2 child benefit cap.

Biblioklept

Cartini said:

I think the cap should stay in place for a very simple reason; if you can`t afford children, don`t have them.

There is a 5 year gap between our 2 sons for this very reason; we couldn`t afford to have a 2nd child until I had been promoted.  We never had a 3rd for the same reason; even after promotion, a 3rd child would have been too expensive.

What about those who could afford them and then life circumstances changed and now they've found themselves disabled / unable to work / made redundant / in a lower paid job?

Biblioklept

Karen7788 said:

I have three children, all grown, in professional careers and paying quite a lot of tax. This country has an ageing population and we need to start planning for the future, so we can either have more children, have more immigration or perhaps both. 

Regardless of any decisions parents make or don’t make children shouldn’t go to bed hungry. We all have a duty as a country to support our most vulnerable, children included. 

This is a very good point. There is concern over the falling birth rate and yet plans put in place to discourage having more children.

Biblioklept

poppy123456 said:

I think it’s a little harsh saying you shouldn’t have children if you can’t afford them. When is it a good time to have children? 

So true, I don't think anyone would ever have kids if they sat and worked out all the true costs involved  

Biblioklept

woodbine said:

The family allowance act of 1946 saw a payment of 5/- a week for each child EXCEPT the eldest, it was part of the Beveridge report of 1942 and had actually been discussed as early as the 1920's. A free commons vote overturned plans to pay the allowance to the father, In 1981 family allowance became child benefit payable for all children.

That's so interesting thank you for sharing it, I didn't realise there'd been plans for it to be paid to the father or the history behind it becoming child benefit in 1981

racyguy

poppy123456 said:

I think it’s a little harsh saying you shouldn’t have children if you can’t afford them. When is it a good time to have children? 

My daughter had her 2nd baby 3
weeks ago. Her first was born in March 2020. Both her and her partner work full time and claim no benefits. My daughter worked until 2 weeks before the baby was born. 

From October their earnings will be £1,200/month less because she will be claiming just SMP. Still no benefits entitlement. It will be a struggle but if they had waited until they were more financially stable with cost of living increased so much they may never have had my granddaughter. 

It isn't harsh to say that. We married in1965 when I was 22 and my wife was 21. We were both working and our first priority was to get our own place and furnish it  This took until 1975. By 1980 when we had our twin daughters we had made it financially possible for my wife to not want to work but enjoy bringing up the children. My wife has never worked since that date.
We took responsibility for ourselves knowing that having children early would have meant no saving for our 1st home and my wife having to go back to work.

The best time to have children in my opinion is when you are settled financially and fully able to support them. For us that was when I was 37 and my wife 36.

racyguy

janer1967 said:

Controversial subject that Dan also be sexist 

A man can have several children with different women but in most cases because it is the woman claiming the benefits or seperate household claims the man can have lots more than the 2 children cap 

Eg my ex had 2 children with his first wife claimed benefits for whole time together never worked 

Then had q child with me we didn't claim any benefits at the time we were together but now I claim for his son 

He now has 2 more kids with his partner and she has 3 from prev relationship (my ex grandkids BTW) and they claim benefits neither of them having worked since my ex stopped working so he didn't have to pay mr any maintenance 

So in effect he is getting more than the 2 children cap for his own children 

I would say that he is prolific and should have realised earlier on that unprotected sex does and can result in a baby! So in other words he was quite happy to 'spread his love' without a care in the world as to how he was going to support them - totally selfish and I now know where some of the taxes I paid ended up.

Cartini

Biblioklept said:

Cartini said:

I think the cap should stay in place for a very simple reason; if you can`t afford children, don`t have them.

There is a 5 year gap between our 2 sons for this very reason; we couldn`t afford to have a 2nd child until I had been promoted.  We never had a 3rd for the same reason; even after promotion, a 3rd child would have been too expensive.

What about those who could afford them and then life circumstances changed and now they've found themselves disabled / unable to work / made redundant / in a lower paid job?

I`ve already explained that my comment is based on financial security at the point of deciding to have children.  Circumstances do change, some for the good and some for the bad.  For the latter, the parents will have to make difficult decisions.

Cartini

calcotti said:

Cartini said:

calcotti said:

Cartini said:..Having children when you can`t afford them means they will most likely go to bed hungry.  A good time to have them is when you know you can dress & feed them and give them a secure life.

That argument rather assumes that people have stable lives. People can make perfectly rational decisions based on their circumstances but then something changes (whether due to economics, pandemics, health etc) and then need support, It's the children that end up living in poverty. If nobody had children unless they had already secured enough money to support a child for the next 18 years then nobody would have any children.

At the point of deciding to have children, that is absolutely correct.  No where have I stated about changing circumstances; circumstances do change, some for the best and some for the worst, that`s a given. 

But that’s why the two child limit makes no sense. Your argument appeared to be that the cap makes sense because it stops people being feckless, my argument is that people are in difficultly because they may have experienced a change.

I`m not disputing the point you made; I`m saying prospective, or existing, parents should be financially comfortable at the point of deciding to have, or add to, a family.  At that point, people can only speculate about the future.

janer1967

@racyguy I agree but why would he want to stop when the system allows him to carry on spreading his love as you put it and the tax payers support his offspring 

Biblioklept

Cartini said:

Biblioklept said:

What about those who could afford them and then life circumstances changed and now they've found themselves disabled / unable to work / made redundant / in a lower paid job?

I`ve already explained that my comment is based on financial security at the point of deciding to have children.  Circumstances do change, some for the good and some for the bad.  For the latter, the parents will have to make difficult decisions.

I think that's what I'm struggling to understand. So if a family is quite comfortable financially and decides to have 3+ children because they do the sums and decide they can afford it, but then the worst should happen, why would anyone think it's a good idea for them to only receive support, even short term, for just 2 of them? 

racyguy

janer1967 said:

@racyguy I agree but why would he want to stop when the system allows him to carry on spreading his love as you put it and the tax payers support his offspring 

He may not want to stop - he probably has a loving nature - but if I had my way there is one certainty that would stop him - a pair of house bricks suitably positioned!!

Cartini

Biblioklept said:

Cartini said:

Biblioklept said:

What about those who could afford them and then life circumstances changed and now they've found themselves disabled / unable to work / made redundant / in a lower paid job?

I`ve already explained that my comment is based on financial security at the point of deciding to have children.  Circumstances do change, some for the good and some for the bad.  For the latter, the parents will have to make difficult decisions.

I think that's what I'm struggling to understand. So if a family is quite comfortable financially and decides to have 3+ children because they do the sums and decide they can afford it, but then the worst should happen, why would anyone think it's a good idea for them to only receive support, even short term, for just 2 of them? 

Because a line has to be drawn somewhere.   It`s not the responsibility of the state, ergo taxpayer, to fund someone having children. 

Karen7788

Children born now will be paying the future pensions of todays 50 to 70+ year olds. 

janer1967

@racyguy I would love to be a fly on the wall and watch that 

Cartini

Karen7788 said:

Children born now will be paying the future pensions of todays 50 to 70+ year olds. 

They will, just as my taxes go towards those drawing their state pension today.

racyguy

janer1967 said:

@racyguy I would love to be a fly on the wall and watch that 

Would you? It would get a little messy.
Mind you quite a few years ago at my local the landlord found himself in err difficulties after his wife super glued his foreskin to his err 'man member' and then to his tummy due to his infidelity. He was not happy and had to go to A&E to have the two parts set free. Nasty & painful!
His wife walked out shortly after.
  

janer1967

Nice one not for him though I hope it made him think about the consequences 

I have karma my ex is now 53 years old and living with 5 kids all under age of 10 two of them under 3 

Sue_Alumni

Good morning, 

I understand that a private member's bill called Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit had its second reading  in the House of Lords this July.  The bill was introduced by the Bishop of Durham as the patron of the North East Child Poverty Commission.   After a second reading of a bill it is my understanding that the bill goes to committeee stage where a detailed line by line examination and discussion takes place. 

Karen7788

Yes, I think you’re correct @Sue_Scope, I don’t think a date has been set yet for the committee stage. 

calcotti

Hadn’t heard of that, Sue. Found more information here
https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/lln-2022-0019