-
It doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. Effectively the two child limit is saying that children should be punished for the actions of their parents. Because that’s who is suffering here: kids. Innocent kids, who did nothing except be born into poor families that stepped over an arbitrary limit set by a government that hates poor people and that hates children. And it’s not just the third child who suffers, but the first and second children too.
And the fun thing? It doesn’t even save much money!
Abolishing the cap would cost £1.3bn a year but would lift 250,000 children out of poverty, and a further 850,000 would be in less deep poverty.
It’s mostly sadism from a cunt government who knows they can can get away with this shit because the press lap it up, and it can easily be sold to people as “reasonable policy”.
Eejit-
I don't disagree with anything you've said. But it reminded me of listening to a lecture years ago where the academic made the point that you have a tricky circularity to benefits to help children.
If you want money to go towards kids, then helping their parents has the biggest impact.
-
sold to people as “reasonable policy”.
Well it taps into a natural feeling of fairness.
To use a personal anecdote; I know somone with 4 kids by an absolute waste who's been in and out of jail the whole time. One of their school friends was moaning a bit (not massively) about how they have to spunk a fortune on things like nursery for their two kids and their mortgage, work, etc. whereas the friend with 4 kids gets whatever for free. They weren't so tone deaf or heartless that they thought it was wrong or should be redressed. But it was that sense of one person "doing the right thing" to sub someone else's shit decisions.
I think that's why it's important to make sure the discussion always goes back to the impact on children. It's much easier to make comparative judgements on other adults. Whereas if the topic can always be brought back to focus on the outcome for children people can relate.
hugo7
Yes, this, essentially. It probably doesn't really stand up to scrutiny