Two Cap Child Benefit

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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!

---

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 😃 😀 😉 .

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?😁

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omegstrat6

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baggieal

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!

---

Hi Al, hope you are well. I certainly don't disagree that this country is out of control and I've been there working 60 hours a week and still struggling to pay the mortgage and bills and feed and clothe the kids while across the street from me are those who have no intention of working but are good at playing the system, can afford to smoke and drink, run a car and even take the odd holiday abroad. I understand that anger. My point is that whilst there certainly remain too many scroungers, the real issue in this country is the growing inequality in wealth. The very and super rich are, of course, quite happy for the hard working middle income earners who are being hit by budgets like this one to direct their frustrations and anger downwards rather than look upwards towards themselves.

Money begets money, it always has done but for those in the top 10% who defend their wealth by decrying that criticism of them is simply envy and jealousy, I would argue that it is more to do with their greed and a growing lack of opportunities for those at the bottom to rise up. It is a situation that does not create a healthy society because those at the top of the pile do not spend their money in sectors of the economy that generate growth which might benefit the majority.

What happens in the US often mirrors to a degree what happens in the UK. For too long the liberal elite in America ignored the frustrations of many of the population and financial crashes and other factors made many feel that the "American Dream" was no longer a possibility for them to achieve. The result was growing frustration and anger and a rise in populism that some with power and money tried to harness hence Trump was able to get elected. As has historically always been the case, an easy scapegoat had to be found which was immigration amongst other things. But the current POTUS is at last now being found out for the grifter he actually is as most Americans find themself no better off despite successes in curbing illegal immigration while the Toddler in Chief re-models the White House in gold and courts unsavoury Middle Eastern princes. Here in the UK, we don't have a narcissistic grifter in charge but we do have a weak and cloth eared PM which may be nowhere as bad but still hopelessly inept.

IMHO, a better balance in wealth distribution needs to be found somehow if conditions in this country are going to improve. We need to generate growth and we need businesses for this but we equally need to ensure that the most vulnerable in society are protected and that employees are rewarded with decent pay and better protections and T&Cs. The two should not be mutually exclusive in a properly functioning economy. The failing of neo-liberalism and small government has been that the pendulum has swung too far in the direction of deregulation, profit and privatisation.