Bago Posted May 24, 2006 Share Posted May 24, 2006 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. You also said that sterilisation happens after the first child. I thought that UK is a democratic country. To merely suggest extreme measures such as that within the Communistic political system of China is a tad ironic. There are encouragement to Joe Public to not have more than 2 kids. (Other SE Asian countries do this, I think.) Then, there's forcing married couples not to have more than 2 kids by law. What a field day we will have on human right issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmr44 Posted May 24, 2006 Share Posted May 24, 2006 No i think this is a rubbish idea Tony! In China, there are many problems with abandoning of babies and even attempts to kill their child if they already have one child. Even if everybody is sterilised, there will still be mistakes made such as getting pregnant as soon as their first child is born, before they have a chance to be sterilised and this may result in the above or abortion. If everybody took extra precautions in sex then there wouldn't be as many 'mistake' pregnancies, or abortion, single mothers, benefit grabbing families etc. Plus children give so much joy to parents, why should we stop people having children? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bartfarst Posted May 24, 2006 Share Posted May 24, 2006 Why should there be any such thing as child benefit? People should demonstrate that they are responsible emough to have children by making the effort to earn enough to look after them. Taxpayers should not have to pay for under-achievers to breed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterw Posted May 24, 2006 Share Posted May 24, 2006 Point 4 would allow people to opt out of the NHS providing they made private provision. In return they would recieve further tax breaks. I take it you’ve had a long, face-to-face talk with Gordon Brown on this subject because if you haven’t it isn’t going to happen; which up to now ties in with the thoughts of the majority of Posters. At the risk of repeating myself about all things political, all decisions and ideas always work in practice but never in theory. Respect your ideas, but I don’t think they’d work. And anyway, you’d have to get them past the other Tony — the Right Honourable one, who isn’t! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zebra Posted May 24, 2006 Share Posted May 24, 2006 What if someone has twins or triplets? Its not their fault so should they be penalised? QUOTE] My thoughts exactly - we have twins and I wouldn't have considered aborting one to fulfill a financial criteria. With family tax and child benefit the second one gets much much less anyway. In fact the baby element of family tax only counts for one baby so it doesn't help that much! Isn't child benefit only given to those under a certain income anyway? Although I remember reading that even Tony Blair claims his, so maybe I'm wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zebra Posted May 24, 2006 Share Posted May 24, 2006 Why should there be any such thing as child benefit? People should demonstrate that they are responsible emough to have children by making the effort to earn enough to look after them. Taxpayers should not have to pay for under-achievers to breed. Under achievers? tread carefully there! My partner works as a civil servant and I'm mostly self employed, we pay our way but our total income means we still get child benefit, as I understand all people with an income under £45,000 do. How much do you earn? Are you an under achiever if you earn less than the amount? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterw Posted May 24, 2006 Share Posted May 24, 2006 Why should there be any such thing as child benefit? People should demonstrate that they are responsible emough to have children by making the effort to earn enough to look after them. Taxpayers should not have to pay for under-achievers to breed. Barfast! For once I agree with you! When child benefit first arrived on the scene I was a young man, and the idea that I should have to pay for the married man’s pleasure for the rest of my working life, filled me with horror. My father brought me up without any help froom the state. In fact, in my formative years his dole money (he had worked at Brown Bayleys until they laid off employees in the 1920s) the dole money was reduced from 16s.6d, to 15s. Nevertheless, he still managed to feed and clothe me — and not with second-hand clothing either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bartfarst Posted May 24, 2006 Share Posted May 24, 2006 Under achievers? tread carefully there! My partner works as a civil servant and I'm mostly self employed, we pay our way but our total income means we still get child benefit, as I understand all people with an income under £45,000 do. How much do you earn? Are you an under achiever if you earn less than the amount? Mmm - I think I may owe an apology here - I didn't realise that it was paid to middle incomes. That aside, it still means that childless people pay for those who choose to have families - which I think is wrong. (More, and not necessarily, in answer to your questions) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted May 24, 2006 Share Posted May 24, 2006 I'm sure that bartfast is aware that child benefit doesn't exist for the benefit of parents, but to ensure a minimum standard of living for the child. So the why of child benefit is to make sure that no child grows up in poverty in this country, a worthwhile aim. Child benefit is means tested if I understand correctly, so it's not just a free ride for anyone who has a child. The benefit should only apply to one child though and only for people earning less than national average. Parents on a good income shouldn't be getting benefit from the taxes of non parents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bago Posted May 24, 2006 Share Posted May 24, 2006 shoeshine: Well, as far as I can tell. This thread posed a scenario, and asks the SF members whether such suggestions would work. It may be playing devil's advocate, but I thought it was interesting anyway to say the least. You've not offended me personally, but I found the post offensive. Though, this I have to say has to be one of those, differing of opinions. I think I know where you are coming from, and I think I've made it clear what my views are. ---------------------- Back on topic. If slashing the child benefit, wouldn't there be an outcry from the people from those who 'had', and those who 'have not' ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.