I think this is the reality. Give parents more money who don't look after their kids and they will not become better parents.
Tories consider limiting child benefit to three children
- Thread starter elmarko
- Start date
I think this is the reality. Give parents more money who don't look after their kids and they will not become better parents.
By reducing welfare for children you are effectively punishing bad choices (but the victims of said punishment are not those responsible). Additionally it's abundantly clear that the term poverty when in reference to the UK is relative, significantly reduced social inclusion/engagement. This has it's own set of consequences the tax-payer has to cover.
Regardless as to if it's considered punishing or rewarding - what we should be looking at is what actually works at achieving our intended goals. The 'pulling of the rug' tactic to change human behaviour has absolutely no basis in our social sciences or within the data related to this topic.
The citizens income support is somewhat moot, as it's entirely dependant on the level it's set at. Based on previous postings you would be exasperating the income issues of 90% of the population (ergo, most children).
There are over 3 million UK children living in poverty, according to official figures.
You can choose whether or not to accept that particular definition of poverty (being 60% of median income), but you should try to understand why the figure is used, and the impact being in poverty has on prospects and the diminution of a child's potential. Poverty in the UK isn't simply about not being able to feed or clothe your children (though it can mean that).
I suggest we ditch the relative poverty measure, which isn't actually a meaningful measure of poverty but is instead a measure of inequality hence why those who lean left economically tend to support it now that straight intervention is no longer popular with voters. Relative poverty is virtually impossible to eliminate without massive fiscal authoritarianism.
Absolute poverty in this country only occurs because of the parents poor spending choices, not because we fail to give enough.
Why people seem so keen on pretending that parental income has no relation to an individuals development always baffles me. We live in a capitalist society, almost all interactions, food, experiences, location & housing are all hugely dependant on economic variables.
To think these would have no impact at all on development is frankly delusional.
Yup. And it's not just a cash thing, of course. Education also need investment, since a quality state provision can equalise some of what is missing in the home for poor families.
Ultimately, we all benefit from providing for all. Getting better performance from the least productive in society would be a big financial boost. I mean, it would even go some way to countering immigration, which should appeal to many, since our current "underclass" could be provided with the tools to out-compete foreign workers.
I find it baffling that people see money as the end, rather than an indicator. Having a low income is a sign of either only possessing common skills, or having another issue that impacts your earning potential (lack of discipline, drug habit, alcohol dependency, poor life choices etc).
Increasing income, on it's own does very little to fix the problem because the flaws that lower earning potential often also impact the ability to be a good parent.
Raising someone's income to 60% of the median plus a pound does not suddenly improve their life chances, because it doesn't suddenly change the behaviour of the parents.
A quick addition, here are the poverty line values for this year.
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/households-below-average-income-hbai-199495-to-201213
Kind of puts the £26k benefit cap and £27k tax credit cut off into perspective as to what these are actually for
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/households-below-average-income-hbai-199495-to-201213
Kind of puts the £26k benefit cap and £27k tax credit cut off into perspective as to what these are actually for
Last edited:
It is clearly a combination of both.
It's a akin to the whole genetics/environment debate. In reality it's both (along with epigenetics being a key link).
A parents behavioural characteristics changes their income prospects, but being in poverty also changes a parents behaviour & causes additional stresses & problems (which feeds back).
It's both cause & effect.
A child growing up in poverty will have his behaviour influenced in part by this aspect, also in part by parental attitudes of course. The key difference being one of these variables we have more control over.
Last edited:
off topic but actually, LSD could be pretty good for you....
http://www.iflscience.com/brain/uk-scientists-are-conducting-worlds-first-imaging-study-brain-lsd
And so what... the solution is financially rewarding such behaviour? No. The only way to deter people from making future stupid choices is to affect them in the only way they generally understand... the wallet. A baby is a choice, and choosing to have one should not cause financial inconvenience on the taxpayer.
Yes, the reality is a child will be affected by living in "poverty" (a very relative term in the UK imo), but they still have the choice to do well at school, and the choice to do their best to go to university. Besides, living in the UK definition of poverty does not exempt parents from bringing up their children to be decent human beings who can then strive to do better.
Last edited:
If we are giving only money and not goods/services/supplies, we only have a limited control over any aspect of it.
We don't seem to have a clear plan or purpose as to what the system is supposed to do in the uk, which is a big part of the problem. We need more honesty around interventions and purpose, which will in turn encourage evidence based actions.
What a load of balls. I imagine I will get exactly the same response if I write to my MP too
Nah, just drop a pill in the water supply. You want kids ? Meet the criteria or forget it. Then you both take parenting classes for 6 months on how to look after them and getting there neurons wired up correctly. The time is passed where it is unquestionable that you can have children.
As for the policy, its one child to many. (not including triplets etc)
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Nov 2006
- Posts
- 7,563
- Location
- Ireland/Northern Ireland Border
From reading this thread it is clear we need both more AND less children. Hopefully some bright spark will come up with a solution.
What a load of balls. I imagine I will get exactly the same response if I write to my MP too
That's rubbish. A person on £25k is not paying the child benefit of someone on £80k. Besides the fact the person on £80k will most likely be paying multiples more in tax into the pot the person on £25k will not even be covering their expenses from the pot.
The reality is the person on £80k will be getting a little bit of the money they put in the pot back while the person on £25k will be getting a little bit out of the pot that the person on £80k put in.
So the reality is no one is asking the person on £25k to pay the person on £80k...
While I think we need to stop incentivising people to have children we also need to keep children out of relative poverty. How we balance one with the other is something I don't know how we can do. Luckily at the moment, discounting immigration, we have a fairly stable births/death rate which means our population shouldn't increase too much more, if we can solve the immigration issue, without causing problems for the exonomy. An ever increasing population is not good for the UK or the world.
Also anyone have a link to a study looking at the relationship of income to family size? IIRC the data suggests the lower the income the larger the family, which is also something we need to look into changing.
Well it's a start, benefits should be means tested not handed out on a platter to anyone who pops out kids, like couples earning £80k a year with half a dozen kids. Child poverty is not going to be increased by reducing child benefit because the core issue there is the parents behaviour and spending pattern not the actual lack of money.