youwhatref Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 To my knowledge the number of children being born is on the decrease. There are other reasons for the actual number of ppl increasing. I think limiting the number to one woudl be wrong. One child is ideal for many although many kids and adults often wish they had a brother or sister. What happens if a couple have twins or triplicats under the Tony law? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swan_Vesta Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 I know I seem like a greedy so and so but just for once I'd actually like to stop being the cash cow and subsidising others who don't have the means to pay but certainly have no objections in getting a total stranger to finance their kids hence their reliance on me "chipping in" with my ever increasing tax payments. A restriction on people breeding would mean that there was a little more of the pie available for little old me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StarSparkle Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 I suspect our beloved Admin Tony is enjoying playing devil's advocate here and winding us all up..... good discussion resulting from it though! The truth of the matter is that there are simply not enough babies being born in Britain to replenish the existing population. The government is clearly very worried about this trend - as are many other governments, eg in Italy - but their only answer at the moment seems to be to import people from elsewhere, rather than encouraging people here to have (more) kids. I think the government is seriously concerned in particular about the relative lack of babies being born to educated women - teenagers may be having babies like there's no tomorrow, but older, educated women - whose offspring would be expected to form the backbone of tomorrow's workforce - are simply not reproducing. As a society, we need to ask why that is - what can be done to make it easier for a woman to have children AND have a career - there needs to be a lot more flexibility in terms of working hours, career breaks and the like, and it needs to happen NOW. Is it simply too hard for women to try to look after a family while being expected to compete on an equal footing with men in the workplace? Society needs to get its head sorted out about some of these issues, or we are all in for a rather uncomfortable old age. StarSparkle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
depoix Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 your plan sounds good,and theres always a " but " so, it would work out that only the rich could afford as many children as they liked, now , as the rich do not like manual work,who would build our houses and roads,factories etc,who would deliver our goods to the shops ? who would fight our battles ? with the working class decimated britain would be in a massive economic mess, then of course theres the churches,the human rights groups the interfering god knows who groups that would want their say, a good plan though never the less Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted February 22, 2006 Author Share Posted February 22, 2006 WTAW I'm the eldest of 2, so I would be here, but that's not the point Like the 3 Point Plan plainly says, you can have as many children as you like, so if you've got lots of love to go around that's great! All that happens is that government assistance stops after the first child. Nothing more. You don't have to send them up chinmneys. So... Need new shoes for kiddie 2? Pay for it yourself. Need a bigger house for kiddie 3? Pay for it yourself. There's nothing more to it than that. I'm not offering communism as an alternative, just suggesting an way of letting people make informed choices to stop them taking government hand outs. Carrot & stick if you like Depoix - you appear to have answered StarSparkles question Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandad.Malky Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 This assumes that child benefit exists to benefit the parents. It doesn't, it exists to ensure that the children involved have a certain standard of living. If you are happy accepting that your proposals may mean that some children live in poverty then I guess they are workable. Otherwise I think the search for a solution must go on. PS - it's probably incompatible with the european human rights act, specifically the right to family life. The idea of children in this country living in poverty always intrigues me, what is poverty. No, Play Station, TV, CD player, MP3, Nike trainers, mobile phone etc Or are we talking about no food and cloths that’s poverty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fox20thc Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 I know I seem like a greedy so and so but just for once I'd actually like to stop being the cash cow and subsidising others who don't have the means to pay but certainly have no objections in getting a total stranger to finance their kids hence their reliance on me "chipping in" with my ever increasing tax payments. A restriction on people breeding would mean that there was a little more of the pie available for little old me I have TWO children. I work. I pay my council tax, my value added tax, my income tax, my national insurance contributions to name but a few of the many taxes we all have to pay. I have the means to raise my children. I think this is a cloaked attempt to attack benefit recipients in general. One thing that does irk me is that the child benefit As previously posted its not alot and certainly wouldnt cover the running costs of a small person for food let alone anything else. But, a blue collar worker on say £12k a year gets the child benefit £15 a week, and Cheri Blair Q.C gets the same allowances for little Leo as well! I think it should be scrapped and the money saved should be used in the child tax credit system instead. Child benefit should be there to top up low incomes if at all. (ducks and runs from the room) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abdul Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 The government is clearly very worried about this trend ... but their only answer at the moment seems to be to import people from elsewhere, rather than encouraging people here to have (more) kids. I agree with this. And while Big Business™ will profit shorterm from hiring slave labour from overseas, this will eventually have a detrimental effect on the economy, because imported workers will usually send much of their salary overseas, spending less in the local economy than indigenous workers do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abdul Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 as the rich do not like manual work,who would build our houses and roads,factories etc,who would deliver our goods to the shops ? who would fight our battles ? with the working class decimated britain would be in a massive economic mess Yep, labour costs would skyrocket, unless an alternative source of cheap labour could be found. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted February 22, 2006 Author Share Posted February 22, 2006 From prosperity to penury in 3 generations. There will never be a shortage of cheap local labour, even if their grandparents were wealthy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.