Cap benefits at four children! Make it two!!

[Hugo a Gogo]

I have 3 kids (one's only a baby) but I don't see that a 3rd or 4th need increase your outgoings SO much, if you hand down clothes, bikes, all the other assorted crap kids need

maybe later when they are teenagers

[bobbylondonuk]

Justayellowbadge said:

bobbylondonuk said:

Justayellowbadge said:

bobbylondonuk said:

2 adults make children. So 2 children needed to replace those 2 adults. Use tax funds to support 2 kids for every couple or woman. Make it logical instead of emotional.

If families never break up and people only ever have children with one partner.

That is why I said 2 per couple or woman. that allows for 2 kids from 2 different men. Anything more and you will have to fund it yourself. Fair?

I agree with the theory, just questioning the mathematics - 1 guy with three women is four people creating 6 kids - more than a simple like for like replacement.

Unfortunately breeders infiltrate the process of having children. Part of the negatives we all have to allow for.

[jeff m2]

steviegunn said:

1 per adult then that would make custody following divorce more interesting.

My client is willing to give up the child, in return he want to retain the allowance.

[Use Psychology]

digimeistter said:

Scrap it altogether! Why should you be rewarded for breeding?? - Madness!

Because when you get old and retire the country will require new taxpayers to support you and your generation through the services it provides.

[OllieC]

I dont have kids yet but plan to one day.

I dont see why child benefit should exist at all, but I do realise that view is not popular (not just unpopular with scrouging types either)

having children should be viewed as a priviledge not a right.

I do agree wholeheartedly with the OP that the cap should be 2, thats more than enough !

[OllieC]

Use Psychology said:

digimeistter said:

Scrap it altogether! Why should you be rewarded for breeding?? - Madness!

Because when you get old and retire the country will require new taxpayers to support you and your generation through the services it provides.

But does child benefit really encourage the breeding of taxpayers specifically?

[Cleckheatonlock]

Use Psychology said:

digimeistter said:

Scrap it altogether! Why should you be rewarded for breeding?? - Madness!

Because when you get old and retire the country will require new taxpayers to support you and your generation through the services it provides.

The problem being that the current system rewards those that don't support anything and are bleeding the country dry, and they are procreating faster than the working classes, thus perpetuating the issue

An ever smaller working populations supporting an ever bigger welfare state and larger number of pensioners. Totally unsustainable!

[anonymous-user]

Cleckheatonlock said:

The problem being that the current system rewards those that don't support anything and are bleeding the country dry, and they are procreating faster than the working classes, thus perpetuating the issue

An ever smaller working populations supporting an ever bigger welfare state and larger number of pensioners. Totally unsustainable!

^^ This

[Happy82]

digimeistter said:

Cleckheatonlock said:

The problem being that the current system rewards those that don't support anything and are bleeding the country dry, and they are procreating faster than the working classes, thus perpetuating the issue

An ever smaller working populations supporting an ever bigger welfare state and larger number of pensioners. Totally unsustainable!

^^ This

[bobbylondonuk]

Happy82 said:

digimeistter said:

Cleckheatonlock said:

The problem being that the current system rewards those that don't support anything and are bleeding the country dry, and they are procreating faster than the working classes, thus perpetuating the issue

An ever smaller working populations supporting an ever bigger welfare state and larger number of pensioners. Totally unsustainable!

^^ This

All fine and correct. Just wont find a politician with the balls to say it out loud. So no chance of this way of thinking ever seeing daylight. Just blame the finances and restrict the damn benefit to 2 per woman and solve the problem on the side.

[rover 623gsi]

OllieC said:

But does child benefit really encourage the breeding of taxpayers specifically?

The reality is that people in poorer countries have more kids than people in richer countries – and within each country the poorer people have more kids that the richer people. Thus (and counter the prevailing view on PH) the way to reduce population is to reduce poverty (or perhaps less emotively to increase living standards).

The birth rate in virtually every western country has been falling for quite a while. The birth rate among most British women is much lower than it used to be – the population of GB is mainly increasing through immigrations (and the fact the ‘poorer’ immigrants have more kids than the wealthier indigenous population).

Child benefit does encourage women to have loads of kids – this is evident by the fact the size of the average family is falling all the time. The worry (if indeed that it is a worry) is that as youth unemployment increases more women will have more children – working women have fewer kids and have them later in life.

[12gauge]

digimeistter said:

Scrap it altogether! Why should you be rewarded for breeding?? - Madness!

That would be the obvious answer.

2,4,8, does it really matter. Kids are supposed to be a responsibility, not a meal ticket.

[hornet]

Daresay I'll get shot down in flames for thinking this, but it's always struck me as odd that we're all taxed through the eyeballs on the basis of reducing consumption and encouraging more sustainable living, yet given benefits for doing possibly the most environmentally damaging thing of all.

[Engineer1]

Use Psychology said:

digimeistter said:

Scrap it altogether! Why should you be rewarded for breeding?? - Madness!

Because when you get old and retire the country will require new taxpayers to support you and your generation through the services it provides.

NI is a pyramid scheme, you need people coming in at the bottom to support those at the top.

I'd say cap at the result of two pregancies, after all if you have twins the first time and twins again, then fair enough, but go for four seperate pregancies and that is premeditated.

[jeff m2]

Use Psychology said:

digimeistter said:

Scrap it altogether! Why should you be rewarded for breeding?? - Madness!

Because when you get old and retire the country will require new taxpayers to support you and your generation through the services it provides.

That is taken care of by the border control people.
Gotta keep the ponzi scheme going somehow

[rover 623gsi]

12gauge said:

That would be the obvious answer.

2,4,8, does it really matter. Kids are supposed to be a responsibility, not a meal ticket.

Eldest or only child - £20.30
Additional children - £13.40 per child

so - if you like the vast majority of parents you have two kids, you get £33.70 a week. That is an amount of money that nowhere near covers the cost of feeding two kids - let alone covering all the other associated costs. Now, I'm not suggesting that the state should cover all those costs - far from it - but I would definitely suggest that kids are NOT meal tickets and anyone whot thinks they are has no idea about child rearing. Having children always leave you out of pocket.

Edited by rover 623gsi on Friday 18th November 18:28

[crmcatee]

Why just workless families ? Why not every family.

[JagLover]

crmcatee said:

Why just workless families ? Why not every family.

The big drain on the public finances is workless families having ever more children to bump up their benefit payments. But yes I can see no problems with stopping child benefit on the same basis as proposed by the MP. I.E. for any child after no 4.

[Justayellowbadge]

rover 623gsi said:

Eldest or only child - £20.30
Additional children - £13.40 per child

so - if you like the vast majority of parents you have two kids, you get £33.70 a week. That is an amount of money that nowhere near covers the cost of feeding two kids - let alone covering all the other associated costs. Now, I'm not suggesting that the state should cover all those costs - far from it - but I would definitely suggest that kids are NOT meal tickets and anyone whot thinks they are has no idea about child rearing. Having children always leave you out of pocket.

Edited by rover 623gsi on Friday 18th November 18:28

Child benefit is an insignificant element of the benefits one can claim once one has children.

[Justayellowbadge]

rover 623gsi said:

Eldest or only child - £20.30
Additional children - £13.40 per child

so - if you like the vast majority of parents you have two kids, you get £33.70 a week. That is an amount of money that nowhere near covers the cost of feeding two kids - let alone covering all the other associated costs. Now, I'm not suggesting that the state should cover all those costs - far from it - but I would definitely suggest that kids are NOT meal tickets and anyone whot thinks they are has no idea about child rearing. Having children always leave you out of pocket.

Edited by rover 623gsi on Friday 18th November 18:28

Child benefit is an insignificant element of the benefits one can claim once one has children.