Should the two child benefits cap be scrapped?
Poll: Should the two child benefits cap be scrapped?
Total Members Polled: 429
Discussion
Although not immediately it seems that Labour will get rid of the two child benefits cap that the Tories introduced. Do you agree with it?
I have to admit to mixed feelings. Partly the cap is responsible for child poverty and it doesn’t seem right to punish children for their parents’ decisions or things beyond their control. So getting rid of it would be good.
On the other hand, the less liberal part of me feels that parents should pay to bring up their children and that if you can’t afford to raise children, don’t have them. I also feel that your responsibility doesn’t end with divorce or separation from the mother and that fathers/parents should be forced to pay for their children (even if it means making them sell their assets) before other people (tax payers) should have to step in and make good the shortfall.
I have to admit to mixed feelings. Partly the cap is responsible for child poverty and it doesn’t seem right to punish children for their parents’ decisions or things beyond their control. So getting rid of it would be good.
On the other hand, the less liberal part of me feels that parents should pay to bring up their children and that if you can’t afford to raise children, don’t have them. I also feel that your responsibility doesn’t end with divorce or separation from the mother and that fathers/parents should be forced to pay for their children (even if it means making them sell their assets) before other people (tax payers) should have to step in and make good the shortfall.
I've heard an argument being made that scrapping the two child limit could have the unintended consequence of actually increasing & prolonging child poverty.
Perhaps a better solution would be to keep the cap, and spend the money on targeted help so that it reaches the affected children directly, rather than more benefits cash going in the parent's pockets.
Perhaps a better solution would be to keep the cap, and spend the money on targeted help so that it reaches the affected children directly, rather than more benefits cash going in the parent's pockets.
Making children suffer for decisions and life circumstances which weren't their fault seems pretty reprehensible to me.
Even more so when there's so many downstream costs of childhood poverty from crime to healthcare to education and the economy that the policy almost certainly doesn't save any money at a system level, so it's basically just performative cruelty to mollify heartless t
ts.
In case it's not clear, I'm a Yes.
Even more so when there's so many downstream costs of childhood poverty from crime to healthcare to education and the economy that the policy almost certainly doesn't save any money at a system level, so it's basically just performative cruelty to mollify heartless t
ts. In case it's not clear, I'm a Yes.
Mandat said:
Perhaps a better solution would be to keep the cap, and spend the money on targeted help so that it reaches the affected children directly, rather than more benefits cash going in the parent's pockets.
Agreed.I seem to remember they did milk tokens that could only be spent on milk?
Or something like that.
E63eeeeee... said:
Even more so when there's so many downstream costs of childhood poverty from crime to healthcare to education and the economy that the policy almost certainly doesn't save any money at a system level, so it's basically just performative cruelty to mollify heartless tts.
Or to counter your frequent 'it's all to appease the frothers!' mantra - perhaps there's just limits on public spending given our deficit, debt repayments and other spending priorities.ts. E63eeeeee... said:
Making children suffer for decisions and life circumstances which weren't their fault seems pretty reprehensible to me.
Even more so when there's so many downstream costs of childhood poverty from crime to healthcare to education and the economy that the policy almost certainly doesn't save any money at a system level, so it's basically just performative cruelty to mollify heartless tts.
In case it's not clear, I'm a Yes.
Which is why targeting help to the affected children directly is a better solution than encouraging feckless parents to breed further feckless generations. Even more so when there's so many downstream costs of childhood poverty from crime to healthcare to education and the economy that the policy almost certainly doesn't save any money at a system level, so it's basically just performative cruelty to mollify heartless t
ts. In case it's not clear, I'm a Yes.
Countdown said:
The problem with tokens/vouchers is that it's very easy to get a black market set up. You go down to your friendly local corner shop, hand over £20 of milk vouchers for 10 B&H or lambert & Butler, the shop keeper gets £20 from DWP.....
I agree. The solution to feckless parents is to not give them more cash or incentives, which won't filter down to the hungry children anyway.Olivera said:
E63eeeeee... said:
Even more so when there's so many downstream costs of childhood poverty from crime to healthcare to education and the economy that the policy almost certainly doesn't save any money at a system level, so it's basically just performative cruelty to mollify heartless tts.
Or to counter your frequent 'it's all to appease the frothers!' mantra - perhaps there's just limits on public spending given our deficit, debt repayments and other spending priorities.ts. Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff