Chase Blount: Abolishing the two-child benefit cap is not the way to help struggling parents

Chase Blount studies at the University of Bath and is Chair of Libertarian Conservatives UK.

In her Budget, the Chancellor Rachel Reeves, announced that she would be abolishing the two-child cap, which limits child benefits to two children per family. Her decision is estimated to cost the taxpayers an additional £2.3 billion next year, but could cost even more. This was a huge mistake, but no few seem to be addressing it on either side!

The two-child cap was introduced by the Conservative government back in 2017, a policy which reduced the government spending burden on welfare and helped bring down the deficit. Child benefits have been available in the UK since 1945, but have been mainly prevalent since the Child Benefit Act of 1975.

Despite being around for so long, relative child poverty rates after housing costs haven’t seemed to have changed as a result. When the two-child cap was introduced in 2017, Child Poverty still wavered around the 33 per cent mark, the same as in 2007, when there was no cap.

Yet on Thursday, after calling out the changes on X, and after simply suggesting that parents should be financially stable before deciding to have children, this idea – which seems like common sense to many – caused outrage. It was a catalyst for a flurry of attacks against my character… not only from the left but also the right. These keyboard warriors- when not attacking my appearance, my character, or my family- would dismiss my argument because of my age (which is ironic when so many of these supported lowering the voting age to 16!).

This has, however, revealed a much deeper flaw that we face as a nation presently, which is our attachment to welfare and handouts from the state. We have become dependent on the state because we have not had it any other way, and many of the policies are damaging economic growth, giving us no other option. Our deep addiction to welfare, such as child benefits, incites rage when anyone dares take it away.

Despite the criticism drawn on emotionally charged arguments, which managed to spread to other platforms, highlighting the need for a clear discussion.

Among the ad hominems, there were some notable recurring points which need addressing. The first of which is the claim that an unlimited child benefit will reduce child poverty. The statistics for this, however, say otherwise, with relative child poverty rates after housing costs barely having changed when the cap was introduced in 2017. Highlighting very little to no effect on poverty rates. This can likely be attributed to the increase in income for bigger families, leading to parents working fewer hours as a trade-off. Keeping the total family income relatively similar to before.

Many also pointed out that abolishing the two-child cap will incentivise families to have many more kids, targeting a decline in birth rates within the country. This is absolutely what will happen without the cap in place, but this isn’t an idea to celebrate. Many issues facing the UK currently are an overpopulation of people due to rampant immigration numbers: haemorrhaging an uncontrollable level of demand on an already strained housing supply, a lack of productivity due to the economically inactive population dependent on welfare, and excessively long NHS waiting lists.

In fact, causing a spike in births is not only irresponsible, but it is cruel to those who currently struggle financially (including those very children), when there isn’t sufficient infrastructure to handle it. Investment is needed, but will not happen unless we stop raising taxes to pay for unsustainable welfare programmes, such as abolishing the two-child cap.

Lastly, the third argument that gained popularity was the idea that circumstances can change years down the line after having children, such as sudden unemployment, disability or unnatural events. This is a very strong possibility and shouldn’t discourage loving parents from starting their own families, but it can be solved in a better manner, one which will help solve the issue of child poverty as a whole too.

So what’s the alternative to child benefits? How do we incentivise healthy birth rates? How do we make it easier for parents to raise a family?

When tax burdens are the highest since the 1940s, it’s time that we look at significantly cutting these taxes, funded by slashing the welfare budget. Not only will this ensure that hardworking families can take home more of their paychecks to go towards raising a family, but it will also mean that those who can and refuse to work will no longer create an inflationary vacuum from their spending without producing supply. Additionally, the tax cuts can include cuts to stamp duty, reducing living costs for families and boosting their real-term income. For those families who may have had sudden unemployment, reducing corporation tax levels will incentivise more investment in Britain, meaning an abundance of opportunities and higher wages.

There’s also a desperate need for planning reform, one which will allow us to house our heavily populated country and significantly reduce the prices of rent, and help people get on the housing ladder for their families. Lastly, minimum wage is set to rise once again this coming year, up to £12.71 in April 2026, which is likely to lead to fewer opportunities and more inflation, undermining real-term wages. It’s therefore clear that the answer to child poverty and our declining birth rate is not more state intervention, but less.

I will therefore repeat my original X post: “Having a child is a huge decision; if you can’t afford to raise that child and expect taxpayers to subsidise you, then maybe having a child isn’t for you.”