| 2 child benefit cap 09:21 - Nov 27 with 2195 views | MrPotatoHead |
I've always considered myself a bit of a socialist, and the prospect of lifting hundreds of thousands of kids out of poverty can surely only be a good thing? Especially if its in part funded by people living in multi million £ mansions paying a few grand a year each. Worlds smallest violin for them IMO.
As I've got older there is a part of me that questions the impact of it though, does it really incentivise people to not work and pop out loads of kids? I'm not sure that's likely in reality. Is it fair on the people funding the billions of £ it costs? Or people who don't have children?
I'm wondering if a compromise position might be something more nuanced, where folk can get qualifying years through tax / NI contributions. There's such a system in place for state pension, why can't it be the same for child benefit?
I'm a bit torn on it and interested in what other people think. |  | | |  |
| 2 child benefit cap on 09:25 - Nov 27 with 1676 views | J2BLUE |
Can't remember the sources but from the stats i've read:
It costs relatively little for the huge positive impact it would have
The vast majority of people who would get extra money are in work
The kids in poverty is some ridiculous number like 600,000 or 800,000
It's an open goal to scrap it. Even the most cynical (not aimed at you) should get behind it as an investment in future tax payers, not to mention the savings from services like the NHS which would be needed less. [Post edited 27 Nov 14:06]
|  |
| |
| 2 child benefit cap on 09:32 - Nov 27 with 1631 views | MrPotatoHead |
| 2 child benefit cap on 09:25 - Nov 27 by J2BLUE |
Can't remember the sources but from the stats i've read:
It costs relatively little for the huge positive impact it would have
The vast majority of people who would get extra money are in work
The kids in poverty is some ridiculous number like 600,000 or 800,000
It's an open goal to scrap it. Even the most cynical (not aimed at you) should get behind it as an investment in future tax payers, not to mention the savings from services like the NHS which would be needed less. [Post edited 27 Nov 14:06]
|
Thanks for that. As you say re. NHS I think the 'cost' should also be considered longer term, I presume there's a huge societal cost to not doing something. Future issues, people lost who otherwise can go on to contribute greatly to the economy and society (or have a greater likelihood to) and have more fulfilling and potentially healthier lives if given the support at an early age.
I'm not against it in principle, I just think like all of these things it needs the guardrails to do what its intended to do and not be abused in some way.
Managing public finances is a really difficult thing to do, I don't envy Reeves really or those who came before her. Its impossible to be all things to all people. | | | |
| 2 child benefit cap on 09:36 - Nov 27 with 1602 views | itfcjoe |
| 2 child benefit cap on 09:32 - Nov 27 by MrPotatoHead |
Thanks for that. As you say re. NHS I think the 'cost' should also be considered longer term, I presume there's a huge societal cost to not doing something. Future issues, people lost who otherwise can go on to contribute greatly to the economy and society (or have a greater likelihood to) and have more fulfilling and potentially healthier lives if given the support at an early age.
I'm not against it in principle, I just think like all of these things it needs the guardrails to do what its intended to do and not be abused in some way.
Managing public finances is a really difficult thing to do, I don't envy Reeves really or those who came before her. Its impossible to be all things to all people. |
I can see the principle behind it, and understand the case, but in times of real struggle for everyone it does just feel like another tax on working people to go towards those who don't work.
Ultimately the budget was fine all round, Labour have now done the tax take, and have 3 years to ensure public services are in a good state, and that the ballooning welfare bill can be brought to heel and that there can be some giveaways in run up to next election so the working people and small businesses who are currently bearing the brunt for everything feel better off for once |  |
| |
| 2 child benefit cap on 09:43 - Nov 27 with 1542 views | EdwardStone |
The 2 kiddie cap was cruel dogma, just an idealogical choice based on the Daily Mail trope of the undeserving poor squeezing out multiple kids in order to harvest the unlimited generosity of the hard-pressed tax payer
Sadly for those involved, reality is a bit more complicated and usually messier than that
In an orderly household the arrival of offspring can be planned, in the modern world things are sometimes a little more chaotic
Family breakdown, unexpected pregnancies, children born from coercive relationships.... there are a myriad of reasons why a planned approach of qualifying contributions might not be helpful
A more considered approach to helping folks to transition from claimants to contributors is what is needed here rather than casting children into deep poverty |  | | |
| 2 child benefit cap on 09:44 - Nov 27 with 1531 views | cressi |
If a person or persons have 26,000 coming in per year already say they have four
kids anything over 26,000 gained by extra child benefit will be taken off money coming from elsewhere. For me it is all the hard working people on under fourteen pounds a hour who always suffer and receive No help . To many people today don't want to work or are better of not working. The system is broken. |  | | |
| 2 child benefit cap on 09:49 - Nov 27 with 1508 views | BloomBlue |
In principle its fine. My main gripe is she said in the last budget the country couldn't afford it, but would look at it again if growth improved - growth hasn't.
Now she's championing it as the 'right' thing to do, so why wasn't it right at the last budget?
She has to cut the welfare bill, it's increasing at a rate the country cannot afford, if she doesn't she will be coming back for more money via tax increases, and that equals goodbye at the next GE |  | | |
| 2 child benefit cap on 09:59 - Nov 27 with 1458 views | Guthrum |
It comes down to the bottom line. If you look at the overall cost and effort of having a child, then at how ungenerous and hassly the benefits system is, the numbers just don't add up to make it genuinely a profitable thing to do.
In any case, the majority of people on benefits are either pensioners (who aren't generally having children), the long-term sick (who can't work) or low-earning employed people (who may well already have the best job they can get in their circumstances).
The incentive is wildly overstated, with cited cases usually being the most extreme outliers, of which there are very few. |  |
| |
| 2 child benefit cap on 10:01 - Nov 27 with 1432 views | JammyDodgerrr |
The reality of the cap was it was designed to try and discourage people who were out of work from having more kids, but it did not achieve this, see here: https://sticerd.lse.ac.uk/CASE/_NEW/NEWS/abstract.asp?index=1238
All it ended up doing was putting roughly half a million kids in poverty, and it's a cruel policy. I'm glad it's gone, I'm glad they are taxing gambling companies more to pay for it, and hopefully we can move on as a society.
It's taken this long to scrap because it's actually a popular policy with the public, but I'd be confident that it's because it's been mis-sold and it's believed it's working, when it actually isn't. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| 2 child benefit cap on 10:11 - Nov 27 with 1378 views | Churchman |
It felt very much a budget for Labour’s own support paid for by those people they perceive don’t vote for them. All governments do it though I might be writing rubbish based on a feeling.
The problem I have is that the economy is largely driven by ‘middle income’ people and its them the govt primarily target to fund their benefit giveaways and policies. I don’t see how this benefits the economy, especially in the longer term. Secondly, this mob claim to be pro business. I’ve seen nothing from them to suggest they give a hoot about business - see last years NI debacle. Not interested.
So in my world, Labour don’t represent me. Their efforts to date have been at best limp. The tories don’t represent me and never have. So who does? That odious simpleton Farage? That’s where a lot of votes will go, but not mine in a million Years. Not to a fascist, fraudulent ignoramus like that. The liberals headed by the pilsbury dough boy? Don’t make me laugh. Those cowards actively helped the tories wreck the economy as part of the coalition for their own personal ends.
So if Count Binface stands in my Constituency, he’ll get my vote.
|  | | |
| 2 child benefit cap on 10:13 - Nov 27 with 1363 views | DanTheMan |
We've gone from the media being very worried about someone having "too many" kids and being on benefits to being worried that people aren't having enough children any more.
At the end of the day, a lot of Government policies and systems rely on there being a stable replacement rate of people. Right now, we don't have anything close to that, hence successive Governments trying to keep the whole charade going with immigration.
For what it's worth, this policy was pretty short sighted. Saving a bit of money in the short term but kids in poverty have way worse outcomes, and it's them that get punished by this. I'm sure a few people take the piss with it but they will with any system you have.
Personally I'm happy to fund this, and I don't have kids (and would certainly never have more than 2) [Post edited 27 Nov 10:13]
|  |
| |
| 2 child benefit cap on 10:14 - Nov 27 with 1341 views | bsw72 |
3 things to consider:
- Majority of those parents it helps are full time working parents who are on lower incomes.
- Will lift a number of children out of poverty, always a good thing.
- State Pension impact: The state pension is primarily funded by the current working population and NOT by what the retired population have put in before , therefore with an aging population and a reducing birth rate there is the risk of an increasing deficit on state pension funding. If we can stabilize the birth rate it can help reduce that risk.
I saw a very good keynote speech from a Dr Eliza Filby last week at an event which outlined the fact that Gen Z onwards now have a 50% probability to live to 100 and beyond, therefore retirement becomes close to a 1/3 of your life, compared to pre WW2.
If we just look at men, in the 1950s average life expectancy was ~66 so retirement was relatively short, even in the 1980s it was around 71, and now it is around 79/80, so retirement is now ~18% of a life and will increase as above.
Removing the 2 child cap has to be done not so much to help in the immediate, but protection for future benefit funding . . . [Post edited 27 Nov 10:16]
|  | | |
| 2 child benefit cap on 10:15 - Nov 27 with 1335 views | Steve_M |
| 2 child benefit cap on 09:25 - Nov 27 by J2BLUE |
Can't remember the sources but from the stats i've read:
It costs relatively little for the huge positive impact it would have
The vast majority of people who would get extra money are in work
The kids in poverty is some ridiculous number like 600,000 or 800,000
It's an open goal to scrap it. Even the most cynical (not aimed at you) should get behind it as an investment in future tax payers, not to mention the savings from services like the NHS which would be needed less. [Post edited 27 Nov 14:06]
|
Quite, removing it will have a big positive impact on child poverty and save money in the long-term by setting up those children for better life outcomes.
And to the argument about parent choice, it's the kids who suffered from the cap. Why do you want to condemn them for their parents actions.
It's annoying that the government had to be dragged into doing this for fear of negative headlines even though it is the simplest way to achieve one of their manifesto commitments on reducing child poverty. I can't help feeling that had the government done more things it's supporters like over the last year it would be stronger than it is now. |  |
| |
| 2 child benefit cap on 10:19 - Nov 27 with 1301 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
| 2 child benefit cap on 10:13 - Nov 27 by DanTheMan |
We've gone from the media being very worried about someone having "too many" kids and being on benefits to being worried that people aren't having enough children any more.
At the end of the day, a lot of Government policies and systems rely on there being a stable replacement rate of people. Right now, we don't have anything close to that, hence successive Governments trying to keep the whole charade going with immigration.
For what it's worth, this policy was pretty short sighted. Saving a bit of money in the short term but kids in poverty have way worse outcomes, and it's them that get punished by this. I'm sure a few people take the piss with it but they will with any system you have.
Personally I'm happy to fund this, and I don't have kids (and would certainly never have more than 2) [Post edited 27 Nov 10:13]
|
It’s also unsustainable as it’s going to require compounding population growth, with larger increases year on year (over time it will increase the number of retirees). However many houses are built it’s never going to keep up, and the reason why housing costs are higher than most of our peers. It will decrease living standards, and with increasing farmland lost further erode any semblance of food security and push food prices up. Not to mention we have a depressing lack of wild/natural places in much of the country so it’s not great for the planet either.
There has to be a better way (not that the current Ponzi has improved the fiscal situation). AI and UBI to the rescue? | | | |
| 2 child benefit cap on 10:26 - Nov 27 with 1276 views | Radlett_blue |
Cutting any benefit always creates short term losers & the media will always highlight a particularly unfortunate & deserving case. Hence politicians of either of the 2 main parties have shied away from doing this. However, the bill for benefits has been mushrooming & this can only be funded by higher taxation. The 2 main parties aren't actually doing anything very different, when the reality is that the country needs to decide if taking a large axe to benefits is the right policy, or turning the country into a Scand-style higher tax country. But people don't vote for higher taxes and also don;t vote for austerity so we muddle along. |  |
| |
| 2 child benefit cap on 10:38 - Nov 27 with 1255 views | Guthrum |
| 2 child benefit cap on 10:26 - Nov 27 by Radlett_blue |
Cutting any benefit always creates short term losers & the media will always highlight a particularly unfortunate & deserving case. Hence politicians of either of the 2 main parties have shied away from doing this. However, the bill for benefits has been mushrooming & this can only be funded by higher taxation. The 2 main parties aren't actually doing anything very different, when the reality is that the country needs to decide if taking a large axe to benefits is the right policy, or turning the country into a Scand-style higher tax country. But people don't vote for higher taxes and also don;t vote for austerity so we muddle along. |
Thing is, the only part of the benefits system they can - acceptably - take an axe to is a fairly small part of the overall budget, which has already been cut heavily over recent decades. Short of forcing the long-term unemployed out onto the streets to starve (which already happens with sanctions), there isn't anything significant to trim there.
Much of the ballooning is down to an ageing population drawing the State Pension and the proliferation of lower-paid jobs which haven't remotely kept pace with inflation. Nothing can be done about the former without creating a storm and fixing the latter risks crippling business. | |
| |
| 2 child benefit cap on 10:46 - Nov 27 with 1208 views | Zx1988 |
The one I find myself conflicted on is the change to Motability, with the removal of 'premium' marques from the scheme.
On the one hand I don't like the idea of restricting how people spend their benefit payments, or removing choice from the less well-off in society.
However, on the other hand, I find myself thinking that if someone can afford the top-up payments to get a BMW X3/5 rather than the Skoda/Dacia alternative, do they really need the Motability payments in the first place?
I get that it's probably a lot more nuanced than that, and I've seen some commentary online since the announcement with people justifying that, somehow, the BMW works out cheaper than the Skoda but, at the same time, it does feel like a useful roundabout way of almost means-testing the payments without means-testing them (if that makes sense?). | |
| |
| 2 child benefit cap on 10:52 - Nov 27 with 1184 views | itfcjoe |
| 2 child benefit cap on 10:38 - Nov 27 by Guthrum |
Thing is, the only part of the benefits system they can - acceptably - take an axe to is a fairly small part of the overall budget, which has already been cut heavily over recent decades. Short of forcing the long-term unemployed out onto the streets to starve (which already happens with sanctions), there isn't anything significant to trim there.
Much of the ballooning is down to an ageing population drawing the State Pension and the proliferation of lower-paid jobs which haven't remotely kept pace with inflation. Nothing can be done about the former without creating a storm and fixing the latter risks crippling business. |
Within the working age population it has gone from 1 in 13 pre pandemic to 1 in 10 now of people claiming disability benefits - an extra 1 million people in that time.
It's not sustainable, less than 10% of assessments are done in person now and they just tick over at reassessment time - obviously some underlying factors need to eb sorted re social care, mental health, NHS etc but what has happened can't continue to happen as a bigger and bigger burden falls on fewer and fewer people and it's not fair and people won't have it.
When people are getting £400 a month for Motability and driving round in brand new cars when those working bloody hard can't afford it then it's too much - when all benefits go up with inflation but tax brackets don't it sends the wrong message.
Badenoch was pretty brutal with her put downs yesterday, but should give Labour an idea on what they need to do next | |
| |
| 2 child benefit cap on 10:58 - Nov 27 with 1158 views | Guthrum |
| 2 child benefit cap on 10:15 - Nov 27 by Steve_M |
Quite, removing it will have a big positive impact on child poverty and save money in the long-term by setting up those children for better life outcomes.
And to the argument about parent choice, it's the kids who suffered from the cap. Why do you want to condemn them for their parents actions.
It's annoying that the government had to be dragged into doing this for fear of negative headlines even though it is the simplest way to achieve one of their manifesto commitments on reducing child poverty. I can't help feeling that had the government done more things it's supporters like over the last year it would be stronger than it is now. |
That is the thing this government has been worst at - political deftness.
They launched onto the wrong foot with cutting the Winter Fuel Subsidy as the first thing they did and the clumsiness continued from there. Messaging has been at the same time blasé and bland (sometimes straying into faux toughness, then walked back on). Actions have been mistimed or overly blunt. Too much testing the water then rowing rapidly back.
Campbell and Blair's crew at least knew what they were doing on public presentation. | |
| |
| 2 child benefit cap on 11:00 - Nov 27 with 1145 views | thebooks |
You‘re not a socialist if you think only wealthy people can have as many children as they like. |  | | |
| 2 child benefit cap on 11:10 - Nov 27 with 1068 views | Radlett_blue |
| 2 child benefit cap on 10:46 - Nov 27 by Zx1988 |
The one I find myself conflicted on is the change to Motability, with the removal of 'premium' marques from the scheme.
On the one hand I don't like the idea of restricting how people spend their benefit payments, or removing choice from the less well-off in society.
However, on the other hand, I find myself thinking that if someone can afford the top-up payments to get a BMW X3/5 rather than the Skoda/Dacia alternative, do they really need the Motability payments in the first place?
I get that it's probably a lot more nuanced than that, and I've seen some commentary online since the announcement with people justifying that, somehow, the BMW works out cheaper than the Skoda but, at the same time, it does feel like a useful roundabout way of almost means-testing the payments without means-testing them (if that makes sense?). |
This is a good example of an initially sensible benefit that has gone nuts. The government introduced motability to replace the allegedly unsafe little 3 wheelers for disabled drivers, but, for example, it has long been available to people with mental health issues as well. My son would probably have qualified for PIP payments & been able to lease a car through the scheme, but this makes no sense to me. | |
| |
| 2 child benefit cap on 11:14 - Nov 27 with 1037 views | MrPotatoHead |
| 2 child benefit cap on 11:00 - Nov 27 by thebooks |
You‘re not a socialist if you think only wealthy people can have as many children as they like. |
Where have I said that? | | | |
| 2 child benefit cap on 11:23 - Nov 27 with 997 views | Guthrum |
| 2 child benefit cap on 10:52 - Nov 27 by itfcjoe |
Within the working age population it has gone from 1 in 13 pre pandemic to 1 in 10 now of people claiming disability benefits - an extra 1 million people in that time.
It's not sustainable, less than 10% of assessments are done in person now and they just tick over at reassessment time - obviously some underlying factors need to eb sorted re social care, mental health, NHS etc but what has happened can't continue to happen as a bigger and bigger burden falls on fewer and fewer people and it's not fair and people won't have it.
When people are getting £400 a month for Motability and driving round in brand new cars when those working bloody hard can't afford it then it's too much - when all benefits go up with inflation but tax brackets don't it sends the wrong message.
Badenoch was pretty brutal with her put downs yesterday, but should give Labour an idea on what they need to do next |
Universal Credit is going up by nowhere near inflation. The last increase was 1.7%, when inflation was more than double that (nearly three times if you take the figures for food).
There's also a UC benefit cap which, for a single person outside london, is the equivalent of a 23-hour week at minimum wage, or £14.7k per year. Not much room for luxurious living in that.
Pensions are a different matter. They fall outside both of those. The pandemic has inevitably increased disability claimants, as there are people suffering from the long-term effects of Covid.
It's not particularly "fair" that the burden upon working people (of whom I am one*) is increasing at a time when costs are also escalating. But there is no practical way around it unless we want to ditch large parts of the welfare state and remove that safety net for ourselves in the process.
* Edit: Claiming no state benefits apart from (more recently) prescripton cost relief. [Post edited 27 Nov 11:29]
| |
| |
| 2 child benefit cap on 11:29 - Nov 27 with 974 views | EddyJ |
Our society is built around the idea that each generation will be at least as big as the generation before. That means a birth rate of 2.1+ and/or migration. Our birth rate is currently <1.6.
In the long run, it is unsustainable for the population to keep growing, but we need a very slow and managed decline, rather than the rapid decline of a <1.6 birth rate.
Migration is generally unpopular and brings with it problems of integration and cultural incompatibility. And there is a huge anti-natalist movement. People who don't want kids. People who don't want to pay for others' kids. People who just hate kids. There is no politically popular way to keep our population at a workable level.
My personal belief is that we should be encouraging people to be "productive members of society". Working and paying taxes is the obvious way to be productive. But if someone wants to not work, and to raise 6 children, that is being productive too. They are benefiting society.
Most pensioners are not benefiting society to the extent they are able. Yet we protect that cohort from cuts, keep the triple lock, and keep winter fuel payments.
There will be loads of "why should I pay for other people's kids" and "I worked hard all my life" type responses to this. I find that kind of view to be very selfish and individualistic and it misses the benefits that everyone gets from being part of society. [Post edited 27 Nov 11:29]
| | | |
| 2 child benefit cap on 12:00 - Nov 27 with 873 views | PhilsAngels |
| 2 child benefit cap on 11:10 - Nov 27 by Radlett_blue |
This is a good example of an initially sensible benefit that has gone nuts. The government introduced motability to replace the allegedly unsafe little 3 wheelers for disabled drivers, but, for example, it has long been available to people with mental health issues as well. My son would probably have qualified for PIP payments & been able to lease a car through the scheme, but this makes no sense to me. |
If you could see the number and variety of conditions of those who receive the benefits for the mobility scheme it is bizarre. Constipation is one I remember, I wish I could find the list again. | | | |
| 2 child benefit cap on 12:38 - Nov 27 with 735 views | J2BLUE |
| 2 child benefit cap on 11:29 - Nov 27 by EddyJ |
Our society is built around the idea that each generation will be at least as big as the generation before. That means a birth rate of 2.1+ and/or migration. Our birth rate is currently <1.6.
In the long run, it is unsustainable for the population to keep growing, but we need a very slow and managed decline, rather than the rapid decline of a <1.6 birth rate.
Migration is generally unpopular and brings with it problems of integration and cultural incompatibility. And there is a huge anti-natalist movement. People who don't want kids. People who don't want to pay for others' kids. People who just hate kids. There is no politically popular way to keep our population at a workable level.
My personal belief is that we should be encouraging people to be "productive members of society". Working and paying taxes is the obvious way to be productive. But if someone wants to not work, and to raise 6 children, that is being productive too. They are benefiting society.
Most pensioners are not benefiting society to the extent they are able. Yet we protect that cohort from cuts, keep the triple lock, and keep winter fuel payments.
There will be loads of "why should I pay for other people's kids" and "I worked hard all my life" type responses to this. I find that kind of view to be very selfish and individualistic and it misses the benefits that everyone gets from being part of society. [Post edited 27 Nov 11:29]
|
I would add a huge 'and people who would love kids but can't afford even one'.
That is the situation for many people. Kids cost a lot and a lot of people are barely making their rent working for minimum wage. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
