2 child benefit cap to be scrapped

I am on the fence.
It will help with children, and help lift some out of poverty etc. But at the same time, some parents could abuse it.

I think it should be means-tested basically. I don't see the point of a cap on child benefits myself. If you have 4 children then you should be entitled to enough benefit for each child. However, if you are a higher income family I don't think you should be entitled to it.
I don't wish to see families struggling financially and destitute. Poverty is bad enough and child poverty is even worse. These issues lead to problems that cost society in a big way.

It is means tested in practice, and I say that as someone who has children and doesn't receive child benefit for any of them. You pay increased tax which wipes the benefit out if you earn above a certain threshold.
I support this largely because I didn't see either the logical or moral case for imposing a cap in the first place. In light of the support it can provide to those families who are struggling financially and the fact that we do have a birth rate problem, it's a perfectly logical policy to get rid of the cap.
Whenever there's any upwards adjustment of benefits you get the inevitable wailing and gnashing of teeth from the usual right wing outlets. The fact is that nearly of those 'fears' are myths. Does anyone really think that any more than an absolutely tiny number of families (if any at all, frankly) are now going to have three or more children so that they can 'abuse' the fact that they'll receive an extra, what, £65 per week or so? The people who fear abuse will tell you that parents will now have a third child so they can receive more benefits without working. £65 is about five hours work on minimum wage. If you want to make that money whilst doing as little as possible, you would absolutely and without a shadow of doubt choose to work five hours rather than a third child, which is a lot more work than five hours a week. It is an utterly absurd notion that this is going to cause an issue with benefits 'abuse'.
The vast majority who will benefit from this are hard working families who need that support. The 'only have children if you can afford them' school of thought is as flawed as it's always been. This is fundamentally a good thing that will create a small redistribution of wealth back to those who actually need it.

'£65 is about five hours work on minimum wage'?
The national living wage will be £12.71 gross from April '26.
So yeah a bit over five hours.
However, apply starter rate income tax and NI and the net national living wage comes down by 25% to £9.41 - even assuming they opt out of pension contributions.
So its more like about seven hours per child. Six kids gets you a 42hr working week...
....ignoring any other benefits.

It's human nature to feel somewhat aggravated by the fact someone might be receiving something you are not. But in reality the people in receipt of these benefits are hardly running around like millionaires in the latest Bentley. In an ideal world I would hope these benefits are contributing to clothing and feeding children and getting them into/through their education good order. As I said, I have no wish to live in a country with some Dickensian outlook where families are living in the street destitute. I have seen real poverty in the developing world and I am always thankful we don't have that in the UK.
Long term, child poverty in particular really harms the economy because there are so many secondary effects on the populace from it. I don't particularly begrudge anyone in receipt of benefit, I feel that people receiving this money should actually be encouraged to work every hour that they can- tax free, too- and that people earning less than about 20K or so per year shouldn't pay any income tax (they should have to pay their national insurance contributions mind). My reasoning for this is that at least this gets people out of the house and into work more readily (which does wonders for employment in the economy generally and their mental health in many cases) and also, the reality is that this income, however small, will in fact be spent in the wider economy so the government gets taxation/income from it anyway just at a later stage in the chain.
The above, however, is all largely redundant whilst we live in a country of 70 million people using services and spending policies designed for 60 million.

I'm sorry you feel somewhat aggravated about it.
Whats unclear from what you've said is the minimum degree of separation you think there should be between someone on benefits and someone deriving their income from employment.
For example why do you think £20k should be the personal allowance when the benefit cap is substantially higher?

I don't feel personally bothered by benefits but I can understand why people might be.
I don't know what the benefit cap is. I was saying that people on low incomes should not pay income tax or it becomes self-defeating.
I also feel that people in receipt of benefits should be able to work as much as they possibly can and they should be allowed to keep the proceeds, not be threatened with the loss of housing benefit, etc. When you speak of separation, perhaps there shouldn't be any?

I find it a shame more people aren't bothered by benefits. I think it would be helpful if more people were able to have listened to those making crisis loan applications for example. I expect it would make them more bothered.
There shouldn't be any separation.
So someone who gets there money from work should see zero benefit over someone who gets their money from the state? Why would anyone currently on benefits take a job then?

I would suggest you go out and try to understand the actual lived experience of people who live in the UK within the benefits system. I think it would change your attitudes a whole lot.

Do you think when they phone for a crisis loan then that isn't representative of their actual lived experience?