Gov.uk Petition to retain 2-child benefit

Kandinsky

Shameless Mick set fire to his house in a bungled attempt to get back at his mistress for daring to leave.
5 ( maybe 6? ) of his children died in the fire.

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

I don't know who Mick is but remember this lot?

www.cps.gov.uk/cps/news/members-britains-biggest-benefit-fraud-gang-jailed-combined-total-more-25-years

How did they get away with it for so long?

Shameless Mick set fire to his house in a bungled attempt to get back at his mistress for daring to leave.
5 ( maybe 6? ) of his children died in the fire.

Well he's in prison for murdering six of them, I think it was six. Don't know if his wife's out of prison yet, she got a shorter sentence than him. I think there was a report about him getting attacked on prison earlier this year.

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Shameless Mick is in prison I think so need to worry about luxuries for him

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

According to government figures (straight from the ,gov.uk website, not AI) some 1.2 million children lived in 'long term workless' households in 2024.

We obviously have no idea how many of these were outwith the 2 child cap, but f they had every one of them lived in 2 child families the over all cost of benefit payments would have been little different to what the potential extra cost of raising the cap will be.

This is worked on a) initially 'averaging' the monthly cost of £339pm for first child and £292.81 for subsequent children (because we have no idea of their relevant numbers) I called it £300 per child, which might have been a bit low, but I got the annual cost to be about £4.32 billion

Then I tried 'assuming that if all the 1.2 million children were in 2 child households then splitting the figure of 1,2 million children 50;50 and calculating half on the 'first child' allowance and half on the 'subsequent' allowance would give me a maximum figure that 'could' actually be paid out at the moment. Which was £4.55 billion.

What the government doesn't seem to publish is the actual amount that is being paid to long term workless households for their children. But I suspect it isn't far short of either of the rough estimates I've made.

Basically, we have absolutely no idea of how many of these families have more than two children, so cannot tell what the costs might be.

This is for those moaning about the increased cost

Mollygo

CariadAgain

Wondering what those "unforeseen events" might be that result in breaching a two child cap?

I guess if someone has one child and decides to have a second one - but Mother Nature ensure that 2nd child turns out to be a pair of twins and they didn't know that twins was a possibility in their family? In which case - one could accept that there was three children - because it had turned out to be No. 1 child and No. 2 child was twins in the event. That would be unexpected "breaching the cap" - but otherwise hmmm...their choice = down to them.

Unforeseen circumstances affecting
families who have more than two children but were able to fund them when they were planned/born.

My list starts with

Life changing illness
Job loss
Becoming a widow/widower.

I’m sure there are more.

The having twins is an unforeseen circumstance unless the twins are born first.

This is where there is difficulties I can see - ie people who could genuinely pay for their own and now (for a very genuine reason) can no longer pay for their own. It would/will take some doing to figure who has gone ahead deliberately and had extra child/ren without suitable circumstances to do so right from the start.

In the generation of childbearing age - I can only think of one person I know who went on to have "more" and she didn't have the personal circumstances to fund the extra one herself when she conceived that child - she wanted and so she had - and so that child is fully her responsibility (was at the time/is still now several years later).....and errrm...yes...I do see money going on luxuries.

That one is a difficult issue to resolve - as indeed how does one prove Miss X could afford no. 3 when they were conceived and, on from there, that it's genuinely not her choice/fault if she can't subsequently. Life does happen and crash up against best-laid plans of a responsible type person sometimes. It would be interesting to know what proportion of no. 3 onwards children are born to feckless people and what proportion are born to someone who had worked/planned etc of themselves - but Summat Unexpected Happened. Not an easy situation - and I don't know how the State could differentiate ...and I guess it would be a case of "suggestions welcome on how to...".

Whitewavemark2

Sorry?

Glad to hear that.

Mollygo

Presumably you’re referring to yourselves WWM2 and LD.

Sorry?

DHs carer. I wish I didn't have fat fingers.

Unforeseen circumstances for me was DH having an accident at work when I was pregnant with baby number four. I was sitting with ten day old baby on my lap when Consultant told us it would never get better and would get worse.

I was fortunate in that I had a good career and we survived without benefits but it was hard. I had four kids, a full-time job and DGs carer. Many times I thought I couldn't go on. If id got I'll we'd have been on benefits.

Presumably you’re referring to yourselves WWM2 and LD.

Whitewavemark2

Good to see that the stereotypes are healthy, alive and kicking🙄

You can say that again WW🙄

Does anyone remember ‘Shameless Mick’ the man who had 10 kids by 2 women & boasted about living quite happily on all the benefits he was receiving. It was people like him who probably pathed the way for the 2 child cap.

Personally, I think it should be capped at 4 children.

CariadAgain

Wondering what those "unforeseen events" might be that result in breaching a two child cap?

I guess if someone has one child and decides to have a second one - but Mother Nature ensure that 2nd child turns out to be a pair of twins and they didn't know that twins was a possibility in their family? In which case - one could accept that there was three children - because it had turned out to be No. 1 child and No. 2 child was twins in the event. That would be unexpected "breaching the cap" - but otherwise hmmm...their choice = down to them.

Unforeseen circumstances affecting
families who have more than two children but were able to fund them when they were planned/born.

My list starts with

Life changing illness
Job loss
Becoming a widow/widower.

I’m sure there are more.

The having twins is an unforeseen circumstance unless the twins are born first.

sundowngirl

Of course we care about children but I don't believe that all these children in poverty will necessarily feel the benefit of the removal of the cap. Maybe some of these' wrong kind of parents' will use it to fund their own lifestyle

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.

The state (tax payers) should not be funding a lifestyle for those that will not work. Perhaps the two child cap should only be removed for people with both partners in work.

Well the children in poverty definitely won't benefit if the cap wasn't listed. I'd rather take the chance in the hope that at least some children would benefit.

Sarnia

On TV, one family being asked about the removal of the 2 cap were very pleased because their £1,900 per month benefits (both unemployed, 5 children) would give them an extra £900 a month. There was no reason given for neither of them working but what incentive is there for anyone to find a job when £2,800 lands in your outstretched hand every 4 weeks? I was brought up to only have my children if my husband and I could afford them.

Circumstances change, there's a post on Mumsnet from a woman who had a good career. Had a third child ,(I think it was third) and child has a serious genetic condition and requires 24 hour care. Mother gave up work and now is on ,UC. Some things just can't be planned for.

Wondering what those "unforeseen events" might be that result in breaching a two child cap?

I guess if someone has one child and decides to have a second one - but Mother Nature ensure that 2nd child turns out to be a pair of twins and they didn't know that twins was a possibility in their family? In which case - one could accept that there was three children - because it had turned out to be No. 1 child and No. 2 child was twins in the event. That would be unexpected "breaching the cap" - but otherwise hmmm...their choice = down to them.

I suppose people get resentful that they work hard and hardly spend any time in their homes whilst their neighbours do not not go out to work and have a seemingly better lifestyle. But life isn't fair and we don't know other peoples circumstances.

Good to see that the stereotypes are healthy, alive and kicking🙄

Of course we care about children but I don't believe that all these children in poverty will necessarily feel the benefit of the removal of the cap. Maybe some of these' wrong kind of parents' will use it to fund their own lifestyle

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.

The state (tax payers) should not be funding a lifestyle for those that will not work. Perhaps the two child cap should only be removed for people with both partners in work.

And I don't understand your wish to make hard working people continue to provide for others who are 1. perfectly capable of working but choose not to

'Working people' don't provide anything because taxes don't fund state spending

But until more people understand this we will continue to have this barrage of nastiness towards the victims of our economic system.

Ilovecheese
I don’t think your generalisation is particularly accurate.
Posters do care about children. They don’t want them living in poverty.

They do understand that the 2child cap is inappropriate when unforeseen events change circumstances.

What do you mean by the wrong sort of parents?
Would you like to give your definition?

Who doesn’t care about children?

Was the member of my family who suffers from a condition which means she has never looked for work, and whose husband has a low paid job right to have more than 2 children?

Is it fair that they get more in benefits than another member, with 2 children, who had a well paid job which she lost through serious illness and now works at 2 basic rate jobs rather than not work?

I can’t speak for other posters but I’m not convinced that parents who have multiple children and expect others to fund them
really care

Do you consider parents who already struggle with two children care about children when they go ahead and have more?