Does anybody need more than one child? Let's slash child benefit!

[Lucretia_73]

Sounds good to me, being rewarded for *not* having kids, but I've been on the anti-child threads ranting about the excess of annoying children in the world.

 

There seem to have been a couple of threads around lately aswell that have suggested the government have decided not enough children are being born and they want to reverse this trend , or that women are putting their careers first, waiting too long and gambling with their fertility. One look at all the pushchairs, Baby on Board signs, 4x4 school run mums and teen pregnancy and benefits stats is enough to convince me otherwise.

 

From what I can remember about the child benefit that my mum got when I was a kid though, it's hardly enough to keep a child in food for a week or month or however often it's handed out, never mind those expensive trainers they'll be screaming for.

 

The problem with the Chinese law was people wanted boys and all those girl children were killed or smuggled away and that's not very ethical...people would be finding out whether their kid was a girl or boy and if they knew they could only have the one, making decisions based on the sex. It might progress to other things then - determining eye colour, hair colour etc. or advanced methods to determine the genetic makeup of the child... I wonder whether it would encourage the whole genetically perfect engineered children that at the moment are only a reality in Sci-fi programs and movies (like Gattaca) and the vivid imaginations of scaremongers.

 

Also what would happen if the child had a disability that was missed before birth - would allowances be made for that? Could they try again for free for a healthy child? And if a child died, would they be able to replace it for free?

 

Ooh I see a whole can of worms being opened..

[Cyclone]

We do currently have an aging population, there are less people born every year than die. I think most of the difference is made up for though by immigration.

If there were a need to keep down the number of children, then paying a 'no children' benefit would be more ethical than withholding child benefit that is supposed to benefit an existing child.

[Jake01]

The population of the planet is growing exponentially to the point where there are now more people alive today than have ever lived in the past. We all know the damaging implications of population growth!

 

So, here's an idea for discussion. It's a 3 point plan for the UK ...

 

1. In the spirit of the Chinese One Child Law, child benefits are limited to one child only. If you want any more children then you pay for them from your own means. That also goes for tax credits, housing and all the other state handouts. The cut off is one child

 

Could this be legally obliged to Muslims or Catholics in religions which encourage the growth of the population above the masses of the impassive?. The upside is that the state can offer optional but free sterilisation for those who have their one child and have no need of any more.... or could it be an encouragement to it. Those couples who don't have any children, and therefore have less need of state funds can then have a tax rebate and increased pension provision in return for having no child to care for them in old age.... Import a false religion and alien beliefs? ( and do away with them ) People have equal and recognised benefits in Britain.... that is why many people want to breed here.... irregardless of their ethnicity.... it is free to do so..... charge them what you want.... you cannot buy freedom.

 

2. The upside is that the state can offer optional but free sterilisation for those who have their one child and have no need of any more.

 

that is sick man.... coming from me.... who couldn't have a baby by my ex wife and it ended my marriage.

 

3. Those couples who don't have any children, and therefore have less need of state funds can then have a tax rebate and increased pension provision in return for having no child to care for them in old age.

 

No children gets you no where.... I hope this post is a jest. Even Mods are not above the law or public opinion.

[fox20thc]

1. In the spirit of the Chinese One Child Law, child benefits are limited to one child only. If you want any more children then you pay for them from your own means. That also goes for tax credits, housing and all the other state handouts. The cut off is one child.Well?

 

Child benefit is hardly a kings ransom Tony. Should we also terminate everyone over a certain age as they no longer make a valid contribution to society.

 

What if someone has twins or triplets? Its not their fault so should they be penalised?

 

2. The upside is that the state can offer optional but free sterilisation for those who have their one child and have no need of any more.

 

What if god forbid the child dies? They would have none and no chance to have another baby.

 

3. Those couples who don't have any children, and therefore have less need of state funds can then have a tax rebate and increased pension provision in return for having no child to care for them in old age.

 

I take it from your thoughts that most parents must be irresponsible and are just churning out kids for the sake of it to get more benefits? Not the case.

 

I would have hated to be an only child and many children who have no siblings tend to have underdeveloped social skills as well. My personal preference was that myself and the father of my children have replaced ourselves on the planet. Two for two so to speak.

 

Birthrates in the UK are plummeting.

 

Surely we would be a selfish society if we financially punished parents for choosing to have a couple of kids instead of just the one. Parents on the whole invest a huge amount of finance into raising their children and the 'state handouts' don't amount to much at all.

 

Does your plan include removing all healthcare benefits aswell?

[MrH]

Did I not see something the other day which said we had an economic crisis coming in the UK because of the falling birthrate? In the foreseeable future there will be more retired people on pensions, with insufficient working younger people paying taxes to support them? I think the implication was that people should have more children, not less!

[fox20thc]

From what I can remember about the child benefit that my mum got when I was a kid though, it's hardly enough to keep a child in food for a week or month or however often it's handed out, never mind those expensive trainers they'll be screaming for.

 

Its about £15 a week for the first child and £9 for every child after that

[Cycleracer]

Over population of children does not apply in this country.

If we decided to all have 1 child then the future of this country would suffer a lot more than it does now.

Children are the next generation and its important that the cycle keeps going.

However your point about over population only applies in third world countries and that is a problem for them and globel to.

[Tony]

There some great comments up above

 

Now, to expand it further, having taken some of those points on board:

 

The overriding intention is for those who require additional services to pay for those additional services after the first child.

 

Child benefit goes

Tax credits go

Nursery provision goes

Subsidised social housing for larger families goes.

etc.

 

So, under the 3 Point Plan you can still have as many children as you like, but you won't get any government support for the second or more child.

 

It would apply regardless of the child's health, remembering that an unhealthy child is a bigger financial burden. If a child dies, then you would get another go, with child-free tax breaks in the intervening period.

 

Any tax breaks will be transferred to those without children as they require fewer services and will be encouraged to work, and to contribute financially to the UK.

[fox20thc]

Since the 1960s, the average number of babies born to women over their reproductive lifetimes,has been declining in both more developed and less developed countries.

In both developed and developing nations, fertility rates are actually lower than the level required for long run replacement of population in the world's more developed regions.

 

Annual global population growth has declined from 2% in 1970 to 1.24% today, and is projected to drop to .43% by 2050. The U.N. predicts that the world's population could peak at under 8 billion by 2050 then begin to decline. Global fertility could fall below replacement as soon as 2015.

 

The stark reality of global under-population can be seen in fertility trends over the past decade. In 1990, between 50 and 60 countries, mainly developed, had below-replacement fertility.

 

79 countries, or over a third of all nations, have TFRs of 2.1 or less. And low fertility countries are increasingly likely to be found in the world's less developed regions... TFRs will remain below replacement level in China, Eastern Europe... and the rest of the world during the next 25 years and will fall below replacement in Latin America and the Caribbean by

2025.

 

Still think its a good idea?

[fox20thc]

. If a child dies, then you would get another go, with child-free tax breaks in the intervening period.

 

How do they get another go? You sterilised them!