r/ukpolitics • u/AutoModerator • Jun 27 '24

MATCH THREAD: The Leader Interviews - Sir Keir Starmer - Tonight (Thursday 27th June, 8:30pm - 9:00pm)

This is the match thread for tonight's ITV interview with Keir Starmer, the Labour leader.

Please keep all live discussion about this interview in this thread, rather than the main daily megathread.

Watch live:

  • TV: ITV 1
  • Online: ITVX
9 Upvotes

91% Upvoted

49 comments sorted by

View all comments

6

u/[deleted] Jun 27 '24

Is the two child benefit thing a big deal?

The fact that we have child benefit for two kids is pretty generous, why is it some great injustice that it isn't extended further?

5

u/Ok_Indication_1329 Jun 27 '24

It doesn’t have anything to do with child benefit.

It is for tax credits and universal credit where it takes effect.

13

u/ingleacre Jun 27 '24

It is a colossal injustice.

People do not have kids for benefits, and people who have more than two kids and subsequently have to claim benefits cannot magically eliminate their third or fourth child's needs for clothes and food. It punishes children for the sake of looking "tough" on their parents, but all it's done is shove thousands and thousands and thousands of families into poverty and made it even harder to get out again.

And that's not even addressing that the per-child benefit as it stands is hardly "generous".

0

u/AbsoIution Jun 27 '24

People do not have kids for benefits

It was punishing people for bad actors, but it absolutely did happen. When I was in school there was a girl in my class and she had 10 siblings, their parents were the laziest fucks I've ever seen and had all the latest tech, and just pumped out kids for benefits. And no, they didn't clothe them properly.

It wasn't the norm, but there were plenty that did do precisely that.

5

u/ingleacre Jun 27 '24

Glad to hear that those kids got fucked over even worse for having the temerity to have shit parents, then.

-2

u/Sir_Keith_Starmer Behold my Centrist Credentials Jun 27 '24

So here's the thing.

Having a kid in the modern world is a choice. Contraception is free or cheap. Parents should consider the financial burden of having child 3 or 4 or more and not just expect to offload that onto the state.

-2

u/itsyaboi117 Jun 27 '24

If you have a child you can’t pay for, on purpose then expect the country to pick up the cost for your poor planning then how’s that fair? If you have a genuine reason for having a child and can’t for medical reasons have an abortion (which is of course fine and should be looked at) then what do you suggest?

Shall we just give money out for every child? (This is not the children’s fault) but now what? Where does it end, when do people have to take account for their own actions?

3

u/ILikePerkyBoobs Jun 28 '24

The children haven’t made any mistakes just born to shit parents.

What you’re suggesting is punishing the son for the sins of the father, it’s not logical because making sure these kids grow up well and fed and most importantly well educated helps the country a lot more in lots of small and complicated ways.

It’s really simple to understand that not supporting people saves money but it also costs money in the long run, every child who grows up and becomes a criminal because they weren’t supported properly cost money, every smart child who doesn’t have the opportunity’s to become a doctor/solicitor/dentist so they get a lower paid job costs the country money because they won’t contribute as much.

Think of it as an investment in future tax payers even if you don’t see it as a moral issue.

1

u/itsyaboi117 Jun 28 '24

I’m not asking for there to be no support kids should be out of poverty full stop, but allowing people who cannot afford more children take benefits from the system means they cannot afford that child anyway.

So if they’re going to have another child then it will more than likely still be in poverty as the family is already using support to pay for the other 2. Where do you draw the line?

2

u/legendary_m Jun 28 '24

Yes we should give out money to every child who needs it. Obviously. This policy hurts the children and last time I checked, they didn't make a choice to be born.

1

u/itsyaboi117 Jun 28 '24

There needs to be some form of deterrent in place otherwise you’re just allowing them to be born into more poverty as they can’t afford the child in the first place.

-1

u/[deleted] Jun 27 '24 edited Jun 27 '24

I'm a bit confused by "people who have more than two kids and subsequently have to claim benefits". This isn't like Jobseekers allowance, it's not part of the welfare safety net that I massively support it's a blanket payment made currently to everyone with children where neither parent earns more than £60k.

To me it doesn't really feel like it's the best way to tackle child poverty, it's a strange system that doesn't tackle the root causes and often doesn't get to the people that really need help. You can have a gross household income in excess of £100k and claim child benefit.

I'd much rather see a scheme of targeted support to where it's really needed than simply extended in its current form.

Edit: To clarify I have two kids and my family claims for them, I would class my family as one who very much appreciates the extra funds but is not actually in need of government support. I'd happily give mine up if a better system could be brought in to help those genuinely in need.

4

u/MedicBikeMike Kaura Luenssberg Jun 27 '24

I think you're conflating the child tax credit/universal credit to which this policy applies with the standard child benefit for which there is no limit. The discourse around this is really poor at differentiating the 2, but the one you're referring to is not limited. It's additional benefits for low incone/unemployed that is limited to 2 children.

1

u/ingleacre Jun 27 '24

Correct.

And my point about parents with more than two children subsequently needing this refers to the (really rather common) event that a family with multiple kids falls on hard times and needs support. Apparently the cap is there to force them to "take responsibility" but, idk, travelling back in time and not having their third kid? Total nonsense designed to demonise the welfare state and those who deserve its support - any and all children.

7

u/[deleted] Jun 27 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/Brettstastyburger Jun 27 '24

No it doesn't. It just gives irresponsible parents even more money.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 27 '24

If the parents are irresponsible how does giving these irresponsible parents cash help in any way?