Yes, I hear you, but can we please focus on the negatives of this?
Think of the adults, I beg you!
Majestic-Marcus on
Just another example of how right wing and anti-working class Labour are!
Jonnysupafly on
All those kids will still be in poverty, but at least their lazy ass parents won’t have to be sober and drug free as often!
Dramasticlly on
I can’t afford to have kids. But according to Labour I can afford to pay for other people’s kids.
B0797S458W on
I wonder if there’ll ever be a time when this government considers the benefits bill to be too high?
DustOk6712 on
No child should have to ever be hungry. However, how is this going to actually help children? There are some scumbag parents who will pocket the extra money for their own benefit whilst still neglecting kids.
Implementing this law without seriously considering child neglect half solves the problem.
I don’t want to even talk about why tax payers should foot the bill for parents who continue to have kids despite knowing their financial limitations. The whole thing is a mess.
Roufianos255 on
Insane levels of tax, yet we’re still not even breaking even. What’s the answer? Even more spending!
Loose_Mood4971 on
Take this money. Build private school style boarding schools and take the kids out those shitty environments. Give them the ladder they need to climb out. Even give the parents half it to send their children there and I know there’ll be parents packing their bags for them.Teaching in a school where this will just be eaten up by narcissistic arseholes who don’t take the responsibility of being a parent seriously has made me horribly jaded. I wish more than anything this would pay for children to have a better life but I just don’t believe it’s worth the money that it will cost.
Salty-Bid1597 on
I had to read to about the 20th paragraph to find out what the “two child limit” was actually limiting.
Apparently not the ability to have more than two children but some government handouts. I’m sure all these people will now vote Labour.
King_Six_of_Things on
Daily Mail stories of unemployed mums on benefits with 15 kids in 3…2…1…
thehistorynovice on
As much as this will probably benefit the people who get the payments, i wish we would stop using these completely lazy and arbitrary definitions of poverty.
Relative poverty in this country will always, defnitionally, stay at a fairly stable level short of catastrophic wage compression (which we aren’t miles away from in fairness) because it is measured as anyone earning less than i think 60% of the median wage.
That means if the median wage was £1million then anyone on less than £600,000 would be in poverty by this governments workings.
It disturbs me how many political pundits and parties use this definition of poverty to suit their agenda. Even though I have a ridiculous example there to illustrate the point, the vast majority of people in “poverty” in this country are not in poverty in any regular sense of the word, which would be know as “absolute” poverty.
If only we could focus more on actual tangible metrics relating to quality of life, consumption and spending power to really gauge the sorts of lives we are living.
swordoftruth1963 on
Children are the tax payers of tomorrow. Feeding them is the least we can do
JigMaJox on
So does this mean the more kids u have the more benefits you’re gonna get?
MillyMan105 on
The U.K has the 2nd highest rate of childhood poverty in developed countries it’s about time.
Maximum_Diet_3284 on
Its like an extra £17 a week per additional child. Many spend more on coffees in a week. To begrudge a kid £17 a week is ridiculous.
Meanwhile an absolute fortune and large proportion of benefit bill is spent on keeping old sick people alive for even longer.
Very_Bad_Ebening on
In typical /r/unitedkingdom fashion, we’re getting angry because apparently 450000 children potentially all have parents that are druggies and alcoholics stealing all the money. After all, to be pissed that somebody, somewhere may or may not get away with something is a national pastime
Northernflav on
These comments are a disgrace. Children from less impoverished backgrounds have better outcomes.
Feed the children, period.
Astriania on
This isn’t the obvious win the left like to paint it as. The limit – like the overall benefit cap – was brought in for a good reason: it’s fundamentally unfair for some people to receive more than the median income on benefits, it means that people poorer than them are paying to fund their lifestyle choices.
We’ll be back to single mums having six kids to get the child benefit and the council house, but still being a shit parent and not spending that money on the kids.
It’s pure “won’t somebody think of the children” in the most literal sense.
This is going to cost us 2-3 billion quid a year, if you wanted to help children there are much better ways to deploy that much money, e.g. an uplift in school or childcare funding in poor wards.
Ok_Communication2710 on
Bitter pill to swallow when many would love kids but choose not to knowing they would not be able to afford it but those who don’t care get rewarded.
KinkyRussian2212 on
For everyone saying they’re paying for other people’s children, where do you think the money goes? The bottom % of people in this country who do have kids are putting that money back into the economy regardless through tax. Whether it be 20 cigarettes and 12 Stella’s or packed lunches and warm houses. The money is going straight back Into the local economy and British companies regardless. So get off your high horse and actually support a positive change against austerity for the first time in 15 years
BeerAndMotorbikes on
More benefits for the scroungers, well done Labour voters 👏
Standard_Response_43 on
Wrong.decision.
I can’t and couldn’t afford to have a 2nd child.
If U need/rely on state help raising your offspring…then maybe U r the problem?
brad68mark on
The money should be directed to more free school meals including dinner before they leave for home, clothing stores with ability to issue free to children a pre set value in 3 parts to cover all seasons maybe linked to a school scheme, and finally free home heating to a set value to ensure some heating in the home. This way we look after the welfare that some parents would not and just use the cash for themselves . This is not the silver bullet but could go someway to helping children first
xParesh on
Smart people don’t have more kids than they know they can afford.
Even smarter people have plenty because they know those who can’t will pick up the tab via the system.
Individual-Gur-7292 on
Wonderful news for all those who are working and can’t afford to start a family because they are paying for the children of those who had children they cannot afford to raise and expected the taxpayer to step in. What a joke.
Weepinbellend01 on
The beatings and fiscal drag on young workers will continue until morale improves.
PAYE PIGGIES FUND MORE OINK OINK 🐷
THE_BLACK_HOTDOG on
Awful decision. We need to revert it as soon as labour is out.
Flat_Revolution5130 on
Till they recall why they did it in the first place. Because Kids were a way of getting money . The kids were a means to an end.
UnderpantsInfluencer on
It’s not about the shitty adults it’s about the kids who don’t have a choice. If they aren’t helped they will become shitty adults too.
good_vibe_processor on
Bandaid on a bullet wound, won’t fix the problem – financial education should be a priority over this.
Cold-Sun3302 on
Just putting this here, for those who want to moan about “why should I be paying for benefit scroungers to have kids” etc :
> “This will predominantly help working families — around sixty per cent of households affected by the two-child limit have a parent in work, and nearly half were not on Universal Credit when any of their children were born.”
31 Comments
Yes, I hear you, but can we please focus on the negatives of this?
Think of the adults, I beg you!
Just another example of how right wing and anti-working class Labour are!
All those kids will still be in poverty, but at least their lazy ass parents won’t have to be sober and drug free as often!
I can’t afford to have kids. But according to Labour I can afford to pay for other people’s kids.
I wonder if there’ll ever be a time when this government considers the benefits bill to be too high?
No child should have to ever be hungry. However, how is this going to actually help children? There are some scumbag parents who will pocket the extra money for their own benefit whilst still neglecting kids.
Implementing this law without seriously considering child neglect half solves the problem.
I don’t want to even talk about why tax payers should foot the bill for parents who continue to have kids despite knowing their financial limitations. The whole thing is a mess.
Insane levels of tax, yet we’re still not even breaking even. What’s the answer? Even more spending!
Take this money. Build private school style boarding schools and take the kids out those shitty environments. Give them the ladder they need to climb out. Even give the parents half it to send their children there and I know there’ll be parents packing their bags for them.Teaching in a school where this will just be eaten up by narcissistic arseholes who don’t take the responsibility of being a parent seriously has made me horribly jaded. I wish more than anything this would pay for children to have a better life but I just don’t believe it’s worth the money that it will cost.
I had to read to about the 20th paragraph to find out what the “two child limit” was actually limiting.
Apparently not the ability to have more than two children but some government handouts. I’m sure all these people will now vote Labour.
Daily Mail stories of unemployed mums on benefits with 15 kids in 3…2…1…
As much as this will probably benefit the people who get the payments, i wish we would stop using these completely lazy and arbitrary definitions of poverty.
Relative poverty in this country will always, defnitionally, stay at a fairly stable level short of catastrophic wage compression (which we aren’t miles away from in fairness) because it is measured as anyone earning less than i think 60% of the median wage.
That means if the median wage was £1million then anyone on less than £600,000 would be in poverty by this governments workings.
It disturbs me how many political pundits and parties use this definition of poverty to suit their agenda. Even though I have a ridiculous example there to illustrate the point, the vast majority of people in “poverty” in this country are not in poverty in any regular sense of the word, which would be know as “absolute” poverty.
If only we could focus more on actual tangible metrics relating to quality of life, consumption and spending power to really gauge the sorts of lives we are living.
Children are the tax payers of tomorrow. Feeding them is the least we can do
So does this mean the more kids u have the more benefits you’re gonna get?
The U.K has the 2nd highest rate of childhood poverty in developed countries it’s about time.
Its like an extra £17 a week per additional child. Many spend more on coffees in a week. To begrudge a kid £17 a week is ridiculous.
Meanwhile an absolute fortune and large proportion of benefit bill is spent on keeping old sick people alive for even longer.
In typical /r/unitedkingdom fashion, we’re getting angry because apparently 450000 children potentially all have parents that are druggies and alcoholics stealing all the money. After all, to be pissed that somebody, somewhere may or may not get away with something is a national pastime
These comments are a disgrace. Children from less impoverished backgrounds have better outcomes.
Feed the children, period.
This isn’t the obvious win the left like to paint it as. The limit – like the overall benefit cap – was brought in for a good reason: it’s fundamentally unfair for some people to receive more than the median income on benefits, it means that people poorer than them are paying to fund their lifestyle choices.
We’ll be back to single mums having six kids to get the child benefit and the council house, but still being a shit parent and not spending that money on the kids.
It’s pure “won’t somebody think of the children” in the most literal sense.
This is going to cost us 2-3 billion quid a year, if you wanted to help children there are much better ways to deploy that much money, e.g. an uplift in school or childcare funding in poor wards.
Bitter pill to swallow when many would love kids but choose not to knowing they would not be able to afford it but those who don’t care get rewarded.
For everyone saying they’re paying for other people’s children, where do you think the money goes? The bottom % of people in this country who do have kids are putting that money back into the economy regardless through tax. Whether it be 20 cigarettes and 12 Stella’s or packed lunches and warm houses. The money is going straight back Into the local economy and British companies regardless. So get off your high horse and actually support a positive change against austerity for the first time in 15 years
More benefits for the scroungers, well done Labour voters 👏
Wrong.decision.
I can’t and couldn’t afford to have a 2nd child.
If U need/rely on state help raising your offspring…then maybe U r the problem?
The money should be directed to more free school meals including dinner before they leave for home, clothing stores with ability to issue free to children a pre set value in 3 parts to cover all seasons maybe linked to a school scheme, and finally free home heating to a set value to ensure some heating in the home. This way we look after the welfare that some parents would not and just use the cash for themselves . This is not the silver bullet but could go someway to helping children first
Smart people don’t have more kids than they know they can afford.
Even smarter people have plenty because they know those who can’t will pick up the tab via the system.
Wonderful news for all those who are working and can’t afford to start a family because they are paying for the children of those who had children they cannot afford to raise and expected the taxpayer to step in. What a joke.
The beatings and fiscal drag on young workers will continue until morale improves.
PAYE PIGGIES FUND MORE OINK OINK 🐷
Awful decision. We need to revert it as soon as labour is out.
Till they recall why they did it in the first place. Because Kids were a way of getting money . The kids were a means to an end.
It’s not about the shitty adults it’s about the kids who don’t have a choice. If they aren’t helped they will become shitty adults too.
Bandaid on a bullet wound, won’t fix the problem – financial education should be a priority over this.
Just putting this here, for those who want to moan about “why should I be paying for benefit scroungers to have kids” etc :
> “This will predominantly help working families — around sixty per cent of households affected by the two-child limit have a parent in work, and nearly half were not on Universal Credit when any of their children were born.”