He's from Scotland. He can't help himself.
Tories consider limiting child benefit to three children
- Thread starter elmarko
- Start date
He's from Scotland. He can't help himself.
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
I'm not aware of the Green party's stance on citrus fruit.
Neither am I. We need to find out before it's too late. The last thing we need in the UK are lemons in the vegetable isle in supermarkets. Damn it ! Think of the children !!!
Last edited:
na i just don't think this policy is nothing more than trying grab a few cheap healines
this will only really effect a tiny minority of the population with no real benifit to anyone
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 12 May 2005
- Posts
- 1,782
I'm sure the inhabitants of Easter Island said "Why?" too.
The earth 's biosphere does not have infinite resources.
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
I'm sure the inhabitants of Easter Island said "Why?" too.
The earth 's biosphere does not have infinite resources.
No, but it it does have the resources to support a MUCH larger population that it currently has now.
We just need to intelligent about how we use those reources.
I'd rather see legislation that targets the appropriate use of those resources rather than legislation that tries to control family size. Besides, it's been demonstrated that wealthy people have less children and correcting the poor wealth distribution the world currently suffers from would be one way of naturally reducing (rather than enforcing) family size.
Last edited by a moderator:
Sue has three children with Tim then gets divorced. Bob has a child with Lucy then gets divorced.
Bob and Sue get married. Do they now receive child benefit for all four children? Or does the state penalise them for getting married? If they do get the benefit, do they then get more child benefit if they have a child together because it is Bob's second child or not because it is Sue's fourth child?
Bob and Sue get married. Do they now receive child benefit for all four children? Or does the state penalise them for getting married? If they do get the benefit, do they then get more child benefit if they have a child together because it is Bob's second child or not because it is Sue's fourth child?
If Sue married and thus becomes legal guardian of four children as a single family unit then of course that will be over the 3 limit... right?
So the Tories plan on penalising people for getting married, then?
If two single parents with 3 children marry, then why should they get 6x child benefits? 3x child benefits + 1 or 2 working salaries should be manageable?
If they don't marry then they carry on getting 6x child benefit so that's a stiff loss of income for getting married. That doesn't seem a desirable feature of any system. Apart from the apparent perversity of it, anything that encourages people not to form stable family units seems like it will be to the detriment of the children and society in general.
That's not the way the current benefits system works. The only way they would get all the child benefit is if they were two distinct and separate households. Marriage isn't required to end eligibility.
Of course, the scenario you describe already occurs within the current system via the tax credit system...
If a couple are in a registered partnership under the same roof, and not married, then I would hope the same rules would be enforced per household.
Child credits are not administered through the benefits system; hence the fiasco with the higher earners losing child benefit.
Doesn't mean that this won't make it worse.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 16,024
- Location
- 9th Inner Circle
Hmmm, I don't think that is the solution though.
You're either insane or an excellent troll.
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 May 2009
- Posts
- 21,468
He would have a rather fit and active society, there would be Victorian childcatchers, but more a slow and lazy catcher with a nice bed to sleep forever in.
This. If they're scum they won't give a crap. They let the streets look after them.
You have an active psychotic gene.
did either of you actually read all of his post?
or did both of you wonder off in a frothing rage before getting to the last line?
Any idea how you plan to do that without damaging the environment more than we are already? More intensive farming is not entirely the answer as the more intense the greater the damage on the local environment.
The othe problem is the wealthier people are the more resources they use. We are seeing that now as the middle classes in places like China and India are causing greater and greater pressure on the environment, food and resources. As you say wealth does decrease family size, but wealth also increases resource use. We may find our standard of living in the west severely squeezed (and forced backwards) as the rest of the world becomes like us. Otherwise the planet is done for.
We have three choices really, if you don't want to damage our planet much more than we already have.
- Decrease our standard of living in the west and increase it elsewhere with the same population (essentially meet in the middle).
- Keep the same standard of living in the west and bring it up in the rest of the world, while drastically reducing population.
- Keep our standard of living the same and force the rest of the world to stay with a much lower standard of living but keeping a similar population.
Only the first two will really be fesable as ways to not destroy the earth more than it already is, the current status quo is not an option, especially as the latest population projections are around 11 billion rather than the 9 billion a few years ago.
Something has to give, unless you don't care about the environment or you have some master plan?