Universal Credit 2 child limit

[Saleen836]

News article on the radio today regards the above and how people are calling for it to be removed as so many families are struggling with poverty, the 2 child cap was introduced in April 2017 so anyone with 2 kids having more after 6 April 2017 wouldn't get extra help (which is fair, you want them you pay for them) did a search and turns out there is a Bill going through parliment for the removal of the 2 child limit!
https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3163

[anonymous-user]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/pensions-retirement/ne...

Britain is not having enough children, says father-of-six Jacob Rees-Mogg. Retirement age 'must rise' without more working people, MP warns.

So what’s it to be, more children and appropriate levels of state support or more children and no state support?

[otolith]

pablo said:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/pensions-retirement/ne...

Britain is not having enough children, says father-of-six Jacob Rees-Mogg. Retirement age 'must rise' without more working people, MP warns.

So what’s it to be, more children and appropriate levels of state support or more children and no state support?

It's got to be the right sort of people having children. Though they are then expected to go pick fruit for minimum wage. It's a conundrum.

[djc206]

pablo said:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/pensions-retirement/ne...

Britain is not having enough children, says father-of-six Jacob Rees-Mogg. Retirement age 'must rise' without more working people, MP warns.

So what’s it to be, more children and appropriate levels of state support or more children and no state support?

Immigration. There are more than enough people in the world already.

The only people who will be swayed to have kids by a few quid are definitely not the sort of people who we should be encouraging to procreate.

[Mikebentley]

You have them you should pay for them. 2 is a reasonable limit.

[anonymous-user]

otolith said:

pablo said:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/pensions-retirement/ne...

Britain is not having enough children, says father-of-six Jacob Rees-Mogg. Retirement age 'must rise' without more working people, MP warns.

So what’s it to be, more children and appropriate levels of state support or more children and no state support?

It's got to be the right sort of people having children. Though they are then expected to go pick fruit for minimum wage. It's a conundrum.

Yup, when Rees-Mogg sends his six kids out to do their duty and pick fruit for a summer, I’ll consider taking anything he says seriously….

[Lincsls1]

Mikebentley said:

You have them you should pay for them. 2 is a reasonable limit.

Exactly right.

[2xChevrons]

Lincsls1 said:

Mikebentley said:

You have them you should pay for them. 2 is a reasonable limit.

Exactly right.

So what burden must child #3 bear? Whether through feckless profligacy on the part of their parents or genuine accident (remember that no contraceptive method is 100% effective). The kid played no part in their decision to be born and is in no way responsible for their (or their parents') circumstances. How does it benefit this new citizen, and society at large, for them to not only receive no support (if the means are not there already) but to be an extra burden on capped resources?

Yes, in an ideal world people wouldn't have kids they were unable to give a decent upbringing off their own resources and/or the arrival of kid #3 would spur everyone to Get On Their Bike And Look For Work. But in an imperfect world that doesn't always happen, so where's the broader benefit in not ensuring all children, regardless of the circumstances of their parents, get allocated the means to cover the essentials? Every benchmark missed and every gain not fulfilled in early childhood compounds through life as socio-economic cost - is the relative pittance of UC child allowance really worth the bigger costs?

The two-child limit is certainly not born of pragmatism - it's political moralising and misplaced Tory paternalism, and playing to the gallery of people who are generally outraged at the idea that someone, somewhere is undeservedly getting 'something' for 'nothing'.

[Cobracc]

Mikebentley said:

You have them you should pay for them. 2 is a reasonable limit.

Don't know how anyone can argue with that.

[ZedLeg]

I’m sure everyone here had enough money put away to support a kid for 18 years before they had sex?

[BikeBikeBIke]

ZedLeg said:

I’m sure everyone here had enough money put away to support a kid for 18 years before they had sex?

Has everyone here put away enough to fund someone else's kid?

[Diderot]

ZedLeg said:

I’m sure everyone here had enough money put away to support a kid for 18 years before they had sex?

Never wanted kids, and we married too late anyway, and, as a consequence, neither of us have had maternity leave multiple times like colleagues who seem to have it every two years, or paternity leave, or indeed income from child benefit etc.

Given the Net Zero bks, wouldn’t it be a nice gesture if couples like us received tax discounts for not breeding unnecessarily and contributing to over population? Instead we are bent over and without lubrication butt-fked for tax to support those who didn’t know when to pull out or put a condom on.

[monthou]

Diderot said:

ZedLeg said:

I’m sure everyone here had enough money put away to support a kid for 18 years before they had sex?

Never wanted kids, and we married too late anyway, and, as a consequence, neither of us have had maternity leave multiple times like colleagues who seem to have it every two years, or paternity leave, or indeed income from child benefit etc.

Given the Net Zero bks, wouldn’t it be a nice gesture if couples like us received tax discounts for not breeding unnecessarily and contributing to over population? Instead we are bent over and without lubrication butt-fked for tax to support those who didn’t know when to pull out or put a condom on.

You've been massively better off financially by not having children.
But yes, poor you.

[Terminator X]

8bn people in the world, clearly we need more. Too much CO2 you say, local air pollution, plastic in the oceans, rubbish dumped in massive landfill sites; nah can't possibly have anything to do with 8bn people ...

TX.

[Diderot]

monthou said:

Diderot said:

ZedLeg said:

I’m sure everyone here had enough money put away to support a kid for 18 years before they had sex?

Never wanted kids, and we married too late anyway, and, as a consequence, neither of us have had maternity leave multiple times like colleagues who seem to have it every two years, or paternity leave, or indeed income from child benefit etc.

Given the Net Zero bks, wouldn’t it be a nice gesture if couples like us received tax discounts for not breeding unnecessarily and contributing to over population? Instead we are bent over and without lubrication butt-fked for tax to support those who didn’t know when to pull out or put a condom on.

You've been massively better off financially by not having children.
But yes, poor you.

Thank you. I’ll remember that when I’m paying tax to support your progeny. You can thank me later. Or buy me a beer.

Remember it was your choice. You could have pulled out.

[survivalist]

ZedLeg said:

I’m sure everyone here had enough money put away to support a kid for 18 years before they had sex?

Doubt many have. Responsible parents will, however, have considered their long term earring potential and how they will support their children.

There’s another element of society who will have not considered that at all and who have an expectation that the rest of society will ensure that they and their children are accommodated, clothed, fed and have access to decent healthcare and education.

Edited by survivalist on Monday 5th June 22:13

[ZedLeg]

survivalist said:

ZedLeg said:

I’m sure everyone here had enough money put away to support a kid for 18 years before they had sex?

Doing many have. Responsible parents will, however, considered their long term earring potential and how they will support their children.

There’s another element of society who will have not considered that at all and who have an expectation that the rest of society will ensure that they and their children are accommodated, clothed, fed and have access to decent healthcare and education.

The only way to be sure you’ll never need benefits is to have the money in advance.

My partner didn’t think they would have to stop working until they did.

[essayer]

Wow what a roaring success:

“Relative poverty among larger families with three or more children, which has been rising since 2013, has continued to increase since April 2017. The Resolution Foundation estimates that nearly half of families with three or more children were in relative poverty in 2021/22, up from a third in 2012/13. The Government points to falling absolute poverty over the period, and questions the use of relative poverty measures.
Fertility among larger families, which some had expected to be impacted by the two-child limit, has not decreased significantly in the years from 2017.
Some evidence has been published noting increasing abortion rates among larger families since 2017, though a conclusive link to the two-child limit has been questioned.”

https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/docu...

[Lincsls1]

ZedLeg said:

I’m sure everyone here had enough money put away to support a kid for 18 years before they had sex?

This isn't about the first or second child though. It's about couples choosing to have 3 or more.

[Dingu]

djc206 said:

Immigration. There are more than enough people in the world already.

The only people who will be swayed to have kids by a few quid are definitely not the sort of people who we should be encouraging to procreate.

Won’t be an answer, the problem is going to be pretty much global. We aren’t going to be more attractive than alternatives.