseeable disaster has befallen them.

Nothing I can say to that, GSM. I am speechless at this callousness.

We always wanted 4 children but worked out that, if one of us me was going to stay at home and be a full time parent until they became school age, we would need to stop at 2. So we took steps to ensure that, after number 2 arrived safely, there wouldn't be any more. We cut our coats according to our cloth.

My youngest daughter is now 32. She has 5 close female friends out of which only 1 of them has 1 child.
Do the maths people.

Wheniwasyourage

Nothing I can say to that, GSM. I am speechless at this callousness.

It’s not callousness. It’s simply not up to the taxpayer to pay for other people’s desired number of children.

Actually there are huge numbers of "unforeseeable disasters" befalling people all the time GSM Sudden loss of a job, the long term rental flat that is unexpectedly sold by the landlord, a young parent suddenly diagnosed with a terminal illness, or a life altering illness which may not be fatal but will affect their ability to support their family. And as others have said there is the second baby that turns out to be twins. This has happenedto several of my friends, Perhaps GSM thinks they should have had terminations to protect her taxes.

Nobody answered my question about whether or not the taxpayer should support pensioners.

There are more than enough people on this planet. What we don't have is enough food, water, housing and medical care for everyone; that's why so many people are on the move to find a better, safer life. The last thing this planet needs is more people. Stopping at 2 children seems like a socially responsible thing to do to me.

Indeed.

Many countries already have birthrates below replacement level. it is not births that are driving the current rise in population, but old people living longer and longer. By the second half of this century this will have reached its maximum and world population will start to fall.

I think a falling world population would be a good thing. To live in harmony with our planet world population probably needs to half, which it will gradually.

My daughter was widowed with two children under four, a totally unforeseeable event. Circumstances change .

I am absolutely dismayed at some of the responses on here. We are talking about human beings who need to be cared for - either by the parents or by the state if the parents don't have sufficient money. As I said above, its not the children's fault that they were born.

I am absolutely dismayed at the total ignorance of people wanting to bring yet more children into an already overburdened, over populated, under resourced planet that seems to be hell bent on blowing itself, and all its inhabitants, to kingdom come by creating wars, famine and destitution to millions. But there we go...... I see 6, you see half a dozen.

Perhaps some of us dont view the world in that way.

Evidently.

India for example raised 400 million people out of poverty in the years up to 2021, so yes in many ways there is a lot to be hopeful for.

I don’t think children should be left to go hungry and I agree it’s not their fault they were born.
I know about redundancy meaning a drop in planned earnings, and what a dire effect that can have.
I do wonder why, when threads on GN talk about the economies they’re making, either to save the environment, e.g. use less water, less fossil fuel, or simply to save money, it seems reasonable to wonder what can be done about over population, which will still exist even when we all depart this life.

Whereas Somalia, being the 2nd poorest country in the world, has an average birth rate of between 8 and 10 children. And they're bedevilled by raging wars, poverty and malnutrition. My hopes were just dashed.

The vast majority of Starmer's interview was about economic stability and reform. I imagine the way we support families and children could well be part of that reform.

Who is to say that we need child benefit as it is currently awarded, in this day and age? As an example, it may be better to reform, for instance, free school meals, child care etc.

We now have a majority of households with two working adults, not one. We have people, where they can, controlling the number of children they have. This has actually meant a drop in the birth rate. These things need to be taken into account.

Although Keir Starmer said he wouldn't change the two-child limit, he didn't say what he would do. I doubt he will say that before the next election has been announced. I would imagine that any such policy will be laid out in the manifesto.

He has changed his mind about free school meals and ruled them out.

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.

No, that's true. I didn't mention that, as I think it should go without saying, I suppose. But in any case, I think it should be available to all - just not means-tested.

I think he’s very wise not to make specific financial commitments when there’s still 18 months to go until the election. He’s got to be circumspect, because if he isn’t his plans will be pulled apart by the Tories however sensible they are. He’s playing the long game.

I believe benefits should be based on total household income.
I don't. As I say, I wouldn't have a means-test, but if there has to be one it should take account of how many people are working.

Why should two people earn just under £25k each and pay tax etc on that, yet be expected to support a family with one parent earning just under £50k so that the other can stay at home and save on childcare?

Ilovecheese

He has changed his mind about free school meals and ruled them out.

Could you tell me what he actually said, Ilovecheese, or when he said it if you know and I'll try and find it. TIA