Over 1.6 million children live in families made poorer by the two-child limit on benefits – new data

16 comments

1. The cap is needed just like any other benefit spending needs to be reviewed and tightened.
   Honestly, if the cap pushes your family to suffer genuine hardship you were never really in a position to afford more than 2 children and you need to take a look at yourself.

2. ‘Poorer’ is subjective though. All families were made poorer when they took away child benefit for all children. Why don’t all children get child benefit as they did up until around a decade ago it used to be for the children.

3. The 2-child limit on Child Tax Credit and Universal Credit was introduced in April 2017, over 8 years ago. Any child born before the introduction of the 2-child cap on Child Tax Credit and Universal Credit is still eligible to receive those benefits.

   It only affects children born after the cap was introduced. This means the vast majority of parents had their third child in full knowledge of the benefits situation.

   It’s worth noting that parents will still get Child Benefit for all children, not just the first two. For the third child, that’s just over £60 a week.

4. Well. I have a son, I won’t be having anymore because I can’t afford more than 1. Is that the issue of other taxpayers? Should they fork out so I can have more kids? Nope. 

   Can afford, don’t have. Contraception is FREE. 

5. Don’t you people have a problem with the birth rate being too low? Seems counterproductive.

6. Every day we hear that benefits are underfunded but where do people expect the money to come from? The country is broke. If Labour lifted the 2 child cap then they would have to raise taxes. If they raise taxes further there will be an outcry. Wealth tax? Outrageous and anti-growth! Income tax threshold frozen again? Tax on the working class! End the triple lock? Pensioners plunged into poverty!

   I don’t think Labour have done a particularly good job, but God knows they have been dealt a bad hand. Damned if they do, damned if they don’t.

7. I was made poorer by my employer not giving me a 10% pay rise this year

8. Don’t have kids you can’t afford.

9. Hot take: if you can’t afford kids then don’t have them, definitely don’t have more than 3.

10. Also hundreds of thousands of households which are looking after the child 50% of time but because only 1 parent can claim benefits the household that doesn’t usually suffers, even if the kid is in that poorer household half the time

11. Yeah lets just throw more money we haven’t got at people who don’t necessarily need it. Heres an alternative idea, if you want lots of kids then work harder to pay for them. It should not be working peoples job to subsidise you.

12. When it started, comparatively few women worked, and working class women were in low-paid jobs, and often part time, and many had no money of their own. Men doled out the housekeeping, and, it was not uncommon for men to keep their actual wages secret.
    Family allowance was started as a way to give women a bit of money of their own, so that they could feed / clothe their children, especially if their husbands were less than generous with their money, which, too many regarded as their own. Many women had no access to a bank account, but they could get the money from a post office. There was no allowance for the first child.

13. I would rather they invest the extra in giving free nurseries for all (specially hard working people).

14. Don’t have kids if you can’t afford them. No wonder we’re known as the welfare state.

15. Should people not have kids they can’t afford? Yes.

    Should we punish children for being born by ensuring they live in poverty and create yet another cycle of poverty? No.

    Case closed.

16. Why is there an expectation that the tax payer should pay for people’s kids. Hell why do we even pay for the two. When I started considering kids I worked out of if we could afford twins, you know just in case.

    The level of entitlement our society has saddens me.

Comments are closed.