Readers’ thoughts on the two child benefit cap

Welcome to openDemocracy’s weekly reader comments round-up. We receive so many carefully considered messages about our work, it seems a shame to keep them to ourselves.

You can send your thoughts to be included in next week’s round-up by replying directly to any of our emails or commenting on our articles or Instagram posts.

These comments have been edited for clarity, accuracy and length, and aren’t necessarily a reflection of openDemocracy’s editorial position.

Re: Scrapping the two-child cap would be a start – but still not enough

As with the loss of winter fuel allowance (WFA) this should really be subject to a 'taper' - i.e. the more people earn, the less they should get in help from the state. Maybe some people should lose their child benefit?

Of course, it'd be much easier to have a proper, progressive taxation system (on wealth as well as income) but governments seem very reluctant to do this. Means testing (a phrase with an unhappy ring of shame from the past) is also costly, we are told. Hence the newest proposal on the WFA to use the council tax band as a proxy for disposable income - not necessarily appropriately. Could we find a similar proxy for determining the need for child benefit?

Low incomes and excessive rents also affect families, so the issues being debated currently around fair rents (remember those?) are also relevant to the argument. In other words, there is a massive, interconnected web of issues that need to be resolved to fix these problems, but this all seems too much to tackle in one go.

- Tricia Thorpe

Families with children, especially those with three or more, are the hardest hit by the post-2010 social security cuts. Households with three or more children lose, on average, £5,962 per year because of cuts and changes to social security since 2010. Almost £2,000 corresponds directly to the two-child limit on benefits.

I am strongly of the view that the state cannot be held responsible for everything that individuals are and should be responsible for. 

If couples choose to have more than 2 children, then it should be the responsibility of the parents to provide, not the state. The state provides and caters for the most important aspects like the NHS, police etc. I personally do not believe the public would or accept more taxes levied except for priority items such as defence or health. 

All political parties should have a joint discussion on issues like like social care which I feel is more urgent with a growing elderly population

- Roy Abraham

Yes, it should be scrapped, but child benefit as a whole should also be means tested. Benefits are to help those in need, not free bonuses for those who already have plenty. (I grew up in a family that had plenty, but still received child benefit, which seems ridiculous.)

- Lou Venison

I think that the benefit should be means tested as well as the winter fuel allowance and other universal benefits, other than state pension. It does not make sense to give the benefit to rich people who choose to have more than two children. The income tax department must have information that could help to simplify the bureaucracy involved.

- Valerie Rogerson

We should scrap the two child benefit cap, but only when there is a surplus of tax income over expenditure to pay for this.

The fact of the matter is that, at present, there are many other calls on public expenditure which should take precedence.

- Brian Beesley

Read the original article here.

Re: Cyberboss: Here’s how AI is reorganising the lines of class struggle

If Project 2025 really wants to protect life, it should start by halting arms sales to Israel. –Rod Dalitz

Avoiding a possible collapse of another civilisation is in the hands of the people, I believe. If more people could stop focusing on themselves, their family and friends, they might consider all life on this planet as a whole unit, where each part of that unit depends on all the others. Things could improve.

At present, we are being manipulated by a few greedy people. They have established themselves in places of influence and are using that influence to reap rewards for themselves at the expense of everybody else. They hoodwink the public into thinking that they are doing good for the people. At the same time, they are putting their energies into supporting wars and other anti-social and anti-environmental happenings. There is no area that they will not be involved in if they think it will serve their purpose.

-Jo

Read the original article here.