The French have the right idea
Discussion
In order to encourage professional couples to have more children the French are proposing to pay £700 a month for women with three children, double the present maximum, and fixed according to the woman's salary.
What a contrast to this country where the government reserves it's tax credits for the low paid.
Full Telegraph article below
Middle-class French mothers will be paid to start le baby boom
By Colin Randall in Paris
(Filed: 20/09/2005)
Middle-class French women are to be offered cash incentives to have third babies amid growing concern that too few children are being born to professional couples.
Although France's fertility rate of 1.9 for each couple is relatively high among European countries, family lobbyists are dismayed by a fall in the number of babies born to better-educated women.
The government will announce its proposals on Thursday when Dominique de Villepin, the prime minister and the father of three children, presides at a conference on family life. A big increase in allowances has been widely predicted.
France's National Union of Family Associations (Unaf), which is playing a key role in shaping policy, says the figure should be set at up to £700 a month for women with three children, double the present maximum, and fixed according to the woman's salary.
Despite the budgetary implications in a country that is already accused of living extravagantly beyond its means, the government agrees with the principle and is said to be finalising the details of a "very significant" initiative.
Given France's egalitarian ideals, the notion of creating perks to attract professional mothers did not go down well with the socialist opposition.
Although class or racial issues have been side-stepped, there is also a suspicion on the Left that the ruling centre-Right regards the existing system as favouring those with little work ethic but living on hand-outs. Hubert Brin, the Unaf president, said yesterday: "The poor current level of compensation appeals only to those on lower incomes,"
"This is not just a French problem but affects Europe in general. In Germany, as many as 40 per cent of professional women turn their backs on maternity.
"Ask a professional woman these days to make a definitive choice between having a career and having babies and she'll choose the former.
"Our proposals, which we hope will be accepted at least in part, reflect the need to maintain a balance in society."
Parents with three children already benefit in a number of ways, including family allowances of £200 a month, a £200 annual contribution to out-of-school activity costs and generous reductions on train and bus fares.
There are plans to extend the "big family" advantage card beyond public transport to a range of other services.
At present, women are entitled to six months of maternity benefits for the first child and three years for the second.
The new allowance will last for a year and be available to any French mother who elects to have a third baby and stay at home. But Unaf says that linking it to her salary level will make it more attractive to high-fliers.
The one-year limit would be aimed at reducing pressure on social security spending and prevent women becoming detached from the world of work they leave to have families. Caps may also be placed on spending in other areas of family support.
Corinne Baconnet, 36, a Parisian vascular surgeon who is expecting her third child in a month's time, said: "I do not think the government does enough to encourage women who want to have bigger families.
"It is obviously better if a mother can be with her child for the first part of his or her life so this idea is therefore a step in the right direction.
"I come from a family with three children and always wanted three of my own, but I am also from a generation of women for whom just staying at home was never an option.
"As a doctor, I am lucky in having my own practice and I can scale down work to fit with my maternal duties.
"But it will be more tempting for salaried professional women to know they can take time off, receive a reasonable allowance while not working and not be away from work for so long that they lose contact with their professional lives."
MILF said:
Or in the alternative in GB, remove the incentives that the Welfare State gives to those feckless individuals who have children they will never be able to support.
Truly we are regressing into a Darwinian process of evolution where the inbred workshy will inherit the Earth.
in the UK we actively practice inverse eugenics. MILF said:
Truly we are regressing into a Darwinian process of evolution where the inbred workshy will inherit the Earth.
Sadly true
In an earlier age it was those that could afford it who had big families creating a positive evolutionary trend.
Now the middle classes cannot afford to have children while the workshy breed like rabbits.
R988 said:
There is something similar in Australia
<a href="www.newsweekly.com.au/articles/2001nov17_babies.html"><a href="www.newsweekly.com.au/articles/2001nov17_babies.html">www.newsweekly.com.au/articles/2001nov17_babies.html</a></a>
Interesting
News Article said:
Under John Howard's plan primary care givers - mostly women - would receive a tax refund of up to $2,500 a year for five years for their first baby born after July 1 this year.
To gain the maximum refund a mother would have to be earning $52,000 and stay at home for the first five years.
However, low income earners and those not working before the birth of their child would still be able to receive a minimum of $500.
Again the reverse of the policy in this country
>> Edited by JagLover on Tuesday 20th September 13:17
>> Edited by JagLover on Tuesday 20th September 13:17
This strikes me as a daft scheme and typical of the French government's pointless attempts at social engineering.
The birth rate of society's dregs has always been colosal. If on average the better-off out-bred the poor, society wouldn't be bottom heavy. I'd far rather we concentrated on encouraging the plebs to improve themselves, rather than try to breed more bloody Guardian readers. Give people a good, basic education and they are quite capable of looking after themselves. They don't need a generation of specially bred middle class to be their leaders.
Giving people cash to bear children is stupid for both the poor and the well-off. It encourages the feckless to breed and never work, and the industious to either stop working or raise a generation of children who never see their mother.
If a woman has chosen to put her career before having babies, then so be it. That is part of what has made her sucessful and added to her value as an employee.
The birth rate of society's dregs has always been colosal. If on average the better-off out-bred the poor, society wouldn't be bottom heavy. I'd far rather we concentrated on encouraging the plebs to improve themselves, rather than try to breed more bloody Guardian readers. Give people a good, basic education and they are quite capable of looking after themselves. They don't need a generation of specially bred middle class to be their leaders.
Giving people cash to bear children is stupid for both the poor and the well-off. It encourages the feckless to breed and never work, and the industious to either stop working or raise a generation of children who never see their mother.
If a woman has chosen to put her career before having babies, then so be it. That is part of what has made her sucessful and added to her value as an employee.
ATG said:
Giving people cash to bear children is stupid for both the poor and the well-off. It encourages the feckless to breed and never work, and the industious to either stop working or raise a generation of children who never see their mother.
On the contrary it is means tested benefits which encourage the poor to breed and not work.
The payment here is reverse means tested, you get more if you earn more.
As for society having too many middle class and not enough Chav's walk around the Chav lands and decide whether we need more of them.
JagLover said:
Giving people cash to bear children is stupid for both the poor and the well-off. It encourages the feckless to breed and never work, and the industious to either stop working or raise a generation of children who never see their mother.
On the contrary it is means tested benefits which encourage the poor to breed and not work.
The payment here is reverse means tested, you get more if you earn more.
As for society having too many middle class and not enough Chav's walk around the Chav lands and decide whether we need more of them.
All benefits encourage people to work less and breed more. All a regressive benefit does is focus the disincentive to work on the more productive workers. Can't see many employers being in favour of that.
The middle class is far, far bigger than it has ever been. This isn't because they've been shagging for the nation. It is because economic growth has massively improved the average standard of living and education and increased social mobility (you could probably trace this change back to WW2).
ATG said:
The middle class is far, far bigger than it has ever been. This isn't because they've been shagging for the nation. It is because economic growth has massively improved the average standard of living and education and increased social mobility (you could probably trace this change back to WW2).
True, but then it needs to be
Where are the job opportunities for unskilled workers in a modern economy?
timmy30 said:
Or in the alternative in GB, remove the incentives that the Welfare State gives to those feckless individuals who have children they will never be able to support.
Truly we are regressing into a Darwinian process of evolution where the inbred workshy will inherit the Earth.
We do seem to, and it goes further, the penalties for having something that the government want to take away (i.e. money etc) carries on right up to Nursing Home stage of life.
Jaglover.
Erm, in the unskilled sector ?
Seriously though, I hear between 1 & 1.2 million people are involved in call centre work alone. Hardly rocket science. Factor in cleaning jobs (worth about £8 billion a year), McDonalds, Asda etc etc.
In the alternative & as education is mandatory in this country until your 16, why not try & learn something so at least you are able to read & write ?
Oh & Dont forget Blairs job, any f*****t can do that !!
Erm, in the unskilled sector ?
Seriously though, I hear between 1 & 1.2 million people are involved in call centre work alone. Hardly rocket science. Factor in cleaning jobs (worth about £8 billion a year), McDonalds, Asda etc etc.
In the alternative & as education is mandatory in this country until your 16, why not try & learn something so at least you are able to read & write ?
Oh & Dont forget Blairs job, any f*****t can do that !!
I dont know how many of you lot are parents, but I am afraid that you have hit the nail firmly on the head!!!! And its bloody painful....
Due to the stresses of work, home life and children (we have 2) my wife has just dropped one of her jobs. As a result we will have to put off things such as nice holidays and new car for me for a couple of years......
In fact, I have seen parents who earn much less than me but have more disposable income. This is just because of the tax credits and other stuff you get from the government.
Quite why I bother I dont know. I pay more taxes, contribute more to the economy (in my small and insignificant way that is!) yet others get the hand-outs! Dont get me wrong, I dont want hand-outs, but it is depressing know I am penalised while others profit.....
Due to the stresses of work, home life and children (we have 2) my wife has just dropped one of her jobs. As a result we will have to put off things such as nice holidays and new car for me for a couple of years......
In fact, I have seen parents who earn much less than me but have more disposable income. This is just because of the tax credits and other stuff you get from the government.
Quite why I bother I dont know. I pay more taxes, contribute more to the economy (in my small and insignificant way that is!) yet others get the hand-outs! Dont get me wrong, I dont want hand-outs, but it is depressing know I am penalised while others profit.....
MILF said:
Jaglover.
Erm, in the unskilled sector ?
Seriously though, I hear between 1 & 1.2 million people are involved in call centre work alone. Hardly rocket science. Factor in cleaning jobs (worth about £8 billion a year), McDonalds, Asda etc etc.
True there are jobs like that available, but they used to be more as a proportion of all jobs available.
Edited to add, and a call centre employee needs a certain level of education in any case.
>> Edited by JagLover on Tuesday 20th September 14:21
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff