The two child limit for benefits

Keir is just being vary cautious before an election, he's trying to avoid headlines like 'Labour encouraging welfare benefits again' which have done so much damage to the party at election beforehand. The media is so right wing biased and we need all the votes we can get

Lynn1959

I know there will be lots of socially minded folks but here goes.
Where does the money come from?
We were in a hell of a mess after the banking crisis which was stoked by a Labour government. Then there was Covid and the billions that cost, rightly or wrongly. Everyone , doctors nurses, train staff, teachers all want more in salary. We can’t turn illegal immigrants away which costs millions . Should we pay mortgages for people who have overstretched themselves and struggle now that interest rates have increased? And so on.
I would say yes to all this IF you can tell me where the money will come from🤷‍♀️

I can tell you exactly where the money comes from. In fact I do it so often on this forum that most people just ignore me now and go on repeating the same myth about 'taxpayers'.

Some our money comes from export, but this is counterbalanced by imports, the rest comes from the Bank of England, which is our national central bank which is ultimately controlled by the government. The BoE is able to 'create' money, as are commercial banks which 'create' money for loans under licence from the government.

For explanation I'd suggest that you read two articles in the Bank of England Quarterly Bulletin entitled "Money in the modern economy: an introduction" and "Money creation in the modern economy"

www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/quarterly-bulletin/2014/quarterly-bulletin-2014-q1.pdf

Two things are certain

1) The country cannot run out of money because it can always create money to pay its bills

2) Taxation doesn't fund spending.

Of course it's rather more complex than this, but these are basic facts.

I'd tweak it a little to allow for twins from the second birth, but yes, why not? I had to stop at two children - would have loved more but we couldn't afford it. Frankly, I'd be looking at things like nursery vouchers too.

I know at least two women whose hobby seems to be having children (one with TEN children, and no, she's not RC). Fine if they pay for it, not fine if I do.

Can anyone saying that the household income policy is unfair explain why two people earning just under £25k each (and paying tax, childcare and commuting out of that) 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 and transport?

I can't see how that is remotely fair, and asked this upthread, but nobody has responded. IMO child benefit should not be means-tested. Maybe both parents should (independently) be able to claim tax relief if they work and have children? If people really want it to be means-tested, at least that way lower paid parents would get some benefit from working, something which household income means-tests would simply remove in favour of families who can afford to choose for one parent not to work.

Starmer has to avoid running up a list of financial commitments before the GE. It's a good test of his resolve to face down those in the Labour Party who seek to undermine him and those who are blind to the electoral risks of overpromising. Making poverty noises makes for virtue signalling by some but the key thing is to get elected. Johnson and Truss have left a mess and it will take ten years to address imho.

Maisie, I know you keep saying this, but I keep asking in response why some countries are richer than others if everyone can just print money for public spending.

I must admit that there are some very mixed messages out there about family sizes and the impact of associated birth rates. An article from the Guardian, published in 2021, is headed : "Britain’s falling birth rate will damage our society – and it’s not just Covid to blame". The article is based on a study by the Economic and Social Research Council-funded Centre for Population Change, which predicted a “decline over the next three years leading to significantly fewer births annually compared to pre-pandemic”. It goes on to say that even pre-Covid, birth rates were already dropping to “historically low levels”, lower even than in the 1930s depression.
It's a global phenomenon, and certain countries are in even worse shape than the UK, with, for example, Japan, Italy and Spain all predicting that their populations may well have halved by the turn of the century.
Dare I mention that immigration is helping to slightly reduce the deficit? That claim will undoubtedly be unpopular with some. Nevertheless, I do find it rather ironic, given current Government policy. The relative proportion of the ageing compared to the working population is also creating negative pressure on the economy.
And yet against this background, those who are still physically capable of producing children are being encouraged to limit their number to two only. Surely both scenarios can't be right? Is it me? Am I missing something?

Norah

GrannyGravy13

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

As there should be, in my opinion.

We chose to have 4 children. What we didn't do was choose for taxpayers to support our children. I've always been sahm - I didn't expect taxpayers to support me in staying home, we did for ourselves. I consider my "pay" to be not paying childcare and doing husband's business books myself (not for pay).

Your husband may have put a "notional" salary through his books for you. Perfectly allowable to pay one's spouse.

Wheniwasyourage

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

I assume that those on here who think that everyone should only have the children they can afford and have no recourse to the taxpayer to help pay to raise their children, also think that everyone should be responsible for funding their own retirement, and should not be able to claim pension credit?

Dinahmo

Norah

GrannyGravy13

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

As there should be, in my opinion.

We chose to have 4 children. What we didn't do was choose for taxpayers to support our children. I've always been sahm - I didn't expect taxpayers to support me in staying home, we did for ourselves. I consider my "pay" to be not paying childcare and doing husband's business books myself (not for pay).

Your husband may have put a "notional" salary through his books for you. Perfectly allowable to pay one's spouse.

We own our SME, definitely no notional salary I earn every penny of my salary.

I have a feeling that this will cost Labour a great many votes that they would have got in next General Election!

Got mixed feelings. I sympathise with parents who are financially sound and have more than 2 children, but then circumstances change. But my DH and I had one child. Both were working in fairly good jobs. We didn't have a large mortgage or spend frivously. But never got to the point when we felt we could afford a second child. Something I regret. So don't see why I should support people struggling financially who have more than 2 children. Unfortunately the amount of irresponsible people who have more children than they can afford is probably very small compared to those responsible people who sadly unexpectedly find themselves in difficulty. Not really a fair solution for everyone.

HousePlantQueen

Wheniwasyourage

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

I assume that those on here who think that everyone should only have the children they can afford and have no recourse to the taxpayer to help pay to raise their children, also think that everyone should be responsible for funding their own retirement, and should not be able to claim pension credit?

Not everyone was in a position to have a private pension or even save during their working life.

They should not be penalised, of course they are entitled to a decent state pension which allows them to have a comfortable retirement. If the pension isn’t deemed adequate then top up benefits should be applied.

The birth rate in the UK has been falling since 1996 so I’d be interested to know how the costs compare from that year’s and last year’s. Personally speaking I think a 2 child cap is ok if it’s already in place. I’d far rather that any benefits are distributed to poorer families than giving money to wealthy families.

It smacks of 'big brother'ism' to me.

A lot of people make choices around having children and have the resources to manage. Some other people can make mistakes with birth control or are not always able to get it together for whatever reason. So are we saying these people should be having abortions?

I think the deeper question is how do we as a society deal with the more vulnerable, less able, perhaps marginalised members? Or are these people, yet again to be penalised for their 'inability' . Disablement and handicap is not just physical.

More generally, how do we deal with 'mistakes' in our culture?

Goodness knows our governments make hundreds of 'mistakes'... and many of them were not accidental. Individuals should be able to make mistakes and still be supported

The thing is though, that this policy was intended to reduce family size in poorer families and help more people into employment. The inconvenient truth is that it didn't.

Nannan2

I have a feeling that this will cost Labour a great many votes that they would have got in next General Election!

Quite possibly if it keeps being reported as something for which Starmer is responsible, rather than Sunak.

I don't understand why people would think 'Oh, Sunak's government have brought in a 2-child CB policy. Starmer has indicated 18 months before the next election that he has no immediate plans to revoke that policy, but has not said what he would do for children instead. On the basis of that, let's not vote for Starmer, but instead vote for the party who brought in the 2-child CB policy in the first place.'

That makes no sense to me at all.

Lynn1959

I know there will be lots of socially minded folks but here goes.
Where does the money come from?
We were in a hell of a mess after the banking crisis which was stoked by a Labour government. Then there was Covid and the billions that cost, rightly or wrongly. Everyone , doctors nurses, train staff, teachers all want more in salary. We can’t turn illegal immigrants away which costs millions . Should we pay mortgages for people who have overstretched themselves and struggle now that interest rates have increased? And so on.
I would say yes to all this IF you can tell me where the money will come from🤷‍♀️

Straight from the Rupert Murdoch playbook. I expect to see more of this as the election gets close

I have every sympathy for people suffering genuine hardship because of the exorbitant rise in the cost of living, from multi children families to pensioners on fixed income. BUT, in the real world, and at the other end of the scale I heard only last week of a 24 year old unmarried mother, who has six children with five different fathers, the youngest just one month old and no father on the scene, who is currently looking forward to the the council converting her 3 bed council house into a larger six bed property by combining her house with the vacant property next door! She has never been employed since leaving school at a very early age, and she has refused to name any of the fathers or hold them of them to account!!! Whilst you may consider this exceptional, unfortunately it is all to commonplace on the estate where she lives and surely something has to be done to curb the cost of such reckless behaviour, so what would you suggest? I think this policy turnaround is just the first of many we will see from Mr Starmer once his pie-in-the-sky policies are costed!

Half of Europe is worried that not enough children are being born to balance and ageing population, and yet, governments are unwilling to provide properly for the children their countries have.

Welfare benifits are contributed to through income tax and other taxes which everyone pays, whether they are, or are not, recipients of welfare benifits.

To restrict these to those who have no, or at most two children is iniquitous.

Only a very small proportion of adults would rather receive welfare benifits than work for their living, and no child should be disadvantaged because his or her parents cannot find work, or can only find poorly paid jobs.

GrannyGravy13

HousePlantQueen

Wheniwasyourage

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

I assume that those on here who think that everyone should only have the children they can afford and have no recourse to the taxpayer to help pay to raise their children, also think that everyone should be responsible for funding their own retirement, and should not be able to claim pension credit?

Not everyone was in a position to have a private pension or even save during their working life.

They should not be penalised, of course they are entitled to a decent state pension which allows them to have a comfortable retirement. If the pension isn’t deemed adequate then top up benefits should be applied.

But, why should taxpayers such as GSM who has made her opinions very clear, subsidise pensioners? Are children not entitled to a decent standard of living which allows them to have a comfortable childhood?

Not my opinions, necessarily, just seeing how strong the argument is. If we subsidise 'feckless' pensioners, why not children of 'feckless' parents?

This is what we've been lead to believe.
Yet I can't find any statistics on it. I've found statistics on single parent households but it doesn't tell me how many kids by how many fathers
Personally I don't think its all that truthful.

I think this policy turnaround is just the first of many we will see from Mr Starmer once his pie-in-the-sky policies are costed!
Which pie-in-the-sky policies are these?

Doodledog

*I think this policy turnaround is just the first of many we will see from Mr Starmer once his pie-in-the-sky policies are costed!*
Which pie-in-the-sky policies are these?

That is precisely my reaction doodledog.

With uninformed responses like that it’s no surprise that he’s keeping his powder dry and not being tied down on precise policies. It seems he has more sense than people give him credit for.

he flip flop all the time captain hindsight sir kneeler what would you expect?