Why do we pay child benefits at all?

[millhouses24]

I'm determined not to have rugrats and I still think child benefit is a sound idea.

 

1. It's not like everyone without children would get a massive tax reduction if it was scrapped (so scrapping it would be more of a spite thing than anything).

 

2. Raising kids is meant to be terribly expensive and the hardest job in the world, so I reckon parents do need the help!

[donkey]

I'm determined not to have rugrats and I still think child benefit is a sound idea.

 

1. It's not like everyone without children would get a massive tax reduction if it was scrapped (so scrapping it would be more of a spite thing than anything).

 

2. Raising kids is meant to be terribly expensive and the hardest job in the world, so I reckon parents do need the help!

 

Are you sure you wouldn't enjoy life more if you took the petty minded, self obsessed, sour faced begrudger's stance on this issue?

[Cyclone]

It's not compulsory though, trecking to the Arctic is meant to be terribly hard and pretty cold, but it doesn't mean that the tax payer should subsidise it.

[millhouses24]

Are you sure you wouldn't enjoy life more if you took the petty minded, self obsessed, sour faced begrudger's stance on this issue?

 

Don't be sarky now, I'm sure GordonBennett and Cyclone are absolute little rays of sunshine in real life. They wander the streets of Sheffield with smiles upon their faces handing sweeties to kids, helping little old ladies with their shopping bags, and generally making the world a happier place.

 

(that fantasy is probably about as realistic as the one I have which includes the entire Man United team and a tin of Pringles )

[donkey]

I wonder how many people on this thread were the beneficiaries of child benefits themselves? Somewhere in excess 90% I should imagine.

[Cyclone]

Probably, but then tradition is never a good reason to keep doing something.

[Cyclone]

Don't be sarky now, I'm sure GordonBennett and Cyclone are absolute little rays of sunshine in real life. They wander the streets of Sheffield with smiles upon their faces handing sweeties to kids, helping little old ladies with their shopping bags, and generally making the world a happier place.

 

(that fantasy is probably about as realistic as the one I have which includes the entire Man United team and a tin of Pringles )

 

I like to imagine myself snowboarding (cause it's good fun) and the long chains of children who are learning, they often get in the way. The trick though (and this is still in my imagination) is to knock over the one at the very back without the rest noticing. If you were really good at it the instructor would get to the bottom and look behind him and find himself on his own.

Ermm, that's off topic isn't it. Anyway, no I don't really like children and if I have sweets then I eat them myself!

 

Your argument that bringing up children is expensive and hard though does not in any way support the state paying towards it.

 

The only thing that does is that leaving a child in poverty would be wrong.

I'd prefer to see the objective achieved through a less administrative and wasteful approach though.

[millhouses24]

I do like the phrase "better class of child" in the OP, as if being at a certain income level makes you a better parent

 

The only times in my life I've thought about having children have been when I have been in relationships where my partner could afford to support me plus a few little ones without me working.

 

If (God forbid ) I had got pregnant in any of those relationships the poor little buggers would have had parents who fought ALL the time and were always on the verge of splitting up, a mummy who didn't really want to be there, was always on the verge of depression, and wasn't that loving, and a daddy who worked too hard and drank too much.

 

But hey, we wouldn't have been needing child benefit, so we would have been producing a "better class of child"

[Tradescanthia]

During the run up to the election all the major parties were going out of their way to say they were going to give as many rewards as they could to "hard working families", but isn't it time this changed?

 

We live in an overpopulated country on an overpopulated planet and need to find ways of cutting public spending. Perhaps we ought to look at scrapping child benefits as effectively parents now get so much money thrown at them that they're better off working than they are taking a job.

 

Some might say that this would disadvantage poor families and make them think twice about having kids at all but would that be such a bad thing? If only the relatively well off could afford to have a family, you'd end up with less children but generally a better class of child, one that's more likely to be well educated, intelligent and hard-working. Unlike the children of poor families who tend to be uneducated, lazy and antisocial and more likely to commit crime.

 

At the end of the day it's not the state's responsibility to pay for your children, it's the parents.

 

What a load of B*ll*cks !!! Typical Gordon wind up.

[millhouses24]

I like to imagine myself snowboarding (cause it's good fun) and the long chains of children who are learning, they often get in the way. The trick though (and this is still in my imagination) is to knock over the one at the very back without the rest noticing. If you were really good at it the instructor would get to the bottom and look behind him and find himself on his own.

Ermm, that's off topic isn't it. Anyway, no I don't really like children and if I have sweets then I eat them myself!

 

Your argument that bringing up children is expensive and hard though does not in any way support the state paying towards it.

 

The only thing that does is that leaving a child in poverty would be wrong.

I'd prefer to see the objective achieved through a less administrative and wasteful approach though.

 

Were you a happy child? (I wasn't)