Associate
- Joined
- 1 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 1,114
- Location
- England
I think the problem arises when parents split up, does that mean the mother should bare sole responsibility for the children?
Campaigners have called for the government to scrap the two-child limit on benefits
- Thread starter 2013
- Start date
I can imagine the disaster that would cause later down the line, when people complain they were coerced into being infertile for the sake of a few quid.
That may be true, but if most couples who plan on having children stick to two, that's not going to cause a huge drop in future population. There will still be plenty of wealthy families who will have 3 or more children. We're not talking of China here, where everyone was capped at one child.
That's a lovely little wisecrack, but only confirms you haven't actually thought it through in any capacity whatsoever. If you do the sums, you'll realise that the cost to an individual taxpayer in order to meet the requirement for the additional 600,000 children estimated to be affected, would be around 27p per week.
£13.70 * 600,000 = £8.22M
£8.22M / 31M taxpayers = £0.27 per week
Personally, I have no issue with that.
And here's the part you're really going to struggle with... Of all those millions of taxpayers, there are millions who are hard working PAYE employees earning much less than the threshold for CB - and picture this; lots of them have children.
The beneficiary of child benefit is not exclusively unemployed people, far from it. The beneficiaries are hard working people struggling to get by.
This disgusting, selfish society needs to get some perspective and start seeing the bigger picture.
Ignoring the financial aspect of child benefits, how about considering the environmental aspect? It's fairly evident that over population is destroying the planet in many many ways. Is it not considered selfish to have too many children adding to the problem?
When they split up both parents continue to pay towards the costs. Its called child maintenance.
Associate
- Joined
- 1 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 1,114
- Location
- England
And if the father goes AWOL or doesn't have a job, isn't able to work due to illness?
And having children isn't a basic function of living? Amazing how far we've come as a society...
So you're saying if you have two people who are working, doing alright so fall into your approved category, then one ups and leaves, loses their job or dies, the child should just be sent to a workhouse?
I'm no fan of the idea that people who've never worked breed at all but in reality there's far more pressing issues to worry about. And no, the car argument is not exactly the same, it's an asset that has interest applied at the point of agreement. The financial entities enabling car purchase build this into their risk model to stay profitable.We have a population crisis brewing, people who are well off aren't having enough children to sustain the bonkers financial policies of the west. We're importing people to support this pyramid scheme
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,807
NVM
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 May 2006
- Posts
- 9,288
There is definitely 2 arguments here regarding supporting people having more than 2 children, a financial one (supporting the future) and an environmental one.
Both are very real concerns but imo the future of the planet is more critical than the future of the economy...... If in 50 years time the planet is in ruins and people are struggling to breath due to pollution and all our countryside is ruined it does not really matter that much if our old people have money in their pockets.
That aside...... I would suggest unless you are loaded and can afford lots of extra help (,I am not) it is far more likely you as a parent will be able to emotionally and financially able to be able to fully invest in your kids and help them reach their potential what ever that may be if you only have one or 2 of them. I struggle to see how families with 4 or 5 kids find the time to give them each the emotional and educational time they need. I struggle with just 1 !!!
Both are very real concerns but imo the future of the planet is more critical than the future of the economy...... If in 50 years time the planet is in ruins and people are struggling to breath due to pollution and all our countryside is ruined it does not really matter that much if our old people have money in their pockets.
That aside...... I would suggest unless you are loaded and can afford lots of extra help (,I am not) it is far more likely you as a parent will be able to emotionally and financially able to be able to fully invest in your kids and help them reach their potential what ever that may be if you only have one or 2 of them. I struggle to see how families with 4 or 5 kids find the time to give them each the emotional and educational time they need. I struggle with just 1 !!!
Last edited:
"Net contributor" is fairly subjective.
I'm not in the higher tax bracket, but fairly certain i'm classed as a net contributor.
I don't currently have any children, thankfully my health is in good shape so receiving no costly health treatment, i'm not receiving any benefits.
I can't actually think of any/many public services where i get more out of it than what i put in.
They're both strongly linked, I mean part of the reason why extra children are more of an economic burden is because they require more resources... that requirement for more resources, currently, has a significant environmental impact...
Someone was mentioning keeping the population at replacement levels earlier, I do wonder if that will really be needed going forwards. It might well be beneficial to reduce the population a little bit over a few generations and certainly in other countries to, at the very least, stop it from continually growing (hopefully some of that sorts itself out as living standards improve but it can also be helped along).
Typical droid responses in this thread, i would love to see some of you hit rock bottom and then come back with the same attitudes
Could just sell my flat in London, buy an entire village up north (for a about a tenner) and never have to work again.
Associate
- Joined
- 1 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 1,114
- Location
- England
Could just sell my flat in London, buy an entire village up north (for a about a tenner) and never have to work again.
lol may be you can hire some people and pay them enough to start a family.
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Jan 2013
- Posts
- 22,541
- Location
- Rollergirl
First, I'm sorry to hear of your challenge and good luck with it as it must be a real strain. Second, this mob will just make a little exception for you like they do with rape victims. It's all about their personal morals, their perfect decisions and who they think should get what.
I will not ignore the financial aspect as that was the very question I was responding to.
The UK population is predicted to remain fairly flat among most age groups until 2100, with most of the population growth being observed due to people living longer - which will already skew us to a top heavy population, reducing population via encouraging fewer births will further exacerbate the situation.
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/news/themes-in-the-spotlight/population-day-2019
We need to remove the stigma and resentment felt at anyone potentially enjoying themselves on benefits, and consider what we want as a country and what is sustainable (for the environment, work/life balance and the care of our aging population).
I'm not sure I want to encourage northerners to breed.
You won't meet a nicer person than from the North, look at me a charming chap that I am
I'm not sure I want to encourage northerners to breed.
Monster.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2006
- Posts
- 38,363
What campaigners really need to campaign for is installing a work ethic on those that breed for money or sit on JSA and their counterparts for either their whole lives or the majority of them.
I don't care about the question you were responding to. You made the comment that society is being selfish and needs to start seeing the bigger picture. But failing completely to acknowledge the implications on the environment caused by over population - the bigger picture!
The two child benefit allowance might have only been put in place to stop this whole culture of breeding children for money, but it also has positive environmental benefits by making responsible parents consider whether they can afford more than two children.
I'm aware it is fairly flat, the problem is this is causing issues, global warming etc.. while the earth perhaps could sustain more people it would be better overall if the population we're reduced. I think it is rather short sighted to focus on say the current ageing population.
I think some resentment can be justified at times tbh... especially among other low income people in a similar situation who have taken on word.