Two child benefit cap.

[Hamble]

"Campaigners have lost a High Court challenge to the government's two-child limit on some benefits.

Lawyers representing three families had argued that the policy was incompatible with human rights law.

But a judge has ruled that limiting tax credits and universal credit to a family's first two children is lawful."


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-43841970

How many people agree with this ruling?

[Darkside]

I do. If you can't afford to raise children on what you earn you shouldn't expect the State - and therefore the tax paying British public - to give you money to cover the cost. Can't afford kids, don't have them. Having kids is not a right, it's a privilege and a responsibility.

That said, if you lose your job and need temporary State help until you find another and you already have more than 2 kids, there should be an exception for say 6 months.

[Little Londoner]

As we only had one child can I claim for unpaid benefit for the second one we never had.
The family allowance we got was reinvested in our child none of it went on booze, fags or any other nefarious purchases. And when at secondary school one subject was a struggle so the allowance covered him visiting a tutor once a week and he successfully passed the O Level in that subject.

[said]

"Campaigners have lost a High Court challenge to the government's two-child limit on some benefits.

Lawyers representing three families had argued that the policy was incompatible with human rights law.

But a judge has ruled that limiting tax credits and universal credit to a family's first two children is lawful."


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-43841970

How many people agree with this ruling?

I agree with the ruling. The system was being abused by those using additional children to gain more welfare so they did not have to work, larger housing than they could ever have afforded by any work that they could do and far more benefits that rivalled an executive's pay. This abuse only applied to a few of those on benefits, they were simply baby makers, whose children would be unlikely to receive the attention and parental care sufficient to allow those children a good education. The ruling discourages this abuse.

[silver fox]

I do. If you can't afford to raise children on what you earn you shouldn't expect the State - and therefore the tax paying British public - to give you money to cover the cost. Can't afford kids, don't have them. Having kids is not a right, it's a privilege and a responsibility.

That said, if you lose your job and need temporary State help until you find another and you already have more than 2 kids, there should be an exception for say 6 months.

As per usual those already settled on benefits will be largely unaffected, however a currently working family falling on hard times, could very likely suffer under these changes, sure may hopefully discourage in future those who see multiple children and a career on benefits as an option.

[Normal]

I agree with the ruling generally however the reasons supporting it above are too simplistic.

Because of the rule change, what happens to a child of an unplanned pregnancy? Who is not only born into poverty but because of this law change will be even more disadvantaged?

Whilst I am in favour of a limit (which reflects generally working society who limit their own children for cost and time reasons) I do think the system is far from perfect due the unfortunate child born into this poverty. Preventing this is what a welfare system is all about after all.

[Toodles McGinty]

I agree with the ruling - in part.

I know a couple, both unemployed at the time, with 4 children. The state paid for everything. She wanted another child. Now as far as I am concerned, the welfare state is a safety net to help those who have fallen on hard times, not a way of life. I know it is nobody's business how many children you want, but to me this was the very definition of 'scrounger', knowing full well that the state was going to pay for another kid. It didn't turn out that way and she's now working, but at the time I thought it was indecent.

Having said that, I know that the idea that all benefits claimants are living the high life and spending your hard earned cash on fags, booze and giants TVs is a notion of poverty-porn drip fed by the likes of Channel 5 and the Daily Heil. It distracts us from the fact that our hard earned money is propping up the multi-billion pound tax avoiders.

But I do agree with limiting the amount of government hand outs to folk who insist on churning out brats year in, year out. There have to be exceptions, say you end up looking after a child from a family member, rather than putting that kid in care. But as a general rule limits should apply.

[Hamble]

I too am conflicted on the decision.

I agree that it is fair to pay the benefit on a 2 child cap and special exception overrule for adopted children(to be allowed in legislation)
as the money saved could be better used elsewhere.

In a UK without a baby boom and population spike I would not have supported a cap.

The cap is also adding to child poverty.
One cannot look at a family and say you have no excuse for a starving child when in receipt of child benefit.

[Albion102]

It's an impossible circle to square. Whilst it makes sense for the state to wish to discourage people breeding excessively when they don't have the means or the will to support them properly, the children themselves did not ask to be born. The children of the (very few) families that have endless kids without earning any money have enough disadvantages in life without being condemned to (even greater) poverty.

[salus.populi]

I take it the taxpayer won't be expected to support the latest addition to the royal family.

[silver fox]

I take it the taxpayer won't be expected to support the latest addition to the royal family.

[said]

It's an impossible circle to square. Whilst it makes sense for the state to wish to discourage people breeding excessively when they don't have the means or the will to support them properly, the children themselves did not ask to be born. The children of the (very few) families that have endless kids without earning any money have enough disadvantages in life without being condemned to (even greater) poverty.

Surely they have heard of Birth Control tablets??

[Toodles McGinty]

Surely they have heard of Birth Control tablets??

Sadly, short of celibacy, no birth control is 100% effective.

So I can see a situation where a woman could get pregnant, have no means to support that child, then face literally a life and death decision.

I don't want to see a situation where the state is supporting children that should be looked after by their parents. I don't want state enforced abortions either.

In times of low population growth, the government encourages breeding. In times of austerity, even cultures that traditionally have large families, I assume, avoid pregnancy. So do we only give a green light to breeding and child support given the financial state of the country?

Very tricky.

[Hamble]

Quote
"The Spending Review published on 20 October 2010 confirmed that child benefit would be withdrawn from families with at least one adult paying higher rate income tax, from January 2013.

The Spending Review estimates that the clawback of child benefit from higher rate taxpayers will yield savings of £2.5 billion a year by 2014-15 – considerably more than the previously announced figure of £1 billion. The latest estimate takes into account losses due to “possible tax planning” and “non-compliance”, estimated at £280 million a year and £60 million respectively for the first full year (2013-14)."

Last reviewed/updated 9 June 2016


History of child benefit.

https://revenuebenefits.org.uk/child...t_all_started/

[Albion102]

Surely they have heard of Birth Control tablets??

As I said, those born to women incapable of making responsible life choices are already disadvantaged enough, without having to starve.