Victoria Stratford: Removing the two-child cap risks the incentive for financial independence

Victoria Stratford is a postgraduate student at the University of Essex.

The proposal to remove the two child benefit cap is often framed as a compassionate response to defeating child poverty and battling the cost of living crisis. Whilst the intentions behind this policy shift may appear laudable, good intentions alone do not always make for good policy. In reality, scrapping the two child benefit cap risks undermining key principles that underpin a sustainable welfare system. Removing the two child benefit cap would expand dependency on the state and would shift responsibility away from families and onto the public purse.

The two child benefit cap was introduced to reflect the basic principle that applies to families across the country: decisions about family size should take into account financial circumstances. For most families, the decision to have additional children comes with the understanding that resources are finite. Parents routinely consider housing costs, childcare, employment prospects, and long term financial stability before building their families. The benefit cap aligns the welfare system, ensuring that families receiving state support face similar financial considerations to those who support themselves entirely through work.

Removing the cap sends the opposite message. It implies that family planning decisions need not factor in affordability because the state will step in regardless of cost. A welfare system should provide a safety net, not remove the incentive to plan responsibly. Scrapping the two-child benefit cap would significantly increase government spending at a time when public finances are already under strain.

The cost of expanding benefits does not disappear; it is ultimately borne by taxpayers. Increased welfare expenditure raises difficult but unavoidable questions: will taxes need to rise, or will funding be diverted from other essential services such as healthcare, education, or infrastructure? A welfare system that continually expands without limits risks becoming unaffordable, forcing future governments into painful decisions that may harm the very people such policies are intended to help.

Removing the two-child cap risks weakening the incentive for financial independence. Work and self-sufficiency are not merely economic goals; they are socially valuable. Employment provides stability, dignity, and opportunities for social mobility. When benefits rise without corresponding expectations or limits, the gap between being in work and relying on state support narrows. This can reduce incentives to increase working hours, seek higher-paid employment, or pursue training and education.

While most benefit recipients want to work and provide for their families, policy design matters. A system that offers ever-expanding support without clear boundaries risks fostering long-term dependency. Rather than empowering families to improve their circumstances, it can trap them in reliance on the state, limiting aspiration and opportunity across generations.

There is also a fundamental issue of fairness. Millions of working families receive no additional support for having more than two children. They make sacrifices, adjust their lifestyles, and take on extra work to provide for their households. Asking these same families to fund unlimited child-related benefits through their taxes raises legitimate concerns about equity. Welfare policy should not create a divide between those who must live within their means and those insulated from financial consequences by the state.

By removing the two-child cap, responsibility is shifted away from families and placed squarely on the taxpayer. This undermines the social contract that underpins public support for welfare. Public confidence in the welfare system depends on the belief that it is fair, proportionate, and focused on helping people help themselves. When that confidence erodes, so too does support for the welfare state as a whole.

None of this is to deny that child poverty is a serious issue that deserves attention. However, addressing poverty requires targeted, effective solutions rather than broad, open-ended spending commitments. Investment in education, skills training, childcare, and employment opportunities is far more likely to produce lasting improvements in family incomes than simply increasing benefit entitlements.

A sustainable welfare system must strike a careful balance: providing support for those who need it while maintaining incentives for independence and ensuring value for money for taxpayers. The two-child benefit cap plays a role in maintaining that balance. Removing it risks tipping the system toward unchecked expansion, greater dependency, and long-term fiscal strain.

Ultimately, compassion and responsibility are not mutually exclusive. True social justice lies in policies that empower individuals, respect taxpayers, and ensure the long-term sustainability of public finances. Scrapping the two-child benefit cap may offer short-term political appeal, but it undermines these principles and risks creating deeper problems for families, communities, and the nation as a whole.