Child benefit cap to be lifted

Some potentially good news:

UK child poverty taskforce set to recommend return of Sure Start scheme

www.theguardian.com/society/2025/may/25/uk-child-poverty-taskforce-set-to-recommend-return-of-sure-start-scheme

Nandalot

MayBee70

To be honest I would rather that money to be ploughed into education, nursery places, free breakfasts, social care etc. That way it goes directly to the children themselves.

I am with you on this.

I think I am too, although it's so long since mine were young I'm very out of touch with children and the costs involved, so my views may be out of date.

At first glance I applaud anything that lifts children out of poverty - who wouldn't? What I do feel though, is that there are many working families (not on benefits) who limit their families because of the costs, so it seems unfair that those on benefits gain by having more children.

As ever, I would prefer parents of all children to be given £300+ each a month towards their upkeep, even if their parents work. Incentivising not working is never fair, IMO, whether it is paying out to pensioners who are short on NI payments or to non-working parents who claim benefits for larger families.

It increases resentment and fuels the many divisions we already have in society. As usual, it is those on low wages who will feel this most. Someone on minimum wage would have to work an extra 49 hours a month to earn the uncapped CB on the two extra children that his neighbour who doesn't work is given. The neighbour may also have no nursery fees when the worker is shelling out a significant amount, and that's before commuting and other work-related costs are factored in.

If we stopped means-testing any and all CB, and paid all parents a supplement for each child, it would allow people to to plan their families, and might increase the birthrate to the point where we need fewer immigrants to plug employment gaps, so it should please all shades of political opinion.

Children with additional needs should have rules and payments which are separate from all of this, as if their parents can't work, or if they have additional costs they are a special case and should be treated accordingly.

MayBee70

To be honest I would rather that money to be ploughed into education, nursery places, free breakfasts, social care etc. That way it goes directly to the children themselves.

I am with you on this.

I’d rather there was money for any measures that will lift families out of poverty MayBee70, but I don’t think it’s a linear issue, they need more money to clothe and feed their children too, so I agree with Silverbrooks.

I see what you mean but when you have 21 county councils and 62 unitary councils splitting say £3.5 billion (cost of abolishing the cap according to Resolution Foundation) a lot would go in administration plus you would have all the arguments over where in the country poverty is greater, with councils vying for a slice of the pie.

The last thing I would want is to see the newly-controlled Reform councils full of inexperienced officers handed a big slice of money, especially the new mayoralties headed up by Andrea Jenkyns and Luke Campbell.

Put an extra £75 a week directly into a family’s pocket and that’s more money for food and clothes.

To be honest I would rather that money to be ploughed into education, nursery places, free breakfasts, social care etc. That way it goes directly to the children themselves.

Sounds like Tice is a bit more realistic there than Farage. its actually quote a significant announcement - if it gets out to voters.

From what I read, it may be Morgan McSweeney behind the hesitation over the cap:

^ … sources said Morgan McSweeney, Starmer’s chief of staff, was opposed to the move, arguing that while it would be popular with Labour MPs, the public viewed it as an issue of fairness. “He doesn’t think they would be getting enough political capital with voters as a result of the money they would have to put in,” one source said. ^ (Guardian)

but how does political capital trump child poverty? Over a few billion?

Usual hot air from Reform. Having withdrawn their election manifesto "contract" a few weeks after the General Election, sayiny it was unworkable, Tice is now rowing back on the promised rise in the tax personal allowance to £20,000:

A reminder:

_CRITICAL REFORMS NEEDED IN THE FIRST 100 DAYS_
Make Work Pay. Lift the Income Tax Start Point to £20,000 Per Year. This frees up to 7 million people from paying Income Tax and saves every worker almost £1,500 per year. Basic Tax rate stays at 20%. The higher rate should begin at £70,000.

Richard Tice has backed away from Reform UK’s promise to enact £90bn of tax cuts within 100 days if the party wins the next election. In an interview with The Telegraph, Mr Tice, Reform’s deputy leader, said the sweeping programme of tax cuts was meant only to indicate “the direction of travel”.

www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/05/21/reform-rows-back-on-tax-cut-pledge/

How many people voted for Reform for a tax cut?

As was blatantly obvious it would have had disastrous effects:

Simon French, the chief economist at the City stockbroking company Panmure Liberum, has warned that the UK would face an “immediate and violent” sterling crisis if Reform took power in 2029.

ronib

This will be great news for Boris and Carrie …..

Why's that then?

politicsnerd Well said on what Nigel Farage does, to gain votes that is, not out of any real concern for the poverty of families or any one else. He’s far too self serving for that, but why oh why people do so many people not see that is what is happening and keep on voting for him? None so blind as those who don’t want to see I guess!

How do you know he doesn't care about others? Politics is about what is possible, financially, and disagreements in the Labour Party have been mounting.

Any policy which lifts more families out of poverty is to be welcomed, by me anyway. As it’s over four years until the next election, I doubt anybody will care by then what Farage says now, they will be more interested in the direct impact of the actual government policies on their finances.

No I most certainly have not be involved in any campaign, and Starmer is not contemplating a u-turn for any altruistic reasons.

GrannyGravy13

If it goes ahead I would welcome the U turn.

Yet again Reform announce what they would do, and hey presto KS follows up with his announcement…

If you actually watch what the much applauded Nigel does you will see he behaves as Hesletine once described Johnson's behaviour. He watches to see where the crowd is going then runs in front shouting "follow me". And here we have him doing it again.

Why anyone would think he will actually keep such economically left-wing and socially liberal policy is beyond me but, as with Trump, those most likely to lose out under any government run by such people keep on believing they will keep their word.

Like you GrannyGravy13, I hope a way can be found to turn around a policy introduced by the Conservatives in 2017 so that they could give pre-election tax cuts.

sigh.

Well I suppose from the outside you might say that, easybee, but you haven't been involved in the campaigns within the party from Constituency Labour Parties up and down the country on Child benefit and WFA.

So I profoundly disagree.

The apparent u-turn concerning the child benefit cap has far more to do with Starmer's disastrous polling results, for him personally and for the Labour party, than for any concern over child policy. I wonder if the three Labour MPs still suspended will have the whip returned?

I've waivered on this, but I've come to the same conclusions as you Silverbrooks. My feeling is that the two child cap on child tax/universal credit and the WFA is about society saying that the very young and the elderly should be given a little extra support, whatever their individual financial circumstances.

I think that the apparent u-turns in child benefit, WFA and hopefully other disability benefits has a lot more to do with the threat of rebellion from back benchers rather than Farage

Stephen Flynn put pressure on immediately after the opening of Parliament. The seven Labour MPs who had to courage to vote with him were suspended for their principles. But now Starmer and Reeves are facing an increasing backlash from cabinet members, Kendall, Phillipson. Rayner and Streeting.

Farage is just bandwagon-jumping as usual.

There are no figures on how many families have four or more children but around 1.2 million families have more than two. At around £300 UC a month per additional child say it would cost £5 billion a year to remove the cap (Resolution Foundation says 3.5) .

Although there is a separate thread, I’d add in universal WFP which costs less that £2 billion so say a maximum £7 billion for the two.

There is more than enough money to pay both. Spending creates taxation. One would expect most of the additional UC for children to be spent on zero rated food and clothing but most of universal WFP was probably spent on taxable goods and services so the net cost would be less than £7 billlion.

It really is peanuts compared to the 1.3 trillion of government spending every year - just half a percent.

Betting is an obvious target to raise more taxes. Gaming, including betting and gaming, bingo, and lotteries are normally exempt from VAT (although the rules are complex). Why?

www.gov.uk/guidance/how-vat-applies-to-betting-gaming-and-lotteries-notice-70129

True, the sale of lottery tickets raises money for good causes - 28% for that but only 12% in lottery duty - making it cheaper to gamble than work. Additional lottery duty could be raised and taken from the 50% that currently goes to prizewinners. Double lottery duty and it would cover the gross cost of universal WFP.

Yes, I know all the arguements about giving it to people who don’t need it, but if they don’t, they will likely spend it on something that’s taxed at a much higher rate than domestic fuel.

Better that than divisive means-testing that leaves people on the cliff-edge.

We’ve had the experiment now to see who comes forward to claim Pension Credit. Relatively few made successful claims - only 5% of the anticipated number of households said to be eligible. Poor uptake is an ongoing issue that needs to be dealt with separately.

While we’re on the subject of gambling, I would get rid of Premium Bonds. They are currently responsible for £128 billion of public debt on which the Goverment pays out over £5 billion in interest (prize money) each year, tax free.

If the Resolution Foundation figures are more accurate than. mine (and they probably are), we could fund uncapped child UC and univeral WFP from that.

Most of that £5 billion goes to already wealthy individuals and couples who can afford to loan the government £50,000 to £100,000 - with no guarantee of a return - in the vague hope they might win one of only 24 million pound prizes each year.

The odds of winning a million pounds with one £25 bond is only 1 in 2,602,163,211 each month. The next biggest prize is £100,000 (78 of those) but if you afford to loan that much why bother as the chance of winning is still only 1 in 66,722,130.

GrannyGravy13

ronib

This will be great news for Boris and Carrie …..

Why?

This is not Family allowance/Child Benefit it is the number of children you claim for if you are in receipt of benefits, Universal Credit.

Not only that, but I suspect Johnson earns above the threshold for Child Benefit.

Magenta8

The two child benefit cap was introduced by the Conservatives in 2017 when Theresa May was PM.

I hope that other measures to combat child poverty will be introduced as well even if they are not as "cost effective" in the short term. Our children are our future.

It's always more than annoying when people assume Starmer brought it in because of the way it's presented.

Not before time.

I hadn’t registered that it wasn’t child benefit too Gg13 - but no wonder the birth rate is plummeting.

The two child benefit cap was introduced by the Conservatives in 2017 when Theresa May was PM.

I hope that other measures to combat child poverty will be introduced as well even if they are not as "cost effective" in the short term. Our children are our future.

Just saying - there shouldn’t be another GE for four years. If Fromage becomes PM, I’ll eat my hat.