Two Cap Child Benefit

[baggieal]

Seems Labour are desperate to tax anyone more doing well who works their backside off.

Looks like they want to get rid of the Two Cap Child Benefit.

My view is you shouldn?t have more than two kids if you can?t afford them and why should the tax payer pick up the cost. There are many women who have kids from 3/4 fathers and some religions don?t believe in contraception so breeding is like rats.

So a big NO to me to scrap the two child benefit.

The benefits system just like illegal immigration is out of control. Can?t remember the last time off in my life as I was brought up on the basis there?s no such thing has a free lunch.

[Omegstrat6]

Seems Labour are desperate to tax anyone more doing well who works their backside off.

Looks like they want to get rid of the Two Cap Child Benefit.

My view is you shouldn?t have more than two kids if you can?t afford them and why should the tax payer pick up the cost. There are many women who have kids from 3/4 fathers and some religions don?t believe in contraception so breeding is like rats.

So a big NO to me to scrap the two child benefit.

The benefits system just like illegal immigration is out of control. Can?t remember the last time off in my life as I was brought up on the basis there?s no such thing has a free lunch.

In principal I agree with the 2 child benefit cap Al but I think the situation is more nuanced.

Certainly, people should take responsibility and not simply expect the state (and, by extension, hard working tax payers) to support their children, however many they have, but then it is not the fault of the children themselves is it? They didn't ask to be born and with increasing levels of child poverty (even if driven in some cases by the feckless behaviour of their parents) surely you wouldn't see any child suffer.

In addition, what about those many cases of blended families where two parents get together and take on each other's children. Certainly, not every ex-partner pays what they should towards the raising of their own children. Clearly those parents should pay the appropriate maintenance, but if they do not (or, in some cases, cannot), would you deny the affected children some state support?

Another example might be of a couple who are financially secure, have kids they can afford and then life throws them a curve ball such as illness or death or redundancy.

The root problem is certain people's behaviour and the difficulty in applying consequences to them without impacting on their children. Certainly you don't want a system that encourages them to behave in this way but very few would countenance letting children suffer.

[baggiematt]

Surely this is incredibly simple. We have an ageing population and one that is expected to decline. A declining population is a disaster as there arent enough people to provide for those that are older.

That, in turn leads to an older retirement age and probably cramped housing of elderly people living with their children.

We support having one child, slightly less for two and nothing for three. Why?

[On Balance]

In principal I agree with the 2 child benefit cap Al but I think the situation is more nuanced.

Certainly, people should take responsibility and not simply expect the state (and, by extension, hard working tax payers) to support their children, however many they have, but then it is not the fault of the children themselves is it? They didn't ask to be born and with increasing levels of child poverty (even if driven in some cases by the feckless behaviour of their parents) surely you wouldn't see any child suffer.

In addition, what about those many cases of blended families where two parents get together and take on each other's children. Certainly, not every ex-partner pays what they should towards the raising of their own children. Clearly those parents should pay the appropriate maintenance, but if they do not (or, in some cases, cannot), would you deny the affected children some state support?

Another example might be of a couple who are financially secure, have kids they can afford and then life throws them a curve ball such as illness or death or redundancy.

The root problem is certain people's behaviour and the difficulty in applying consequences to them without impacting on their children. Certainly you don't want a system that encourages them to behave in this way but very few would countenance letting children suffer.

An another absolutely well thought out and thought provoking argument Omeg. It is sometimes so easy to consider things looking at it in a one dimensional light. There are so many situations to consider when making decisions that perhaps the average person fails to understand that and I would sometimes include myself in that category.

Who the would want to be a prime minister or politician of any party, making decisions that will be divide opinion. I often don?t agree with them but when I seriously consider the options I would fail to come up with a suitable, fair way of dealing with a situation. It is so easy to have an opinion when you do not have a solution.

They, the politicians, can keep their jobs and I?ll keep mine.

[WBA123]

Surely this is incredibly simple. We have an ageing population and one that is expected to decline. A declining population is a disaster as there arent enough people to provide for those that are older.

That, in turn leads to an older retirement age and probably cramped housing of elderly people living with their children.

We support having one child, slightly less for two and nothing for three. Why?

I don't think its as simple as that, although I agree with you in principle about the population needing to grow with more births and younger people.

Firstly, the argument 'the parents are responsible for feeding their child' just doesn't work. Because although that's how the world should work, it doesn't for some kids. And they shouldn't be the ones bearing the brunt of their parents irresponsibility.

Secondly, this is going to make me sound like a stuck up snob, but the people who will benefit from the scrapping of this cap are the ones on universal credit. Particularly those who don't work.

What we should not be doing is incentivising people who don't or won't work to have more children. What we should be doing is incentivising those in work to have more children. We have to try and be selective about it, without penalising the child - which is difficult.

That needs to be breakfast clubs, going further with child tax credits and more nursery hours for the children of those in work.

If children grow up in a house where their parents are on welfare, they are statistically likely to join them later on in life. We have to change that culture.

[Leicesterbaggie]

It is not often that I politically agree with you 123 but I do on this. We should help those in work regarding child benefit and as you say, not those who do not or will not work. I appreciate that is not the fault of the child but making it easier for the feckless to have more children is just going to make the situation far worse. I admit that I do not have the answer but incentivising people to have more children certainly is not.

[baggiematt]

I don't think its as simple as that, although I agree with you in principle about the population needing to grow with more births and younger people.

Firstly, the argument 'the parents are responsible for feeding their child' just doesn't work. Because although that's how the world should work, it doesn't for some kids. And they shouldn't be the ones bearing the brunt of their parents irresponsibility.

Secondly, this is going to make me sound like a stuck up snob, but the people who will benefit from the scrapping of this cap are the ones on universal credit. Particularly those who don't work.

What we should not be doing is incentivising people who don't or won't work to have more children. What we should be doing is incentivising those in work to have more children. We have to try and be selective about it, without penalising the child - which is difficult.

That needs to be breakfast clubs, going further with child tax credits and more nursery hours for the children of those in work.

If children grow up in a house where their parents are on welfare, they are statistically likely to join them later on in life. We have to change that culture.

I suppose my point is, why would we have a policy that doesnt support population growth when this is going to be one of our biggest problems in the next generation.

[Albionic68]

Seems Labour are desperate to tax anyone more doing well who works their backside off.

Looks like they want to get rid of the Two Cap Child Benefit.

My view is you shouldn?t have more than two kids if you can?t afford them and why should the tax payer pick up the cost. There are many women who have kids from 3/4 fathers and some religions don?t believe in contraception so breeding is like rats.

So a big NO to me to scrap the two child benefit.

The benefits system just like illegal immigration is out of control. Can?t remember the last time off in my life as I was brought up on the basis there?s no such thing has a free lunch.

Morning Al. Can't wait for your next thread where you call for the mass sterilisation of the unemployed and suggest anal s ex as a method of birth control for those on Universal Credit instead of subsidised condoms as a means of avoiding free lunches for anyone........ especially if they get here in an inflatable boat 😃 😀 😄 .

[baggiematt]

Morning Al. Can't wait for your next thread where you call for the mass sterilisation of the unemployed and suggest anal s ex as a method of birth control for those on Universal Credit instead of subsidised condoms as a means of avoiding free lunches for anyone........ especially if they get here in an inflatable boat 😃 😀 😄 .

God forbid we get invaded by Russians. He would have to be an asylum seeker, unemployed and probably wont speak the language. Theyll be asking in their foreign tongue ?who is this Jed Wallace he keeps ranting about? 😆😆😆

[baggieal]

God forbid we get invaded by Russians. He would have to be an asylum seeker, unemployed and probably wont speak the language. Theyll be asking in their foreign tongue ?who is this Jed Wallace he keeps ranting about? 😆😆😆

Nah - if we were invaded they would be asking for a leftie like you to make them feel welcome 😂😂.

Jed who? His friend Ryan will have him back in the side soon. As for Bostock who has fantastic potential I hope someone like Villa grab him like all the other promising kids. That’s what happens and if it does - good luck to the kid!

[baggieal]

Plenty of folk out there already on universal credit celebrating the cap has been lifted as this could mean thousands more in benefits, A few comparisons already been done and
it?s cheaper in some circumstances to sit on your a rse than go to work.

This weekend there will be plenty on the job trying for kid number three or more!

You just can?t make it up!! Only this government could keep throwing more benefits around like confetti! So much for my late father?s words - there?s no such thing as a free lunch!

No wonder this country is a mess with very little incentive to work!

[Albionic68]

Plenty of folk out there already on universal credit celebrating the cap has been lifted as this could mean thousands more in benefits, A few comparisons already been done and
it?s cheaper in some circumstances to sit on your a rse than go to work.

This weekend there will be plenty on the job trying for kid number three or more!

You just can?t make it up!! Only this government could keep throwing more benefits around like confetti! So much for my late father?s words - there?s no such thing as a free lunch!

No wonder this country is a mess with very little incentive to work!

Powerful arguments for the reintroduction of workhouses and national service. That would sort the scrounging feckless b@rstewards out. And their little kiddies. As for those coming over for a free lunch from afar; fight them on the beaches........ if they get past the gun boats 😃 😀 😉 .

[Omegstrat6]

The overwhelming number of comments I have read about the budget are all around how many hard working people on low-medium salaries will be worse off only to enable the feckless to live the life of Riley on benefits and pump out as many children as they want because the state will pay for them.

I certainly do not agree with many things in this budget and using the well worn "stealth tax" of keeping existing tax thresholds, which will inevitably push many into the next bracket up and thus make them worse off, is certainly one of them and yet another garden rake our blind tool makers son and bestie from accounts have stumbled onto.

As I posted earlier, in principle, I support a 2 child benefit cap but given the levels of increasing child poverty in this country and the nuances of the issue it would only make things worse for many innocent children and whilst there are doubtless more than a few amongst them, not all of their parents are the feckless work shy the media portray.

Sadly, recent data suggests that 50% of the population now draw their news (and subsequently views) from GB News so it might be pertinent to point out that the extra child benefit for a third child will now be £16.95 a week or £881.40 pa or £73.45 a month. Not to be scoffed at and certainly not an inconsiderable amount of money when multiplied by all those now eligible again but given that a Natwest survey from 2024 estimated that a child between 8-12 years old would cost around £40 a week to feed alone, I don't think an extra £17 a week will really entice even the feckless to start pumping out more kids.

IMHO, the biggest single issue that underlies so many of this country's issues (education, housing, healthcare etc) continues to be the ever growing gulf between the have and have nots and the vastly uneven distribution of wealth in this country. Numerous studies show that the rich are getting richer whilst the poor are getting poorer and this is undeniable. Moreover, those at the top have not increased their wealth by hard work, nor by any entrepreneurial brilliance but rather by the passive act of simply having so many assets which have increased in value. Those at the bottom, meanwhile, struggle to avoid slipping further into debt.

This state of affairs does not bode well for younger generations, many of whom are already struggling to get on the housing ladder for example, and too many of them will likely never have the assets more readily achieviable for older generations. There is a very real danger that the on-going transformation of our society from one based on productive enterprise to what some have termed a "rent seeking model" will only see a greater proportion of the nation's wealth being transferred upwards. Under such a model, merely working hard does not in itself guarantee financial security.

There have been some voices of concern over the strategic impact of not addressing this gap in wealth and equality (increasing discontent, the rise of populism, the erosion of democracy at the expense of increasing authoritarianism etc.) but these have been largely ignored. Meanwhile, Starmer and Co still haven't the b o llocks to tax the ultra rich more to at least try to redistribute some of that money back into public services just as they won't the likes of Amazon. They have similarly rowed back on some aspects of the Employment Rights Bill under pressure from business concerns and will doubtless show similar weakness over other proposals in the bill, such as those over zero-hour contracts.

Employers and employees have a symbiotic relationship, but ever since Thatcher especially, the employers have always had the whip hand. Of course the country needs businesses to provide work for people as well as to generate wealth but whilst profit in itself is not a dirty word, it is if it is on the back of exploitation whether that be low wages or poor T&Cs.

If people have more money they will spend it and the economy will benefit but too many companies who could well afford increases in wages chose not to do so, not because they cannot afford it but because they want to maximise profits for their shareholders and directors. Not only have they been aided by Tory governments particularly in this, but also by the mostly right leaning media who deflect attention away from the issue whether through talking about small businesses that will struggle with increased costs or else immigration levels and boat people who, as we all know, are the root of all our problems including the inability of our players to put the ball in the back of the net.

It isn't at all that some of the issues they raise are not valid ones but rather that they are also used to deflect from what I believe is the single biggest driver for the problems the country has. There are no easy answers or quick solutions but our current crop of politicians are either complicit in it or else woefully inept. Where is Woolfy Smith when you need him?😁

[Omegstrat6]

The overwhelming number of comments I have read about the budget are all around how many hard working people on low-medium salaries will be worse off only to enable the feckless to live the life of Riley on benefits and pump out as many children as they want because the state will pay for them.

I certainly do not agree with many things in this budget and using the well worn "stealth tax" of keeping existing tax thresholds, which will inevitably push many into the next bracket up and thus make them worse off, is certainly one of them and yet another garden rake our blind tool makers son and bestie from accounts have stumbled onto.

As I posted earlier, in principle, I support a 2 child benefit cap but given the levels of increasing child poverty in this country and the nuances of the issue it would only make things worse for many innocent children and whilst there are doubtless more than a few amongst them, not all of their parents are the feckless work shy the media portray.

Sadly, recent data suggests that 50% of the population now draw their news (and subsequently views) from GB News so it might be pertinent to point out that the extra child benefit for a third child will now be £16.95 a week or £881.40 pa or £73.45 a month. Not to be scoffed at and certainly not an inconsiderable amount of money when multiplied by all those now eligible again but given that a Natwest survey from 2024 estimated that a child between 8-12 years old would cost around £40 a week to feed alone, I don't think an extra £17 a week will really entice even the feckless to start pumping out more kids.

IMHO, the biggest single issue that underlies so many of this country's issues (education, housing, healthcare etc) continues to be the ever growing gulf between the have and have nots and the vastly uneven distribution of wealth in this country. Numerous studies show that the rich are getting richer whilst the poor are getting poorer and this is undeniable. Moreover, those at the top have not increased their wealth by hard work, nor by any entrepreneurial brilliance but rather by the passive act of simply having so many assets which have increased in value. Those at the bottom, meanwhile, struggle to avoid slipping further into debt.

This state of affairs does not bode well for younger generations, many of whom are already struggling to get on the housing ladder for example, and too many of them will likely never have the assets more readily achieviable for older generations. There is a very real danger that the on-going transformation of our society from one based on productive enterprise to what some have termed a "rent seeking model" will only see a greater proportion of the nation's wealth being transferred upwards. Under such a model, merely working hard does not in itself guarantee financial security.

There have been some voices of concern over the strategic impact of not addressing this gap in wealth and equality (increasing discontent, the rise of populism, the erosion of democracy at the expense of increasing authoritarianism etc.) but these have been largely ignored. Meanwhile, Starmer and Co still haven't the b o llocks to tax the ultra rich more to at least try to redistribute some of that money back into public services just as they won't the likes of Amazon. They have similarly rowed back on some aspects of the Employment Rights Bill under pressure from business concerns and will doubtless show similar weakness over other proposals in the bill, such as those over zero-hour contracts.

Employers and employees have a symbiotic relationship, but ever since Thatcher especially, the employers have always had the whip hand. Of course the country needs businesses to provide work for people as well as to generate wealth but whilst profit in itself is not a dirty word, it is if it is on the back of exploitation whether that be low wages or poor T&Cs.

If people have more money they will spend it and the economy will benefit but too many companies who could well afford increases in wages chose not to do so, not because they cannot afford it but because they want to maximise profits for their shareholders and directors. Not only have they been aided by Tory governments particularly in this, but also by the mostly right leaning media who deflect attention away from the issue whether through talking about small businesses that will struggle with increased costs or else immigration levels and boat people who, as we all know, are the root of all our problems including the inability of our players to put the ball in the back of the net.

It isn't at all that some of the issues they raise are not valid ones but rather that they are also used to deflect from what I believe is the single biggest driver for the problems the country has. There are no easy answers or quick solutions but our current crop of politicians are either complicit in it or else woefully inept. Where is Woolfy Smith when you need him?😁

Have been trying to edit the above but not able to do so for some reason😞
Apologies but clearly I got it wrong and the above post regarding the 2 cap benefit is incorrect. The £17 a week Child Benefit alone is obviously not enough to support a child but it is separate from both the universal credit and child tax credits that those with a third child or more may now be eligible for. This is estimated to be up to £220 a week-so small wonder that it sticks in the craw.

Personally, I don't see why it has to be an all or nothing situation and why a compromise of a smaller entitlement for a third child could not have been made instead. This might have helped erode child poverty whilst not be seen so readily as an incentive to have more children that would be dependent on the state.

[baggieal]

Have been trying to edit the above but not able to do so for some reason😞
Apologies but clearly I got it wrong and the above post regarding the 2 cap benefit is incorrect. The £17 a week Child Benefit alone is obviously not enough to support a child but it is separate from both the universal credit and child tax credits that those with a third child or more may now be eligible for. This is estimated to be up to £220 a week-so small wonder that it sticks in the craw.

Personally, I don't see why it has to be an all or nothing situation and why a compromise of a smaller entitlement for a third child could not have been made instead. This might have helped erode child poverty whilst not be seen so readily as an incentive to have more children that would be dependent on the state.

Morning Omeg
As 123 said most of those entitled will be on universal credit anyway and any extra money won?t go on the kids in most cases - it will go on alcohol and fags.

In lots of cases sadly it?s more financially beneficial to sit on a fat backside than going to work. In Spain you receive almost-nothing unless you have contributed to their system. Surely that?s how the system should work?

The country is out of control on the billions wasted on illegal immigration and benefits and working people are getting fed up!