The two-child benefit cap has been in the news a lot lately. Since Reform said it should be scrapped so as to make it easier for people to have children, Labour and Conservatives have been scrambling to figure out where they stand on the issue. Labour hasn’t ruled out lifting the cap, while Kemi Badenoch said a two-child limit seems fair. But the debate around the benefit cap has prompted an onslaught of anti-family and anti-life rhetoric.
“If you can’t afford children, then don’t have them” seems to be the favourite retort of people opposed to lifting the cap. But such a view is depressingly callous and cold, and couldn’t be more opposed to a Catholic understanding of the value of life. Taken to its logical end, the “can’t afford, don’t have” take boils down to socioeconomic eugenics. These people oppose poor families having children.
There is little respect or dignity shown for the hard-off by such a mentality – it is a NIMBY approach to struggling families who welcome children. The “can’t afford, don’t have” line of argumentation fails to acknowledge the delight children can bring to otherwise deprived lives. Children, ultimately, are a blessing. They bring joy to rich and poor alike. If material wealth is already strained, the picture is only bleaker without children to enhance life’s meaning and purpose. This is not to say that those who face economic hardship and decide to welcome another life into the world are choosing the easy option. But they deserve support in place of shame.
Children will always cost their parents and society at large a pretty penny. Children cost the taxpayer in terms of their healthcare and education, and myriad benefits they may be entitled to claim later in life. But they will contribute to the economy throughout their working lives, propping up the social care bill of an ageing population. Given that young people are increasingly shouldering the fiscal burden of an ageing society, having a few more of them around wouldn’t be so bad for the economy, after all.
The “can’t afford, don’t have-ers” implicitly attack Catholic values. At its core, their stance is pro-choice, assuming that each and every child can, and should, be planned. But what about when the most careful of plans falls through? Is a Government-backed safety net not a sign of society ordered to the service of the family and support of the weak and vulnerable? The reality of human procreation is much more free spirited than what our contraceptive age would have us think. Data from 2018 tells us that 45 per cent of all pregnancies, and a third of births, were “unplanned”. Abortion already snatches the lives of too many unborn children – the “can’t afford, don’t have” mentality would only see that number rise.
Kemi Badenoch told GB News: “It’s not fair to allow some people to claim more and more benefits for an endless number of children they can’t afford, while other people aren't having children or are waiting longer because they can't afford it and are saving to be able to afford a stable environment.”
Instead of purveying the view that people should only have children when their bank balance is in the black, we should strive for a culture that fosters family formation and large families, aware of the cost it may incur to the State. The barriers to the next baby boom should be removed, not reinforced.
I’d much rather a society thought “if you want children, we’ll help you afford them”, than one that is happy to go extinct due to an entrenched view that children are a luxury reserved for the financially better off. If a few pounds courtesy of the Government directing taxpayers’ money towards family formation helps more couples decide to have children, that seems like money well spent to me.
<em>Reform UK leader Nigel Farage attends a press conference on June 2, 2025 in Aberdeen, Scotland. (Photo by Peter Summers/Getty Images)</em>
