The two child limit for benefits

No Fran. When you had your children you were confident that you could afford them but nature dealt you all a cruel blow.

Our fourth child became Nos 4 & 5. So, a large family, even back then in the 70's. Fine, hubbie had good qualifications and the prospect of a good career.

Nature decreed otherwise, when he was diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis and within a vey short time, was unable to walk, and, back then, (n disability laws), was unable to get employment as pension companies would not accept him.

He became very depressed due to this, so there was no way I could return to work, as he was not able to look after young children. We just about survived on benefits!!!!

So we would have been amongst those considered having far more children than we could afford.

I am not comfortable about increasing the limit for child benefit. I am also uncomfortable about cultures that encourage large and limitless families.
People should be encouraged (i.e. not coerced) to act responsibly and have only the number of children they can afford.
My DS isn't planning to have any children as he believes that the planet is already over-populated and I have read that many younger people feel the same way.
As an aside, does anyone know if - for births of twins in 1948 - the mother still received no family allowance as the Government treated the birth as a single event?

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.

Georgesgran

A little off point, but I’m a fan of watching Judge Judy.
I’ve lost count of the times I’ve heard her tell a man that his primary responsibility is to the children of his first marriage and that he should have thought of that before (accruing arrears of child maintenance payments) he embarked on having a child/children with another woman. Obviously, there is no child benefit system there, but men are made aware of having too many children and their new partners are expected to understand that his first family come first.

As an aside wasn’t their some anomaly that an unmarried couple could both earn up to the maximum and still get CB, whereas a married couple would miss out, even if one exceeded the maximum by a small amount? Does that still apply?

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.

Crossed post Nandalot.

A little off point, but I’m a fan of watching Judge Judy.
I’ve lost count of the times I’ve heard her tell a man that his primary responsibility is to the children of his first marriage and that he should have thought of that before (accruing arrears of child maintenance payments) he embarked on having a child/children with another woman. Obviously, there is no child benefit system there, but men are made aware of having too many children and their new partners are expected to understand that his first family come first.

As an aside wasn’t their some anomaly that an unmarried couple could both earn up to the maximum and still get CB, whereas a married couple would miss out, even if one exceeded the maximum by a small amount? Does that still apply?

I agree with the two child limit, although I did not get anything for myDS born in 1969 until my DD was born five years later as you didn’t get it for the first child then as some others have mentioned.
I understand about perhaps choosing to have more and then one’s circumstances changing but surely that is what the benefits system is for in the family is in need.
I do think the cut off can be seen as unfair. Two adults in the household earning under £50,000 will still get the allowance bit a single parent on £50,050 will not. ( I know that is a large amount of money in some areas but perhaps quite tight in others.

Perhaps some couples meant to stop at two children but slight accidents can happen and along comes baby no 3. Families will do what it takes to care for 3rd child even without benefits.
Who is anyone to say how many children the government will give money to for their children. If that family who appear on T.V in program 22 children and still counting can keep producing children then so can other families. The mother of that family had her first child at fourteen years of age and when she was old enough she married the father.
They do run a pie company so I expect they do not claim any benefit.
Good luck to her anyway I certainly would not want a family that large three was enough for me.

Then there are second or even third families when people move on to new partners. I'm assuming these children are counted separately not as third or fourth children. I agree we should only have the children we can afford but circumstances can change very quickly.

Do you seriously think, Germanshepherdsmum that people think "Oh goody, the stupid taxpayer is going to support my children, so let's go and have another six"? Do you really think that the benefit system pays enough to support a child completely? Maybe it does - I am fortunate enough not to have had to find out, but I very much doubt it.

I believe there are allowances for multiple births and there may also be exceptions for extra children not sure how user friendly the system is though.

I think it is over £50k income that you have to pay tax on child benefit. Once you climb much higher it is questionable whether there is any point receiving it, so many don't.

I don’t agree Ilovecheese. Do you believe that people should have as many children as they want regardless of whether they can afford to look after them, because they know the good old taxpayer will subsidise them over and above child benefit? Wouldn’t that be somewhat irresponsible?

I don't care what Keir Starmer says, I still think it's mean-spirited, and it was started by the Tories. I am disgusted with the petty attitude of the current government, whether it's this cap, or painting over murals so that refugee children won't feel welcome, or having to be pushed into concessions over feeding children by a footballer. I stand by what I said.

High earners can still claim Child Benefit - my friends DinL does, but her husbands tax code it adjusted to claim most of it back. Doing it that way, they have made a choice and it ensures the money is saved for the children’s further education.

I agree that it is an example of mean spiritedness, from both sides of the house.

I’m an only child too GSM so no benefit paid for me. Originally, I believe FA was paid to the Mother, as in the day most were tied to the house, to ensure she had some money of her own to feed the children. The inference was that after getting their Friday pay packet a lot of men would spend it in the local pubs and betting shops on their way home from factories and mines.
I’m not sure a lot of that goes on these days, with most Mums out at work, earning too, and I’d like to think a lot of Dads are far more responsible.

As one taxi driver has in his car children are for life not for benefits

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.

No I am not being rude. I said some people. That does not imply that everyone who produces more than 2 children is feckless. I am one of 4 myself and certainly do not consider my parents to have feckless. They wanted two boys and two girls and that is what they got.

Well obviously not an example of Tory mean spiritedeness Wheniwasyourage as KS says Labour doesn't have any plans to change it either.

Wheniwasyourage

I think (and will expect to be shot down for it) that the two-child cap is another example of the mean-spirited Tory outlook on anything that doesn't result in a profit for them or their cronies. A result of our having too many politicians who have no experience of how other people live.

Keir Starmer, Labour leader agrees with this policy and has publicly stated that he will not change it.

I think (and will expect to be shot down for it) that the two-child cap is another example of the mean-spirited Tory outlook on anything that doesn't result in a profit for them or their cronies. A result of our having too many politicians who have no experience of how other people live.

oops I agree with the two child limit.

I with two child limit.