ukdobby Posted October 5, 2011 Share Posted October 5, 2011 You could make that argument, but it would still be the state that chose to maintain them in a state of poverty instead of deal with it. People who have children they cannot afford put them in poverty not the state.Why should we the taxpayer pay for these people to spawn kids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonjon Posted October 5, 2011 Share Posted October 5, 2011 I find it really sad that so many people on this thread are talking about children as if they are just meal tickets!! But whats sadder is the fact that many people do use them just as that, so yes OP I think this would be a good idea, if the low lives that use children as a cash cow had to provide for their kids I think they would think twice about having large numbers of kids!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted October 5, 2011 Share Posted October 5, 2011 . The best we can do (which still baffles me why it hasn't yet been seriously considered) is to make it so that benefits are paid to a special debit card whereby only certain items can be purchased, making sure money gets spent on the child. Probably hasn't been done because it wouldn't really work. It's food stamps innit. So you can only buy beans with your card and you want tobacco. You buy beans and exchange them for tobacco with someone, you actually end up spending more of your 'food' money on tobacco than if you'd bought it directly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted October 5, 2011 Share Posted October 5, 2011 People who have children they cannot afford put them in poverty not the state.Why should we the taxpayer pay for these people to spawn kids. It shouldn't. But once they exist should the state allow them to continue to live in poverty? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted October 5, 2011 Share Posted October 5, 2011 I find it really sad that so many people on this thread are talking about children as if they are just meal tickets!! But whats sadder is the fact that many people do use them just as that, so yes OP I think this would be a good idea, if the low lives that use children as a cash cow had to provide for their kids I think they would think twice about having large numbers of kids!! And the vast majority of families that don't do that would be penalised if they ever ended up out of work. Here's the bath water, why not just chuck the baby out with it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quisquose Posted October 5, 2011 Share Posted October 5, 2011 It is well established that driving a car irresponsibly is detrimental to societal health so requires a licence. I would argue that irresponsible parenting is also detrimental to societal health, probably more so, and we should look to ensure that many more children are born to responsible parents than irresponsible ones. This is a big challenge, but a very important one, and one we are failing at. Providing benefits based on the number of children will inevitably encourage irresponsible people to become irresponsible parents. This is not the fault of the children of course, and I would entertain an idea similar to that proposed by epiphany. I also fail to see why parents should be rewarded for their reproductive abilities after their 2nd or 3rd child, by which time they will have established whether they are responsible enough. I would like to see free school meals for every child, in conjunction with reduced cash benefits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fruitisbad Posted October 5, 2011 Share Posted October 5, 2011 you need a way to punish (not really the right word) the parents, this I think has the ability to punish the children. It's not their fault they have been brought into this world irrisponsibly. I think there needs to be more focus on showing people that having kids isn't the be all end all of life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted October 5, 2011 Share Posted October 5, 2011 Should the amount of benefits received reduce with each extra child that a 'family unit' (whatever that be) has? So, for example... 1 child = maximum benefits 4 children = no benefits What would be the good things and bad things about such a plan? I'd say it's an excellent plan, however one slight wrinkle would be twins or triplets.... If you had your first baby, and it was actually twins, then you should get maximum benefits for both. The next child should then get the "third baby" rate... Say your current rates were something like £20, £16, £12, £8, nothing just for example. So if you had four pregnancies, you would get 20+16+12+8 a week If you had twins, then another child, you would get 20+20+12 instead. That way you protect someone who suddenly and unexpectedly gets three babies say when only one was expected. Make sense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted October 5, 2011 Share Posted October 5, 2011 You appear to be talking about child benefit Obelix, I don't think Tony was (unless I misunderstood). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
epiphany Posted October 5, 2011 Share Posted October 5, 2011 Probably hasn't been done because it wouldn't really work. It's food stamps innit. So you can only buy beans with your card and you want tobacco. You buy beans and exchange them for tobacco with someone, you actually end up spending more of your 'food' money on tobacco than if you'd bought it directly. But do you think this bartering would occur enough to make the program not worth implementing? I don't think people would go to the bother of trading tins of beans bought on their child benefit vouchers when they can just buy tobacco using their other benefits, e.g. income support. Ok, some would, but there are always a few that abuse the system. We accept that with plenty of other things, why not with this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.