Gov.uk Petition to retain 2-child benefit

theworriedwell

I thought he did it to get a bigger council house but then tried to blame his ex

Yeah. Possibly. Can’t remember the exact details. But I know one of his women left taking 5 kids. so he was annoyed at losing all the benefits. He was definitely after a bigger house yes.

Kandinsky

theworriedwell

I thought he did it to get a bigger council house but then tried to blame his ex

Yeah. Possibly. Can’t remember the exact details. But I know one of his women left taking 5 kids. so he was annoyed at losing all the benefits. He was definitely after a bigger house yes.

Poor kids. I don't know why his wife got a lower sentence, she was in it with him. She's probably out now.

Just googled and yes she's out of prison, released five years ago after serving half her sentence. She's been given a new identity.

His friend who helped them also got out but recently died.

I'm an only child and my parents would have loved another, but they couldn't afford it. No child allowance at all was given for the first child then and I also never received anything until my second child was born.

sundowngirl my Mum told me that Dad received a tax allowance for the first child (me), then she received family allowance for my brother and sister.
We were born between 1957 to 1962.

My own three children were born between 1981 to 1984 and I received family allowance for all of them.

If a couple have a second pregnancy resulting in twins or more they could claim child benefit, also if you adopted a child and you had two children you too could claim benefits.

Fartooold

If a couple have a second pregnancy resulting in twins or more they could claim child benefit, also if you adopted a child and you had two children you too could claim benefits.

If that's the way it is now - well it was a month ago! - then that feels very fair to me. It allows for Mother Nature turning child 2 into being twins en route so to say. Also allows for adopted children counting for benefit - even if there's already two "natural born" children.

Fartooold

If a couple have a second pregnancy resulting in twins or more they could claim child benefit, also if you adopted a child and you had two children you too could claim benefits.

You are confusing Child Benefit which every parent claims for every child (high earners get taxed on it) from Universal Credit benefits for children, which parents can only claim if they themselves are on benefits which nowadays is mostly Universal Credit.

This is what has been capped at two children only, and which has now been lifted.

A high number of recipients of universal credit are in work.

Ilovecheese

A high number of recipients of universal credit are in work.

Yes, and the minimum amount of hours they have to work has been increased.

I always thought no one in this country cares about the children any more and this thread goes to show how true that is.

keepingquiet

I always thought no one in this country cares about the children any more and this thread goes to show how true that is.

????

The country needs children otherwise who is going to care for our children when they become old, who will work to provide the pensions, infrastructure and services that they will require? It seems many don't want immigration and our birth rate is now 1.4 and our net immigration figures have dropped significantly. We will become like Japan (if we haven't already) destined for further economic decline and stagnation.

Of course there will be horrifying examples of people who abuse the system, take out more than they put in and generally take the p... but believing they are representative of most families claiming UC is not only unfair, tbh it's just stereotyping a whole group of people on the basis of a some bad apples. Zahawi had to pay over £5m back tax but who automatically thinks every rich man underpays his tax, helped by clever accountants? Well some might!
The bottom line is we do actually need to raise children, they need to be fed, clothed and looked after. The argument that because some "feckless" parents will use extra money to buy drugs, smoke weed or generally continue their "feckless" life doesn't wash with me. I'm more interested in children having enough to eat, clothes on their backs and a proper home and if that means some play the system, well hasn't it always been like that? By all means label me as "virtue signalling" it's water off a duck's back because it's what I believe and thank goodness, I don't think that I am alone in thinking that.

You think people aren’t concerned about children from families below the poverty line?
Not sure how you made that decision unless that’s your own attitude you’re talking about.

foxie48

The country needs children otherwise who is going to care for our children when they become old, who will work to provide the pensions, infrastructure and services that they will require? It seems many don't want immigration and our birth rate is now 1.4 and our net immigration figures have dropped significantly. We will become like Japan (if we haven't already) destined for further economic decline and stagnation.

Of course there will be horrifying examples of people who abuse the system, take out more than they put in and generally take the p... but believing they are representative of most families claiming UC is not only unfair, tbh it's just stereotyping a whole group of people on the basis of a some bad apples. Zahawi had to pay over £5m back tax but who automatically thinks every rich man underpays his tax, helped by clever accountants? Well some might!
The bottom line is we do actually need to raise children, they need to be fed, clothed and looked after. The argument that because some "feckless" parents will use extra money to buy drugs, smoke weed or generally continue their "feckless" life doesn't wash with me. I'm more interested in children having enough to eat, clothes on their backs and a proper home and if that means some play the system, well hasn't it always been like that? By all means label me as "virtue signalling" it's water off a duck's back because it's what I believe and thank goodness, I don't think that I am alone in thinking that.

Well said, foxie. You are definitely not alone.

Opal

First, define "poverty".
Second, if you can't afford to provide for children, then don't have them.
Third, if you are able to work, but choose not to, you shouldn't be entitled to benefits.
Typical example - mother of five (yes, five!!) on TV the other day, bemoaning the fact that she could only just about afford food and heating, but would like extra money to be able to treat her kids to excursions and "days out".
Would someone please tell her (because the reporter didn't) that her "benefits" come from the purse of those hardworking, tax-paying citizens, and are in place to provide "essentials" for those who need it, not for "extras" and "luxuries".
When are we going to wake up?
And before I'm shouted down, I'm absolutely committed to the state providing for those who genuinely cannot work because of disability. BUT ..... if you CAN work, then bloody well do so and pay for your own kids, like the rest of us.

No more to say, you've said it all, and I so agree with you. I'm sure we all know someone who fits the bill.

foxie48
Your statement The argument that because some "feckless" parents will use extra money to buy drugs, smoke weed or generally continue their "feckless" life doesn't wash with me.

Matches the views of many posters on here including me, even without the need to mention virtue signalling.

Don't you think parents need to think carefully about how many children they can afford?
Is deliberately having more than you can afford acceptable to you?

Children are not possessions, but how many of us decide what we can buy, by what we can afford?

We do need more children. The falling birth rate is causing problems in schools and will eventually cause problems in the job system.
Does that mean we should encourage birth numbers of children who will need financial support beyond what the family can provide?


On GN, there are frequently threads on the unfairness of the system where the better off children get better schooling.

Will an increasing number of children in poverty improve that situation?

Virtue signalling is only really applicable to those who constantly claim that no one else cares for the children apart from them.

I don't think we should be reliant on younger people to keep us in our old age, except for providing a safety net for those in need, without us paying more in NI contributions.

I'm more interested in children having enough to eat, clothes on their backs and a proper home

Of course, that goes without saying. They don't ask to be brought into the world.

But why are private rents so high? And why is the State subsidising private landlords?
Some of the private rental market is just not fit for purpose.

Mollygo

You think people aren’t concerned about children from families below the poverty line?
Not sure how you made that decision unless that’s your own attitude you’re talking about.

I am concerned some people are more concerned about "feckless" parents rather than children living in poverty. I think I have made my own position quite clear but if there's something you want me to clarify, please ask.

I have a friend who retired from working as a Higher Level Classroom Assistant (or whatever they are called these days). She also ran the Breakfast and After School Clubs.

As quite a rural school most people know each other. She used to get parents who don’t work pulling up in expensive cars wearing designer gear and not even giving their kids breakfast as they knew someone else would provide it.

Benefits are too generous and parents should be encouraged to feed their own kids.

Primrose53

I have a friend who retired from working as a Higher Level Classroom Assistant (or whatever they are called these days). She also ran the Breakfast and After School Clubs.

As quite a rural school most people know each other. She used to get parents who don’t work pulling up in expensive cars wearing designer gear and not even giving their kids breakfast as they knew someone else would provide it.

Benefits are too generous and parents should be encouraged to feed their own kids.

I was chair of governors of a rural school for 7 years and the head knew of several families who failed to claim the free school meals, she knew they would be entitled to, because living in a rural community everyone knew everyone else and they didn't want people to know they were poor. Annoyingly it also meant that the school didn't get the pupil premium associated with FSMs.

Primrose53

I have a friend who retired from working as a Higher Level Classroom Assistant (or whatever they are called these days). She also ran the Breakfast and After School Clubs.

As quite a rural school most people know each other. She used to get parents who don’t work pulling up in expensive cars wearing designer gear and not even giving their kids breakfast as they knew someone else would provide it.

Benefits are too generous and parents should be encouraged to feed their own kids.

You can bet your life that those parents were working in the black economy. Or very heavily in debt. Nobody can run that sort of lifestyle on less than £25,000 pa, which is what AI calculates to be about the maximum that could be got on benefits,

V3ra. I was born in 1946, obviously just after the war and there was no family allowance for my parents. My son was born in 1973 and at the time there was still no benefit given for the 1st child but things changed around the time I had my daughter in 1977 and I then got family allowance for both of them

But why are private rents so high? And why is the State subsidising private landlords?

I keep banging on about this I know, but that is the way our neoliberal based economy works. It positively favours the flow of wealth upwards by way of allowing profiteering 'private enterprise' with a tax regime which favours the wealthy and by shrinking the public sector.

The state subsidies private landlords because it has no option as there is little social housing with lower rents available but it has an obligation to support the disadvantaged.

Of course, many on here would like to see that obligation removed and leave the poor to fend for themselves.

My son and his partner broke up several years ago. Their son is ASD and ADHD. After 2 years of continuing to live with us his ex was able to get a council flat with their son. She was working but had to stop when the boy's problems became so bad that he could only manage a morning at school,and then not everyday. She has been getting DLA for him and is now getting back to work as he is improving. Meanwhile my son has a low paid job (he's not good with people himself) He gives her money for their son (who spends the weekends with us) and has tried claiming Universal Credit. This has been turned down because I am a relative. A local councillor told me I should charge him rent ( which would presumably mean I would be taxed on it) but a Citizens Advice advisor said it still wouldn't be accepted as I'm his mother. As it is I am plugging the gaps with my pension. The whole system really needs rethinking.