[Nursie]

I honestly don’t know, perhaps find some to ask. To me that looks far too much like government overreach and interference. Not that government overreach or interference is anything but fashionable these days.

As others have said as well - people’s lives take all sorts of unexpected twists and turns. Jobs are lost, economies change and make whole sectors irrelevant. You can’t just assume everyone with more than two kids needing support has always been in that situation or always will be.

[mytailorisrich]

If suggesting that perhaps people should live within their means is government overeach and interference then surely the government should then stay out of it and not provide any children benefits at all...

I think you've shown exactly how this debate and complaints against the 2-child cap is one-sided and refuses to consider the issue of family planning and living within one's means.

As I replied before, the argument that "life takes all sorts of unexpected turns" is completely disingenuous because we all know that this is not what happens in the vast majority of cases... so again an odd refusal to face reality and the key, tough questions.

Edit: why such bad faith in the replies? Most larger families that are poor and on benefits started that way, they are not victims of a sudden life accident. It is totally neutral to state this, I am not passing judgement. But apparently it is wrong to state it and wrong to suggest that people should start by living within their means. This is madness!

Edit 2: I'll leave this here (census 2021):

"In 2021, 1.2 million households contained three or more dependent children; when compared with households with one or two dependent children they were more likely to contain no employed adults" [1]

[1] https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsde...

[louthy]

> we all know that this is not what happens in the vast majority of cases..

No, we don’t know that, you’re talking from a point of pure prejudice. Unless you have some actual evidence to back up what you’re saying, I would hold back on those types of blanket statements about people in poverty.

[Nursie]

I’m not sure who hurt you but I find this outburst a little unnecessary, especially as I’m exploring arguments rather than making assertions on one side or other.

> we all know that this is not what happens in the vast majority of cases...

I’d love to see your evidence on that.

(Your restating it in your edit, still absent any evidence, doesn’t make it any more compelling. This is not bad faith, you are making factual assertions. Are they true? How do we know?

What is bad faith is saying that other people’s ideas are “disingenuous” or demonstrative of a failure to consider other viewpoints.

Your second edit tells us that 19.8% of families with three or more kids had no employed adult, in 2021, vs 11.9% in smaller families. It’s an interesting stat but it doesn’t give a full picture or confirm for us that the “vast majority” of those affected by the cap are long-term benefit recipients. Perhaps they are, even then it doesn’t address the root concern that the cap punishes children for their parents’ life decisions.

I don’t know what the right answer is. It may be there is no good one. As I implied before I’m not necessarily on the other side of this, I think it’s complex.)