Story - "Tories consider limiting child benefit to three children"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31743031
Being the forum it is I can imagine this idea receiving quite allot of support, but before it's hailed as being the best thing since politically sliced bread I thought it would be interesting to see some different views on the matter.
My own view on the matter,
Will it reduce the number of children born?.
I doubt it, this is taking into account the fact that there is not proven correlation between reducing child welfare & a net reduction in population growth. In-fact by looking at other nations we see that the empowerment of women & availability of affordable contraception are strongest factor related to reducing population growth.
Is there a net economic benefit?.
If the above rings true, which there is no reason to think it will benefit us economically - what will be the long term social impact of increasing poverty for large families (if they do indeed continue to have children at the same rate).
Viewing the situation in the long term we already know that poverty (relative poverty/social exclusion & specifically child 'poverty') results in undesirable long term consequences. Be that crime, long term unemployment/inactivity or poor physical or mental health - we as the tax payer will be picking up the tab for this cost.
Based on the above, no I don't believe there will be any economic benefit either.
So we have a proposal with little chance of any economic benefit & virtually no chance of achieving any reduction in population growth.
Who pays the cost of this in reality?.
Children essentially, as child benefit is meant to ensure the child enjoys a certain standard of living - the most likely people to suffer as the result of this are children. Lets also add they are not responsible in any way for the breeding patterns of their parents in question, if anything this is a form of collective punishment.
So why consider it?.
Appeasement of a portion of society who care little for the intricacies of a given social problem & will hail this proposal as the silver bullet to end all woes. When in reality it will achieve nothing, cost the tax payers more & reduce social cohesion.
It makes tactical sense to consider/suggest this kind of solution - but sadly this is due to the ignorance of it's expected supporters.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31743031
Being the forum it is I can imagine this idea receiving quite allot of support, but before it's hailed as being the best thing since politically sliced bread I thought it would be interesting to see some different views on the matter.
My own view on the matter,
Will it reduce the number of children born?.
I doubt it, this is taking into account the fact that there is not proven correlation between reducing child welfare & a net reduction in population growth. In-fact by looking at other nations we see that the empowerment of women & availability of affordable contraception are strongest factor related to reducing population growth.
Is there a net economic benefit?.
If the above rings true, which there is no reason to think it will benefit us economically - what will be the long term social impact of increasing poverty for large families (if they do indeed continue to have children at the same rate).
Viewing the situation in the long term we already know that poverty (relative poverty/social exclusion & specifically child 'poverty') results in undesirable long term consequences. Be that crime, long term unemployment/inactivity or poor physical or mental health - we as the tax payer will be picking up the tab for this cost.
Based on the above, no I don't believe there will be any economic benefit either.
So we have a proposal with little chance of any economic benefit & virtually no chance of achieving any reduction in population growth.
Who pays the cost of this in reality?.
Children essentially, as child benefit is meant to ensure the child enjoys a certain standard of living - the most likely people to suffer as the result of this are children. Lets also add they are not responsible in any way for the breeding patterns of their parents in question, if anything this is a form of collective punishment.
So why consider it?.
Appeasement of a portion of society who care little for the intricacies of a given social problem & will hail this proposal as the silver bullet to end all woes. When in reality it will achieve nothing, cost the tax payers more & reduce social cohesion.
It makes tactical sense to consider/suggest this kind of solution - but sadly this is due to the ignorance of it's expected supporters.
