FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to Politics

child benefit for a third child

Jump to newest
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

Under westminster plans child benefit will only be payable two the first 2 children unless subsequent babies are the product of rape, mothers will have to prove to the dwp that they were raped. good grief, it looks like the depths of evil that tory run westminster is happy to sink to knows no bounds

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Under westminster plans child benefit will only be payable two the first 2 children unless subsequent babies are the product of rape, mothers will have to prove to the dwp that they were raped. good grief, it looks like the depths of evil that tory run westminster is happy to sink to knows no bounds "

And you believe in the idea that people on Benefits should just knock out kids as they choose because taxpayers like me fund their lifestyle? Why shouldn't everyone have the same financial discipline whether they are in work or not? I adopted my two kids but we could not afford any more. People on Benefits should have that same limitation.

As for the rape scenario you describe that addresses an obvious, exceptional and tragic situation that has been dealt with appropriately. Like all Lefties you raise the exception to criticise the whole policy....

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Sorry to be controversial.

I don't understand the concept of child benefit at all.

It was introduced after the war to encourage people to have children.

We have more than enough children now.

I have no idea why non-child bearers should be asked to contribute to those who decide to bear children. They would do it anyway.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Sorry to be controversial.

I don't understand the concept of child benefit at all.

It was introduced after the war to encourage people to have children.

We have more than enough children now.

I have no idea why non-child bearers should be asked to contribute to those who decide to bear children. They would do it anyway."
.

Amen!.

I wouldn't pay child benefit out, full stop

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Sorry to be controversial.

I don't understand the concept of child benefit at all.

It was introduced after the war to encourage people to have children.

We have more than enough children now.

I have no idea why non-child bearers should be asked to contribute to those who decide to bear children. They would do it anyway..

Amen!.

I wouldn't pay child benefit out, full stop"

i bet your mum was in receipt of child benefit , going to pay it all back as you dont believe in it ?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Sorry to be controversial.

I don't understand the concept of child benefit at all.

It was introduced after the war to encourage people to have children.

We have more than enough children now.

I have no idea why non-child bearers should be asked to contribute to those who decide to bear children. They would do it anyway..

Amen!.

I wouldn't pay child benefit out, full stop

i bet your mum was in receipt of child benefit , going to pay it all back as you dont believe in it ? "

I imagine that my mother did claim child benefit and, no, I have no intention of paying it back. That may be because I didn't have much of a choice in being conceived or the political system in operation at the time.

I am not sure why that disqualifies me from questioning the reasoning behind the child benefit system?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Sorry to be controversial.

I don't understand the concept of child benefit at all.

It was introduced after the war to encourage people to have children.

We have more than enough children now.

I have no idea why non-child bearers should be asked to contribute to those who decide to bear children. They would do it anyway..

Amen!.

I wouldn't pay child benefit out, full stop

i bet your mum was in receipt of child benefit , going to pay it all back as you dont believe in it ?

I imagine that my mother did claim child benefit and, no, I have no intention of paying it back. That may be because I didn't have much of a choice in being conceived or the political system in operation at the time.

I am not sure why that disqualifies me from questioning the reasoning behind the child benefit system?"

do you feel disqualified ?just re read posts so far , and you are the only one who has brought up being disqualified

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Sorry to be controversial.

I don't understand the concept of child benefit at all.

It was introduced after the war to encourage people to have children.

We have more than enough children now.

I have no idea why non-child bearers should be asked to contribute to those who decide to bear children. They would do it anyway..

Amen!.

I wouldn't pay child benefit out, full stop

i bet your mum was in receipt of child benefit , going to pay it all back as you dont believe in it ?

I imagine that my mother did claim child benefit and, no, I have no intention of paying it back. That may be because I didn't have much of a choice in being conceived or the political system in operation at the time.

I am not sure why that disqualifies me from questioning the reasoning behind the child benefit system?

do you feel disqualified ?just re read posts so far , and you are the only one who has brought up being disqualified "

It was you who suggested that because my mother claimed child benefit, I should pay it back if I am not in favour of that benefit.

I am unclear as to what point you are making.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

China got it right. I reckon uk also should have control on how many one can have.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *udewhennudeMan
over a year ago

newport

That's OK, so long as you don't expect those children to pay taxes so you can get your state pension when you are older.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Under westminster plans child benefit will only be payable two the first 2 children unless subsequent babies are the product of rape, mothers will have to prove to the dwp that they were raped. good grief, it looks like the depths of evil that tory run westminster is happy to sink to knows no bounds

And you believe in the idea that people on Benefits should just knock out kids as they choose because taxpayers like me fund their lifestyle? Why shouldn't everyone have the same financial discipline whether they are in work or not? I adopted my two kids but we could not afford any more. People on Benefits should have that same limitation.

As for the rape scenario you describe that addresses an obvious, exceptional and tragic situation that has been dealt with appropriately. Like all Lefties you raise the exception to criticise the whole policy.... "

I just want to second this since its being ignored by the OP.

It's hardly good for the country when stupid people out breed the rest of us because the laws of economics don't need to apply to them.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"That's OK, so long as you don't expect those children to pay taxes so you can get your state pension when you are older. "

I expect adults to pay taxes just as I do.

I still don't see why parents bringing up children have an expectation of receiving child benefit.

It is anachronistic.

You have a child, yippee. Most people wanting a child have one. Why do they expect to get paid for it?

Sure, I see that it may benefit society to pay for their education. In that it makes for a generally better society. But child benefit?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"That's OK, so long as you don't expect those children to pay taxes so you can get your state pension when you are older. "

With respect those who retire have already funded their retirement because they worked for possibly 50 years and therefore paid in taxes and NI contributions. If, as you say, young people are now paying for those retired then someone needs to explain where £ Billions of payments by those retirees has gone ....

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The only part of Child Benefit (which has a place in assisting less well paid workers) that I object to is the £ Millions we send abroad to people living in Eastern EU countries because the parents of those children had the bright idea to give birth in the UK and then ship back home ....

Another reason I voted for Brexit. Cue abuse ...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Under westminster plans child benefit will only be payable two the first 2 children unless subsequent babies are the product of rape, mothers will have to prove to the dwp that they were raped. good grief, it looks like the depths of evil that tory run westminster is happy to sink to knows no bounds

And you believe in the idea that people on Benefits should just knock out kids as they choose because taxpayers like me fund their lifestyle? Why shouldn't everyone have the same financial discipline whether they are in work or not? I adopted my two kids but we could not afford any more. People on Benefits should have that same limitation.

As for the rape scenario you describe that addresses an obvious, exceptional and tragic situation that has been dealt with appropriately. Like all Lefties you raise the exception to criticise the whole policy....

I just want to second this since its being ignored by the OP.

It's hardly good for the country when stupid people out breed the rest of us because the laws of economics don't need to apply to them. "

Have to say I totally agree with you. If someone is on benefits they should not be entitled to sny additional money for any child conceived after the date they started claiming.

This country has been breeding scroungers for years and its about time it was addressed.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Under westminster plans child benefit will only be payable two the first 2 children unless subsequent babies are the product of rape, mothers will have to prove to the dwp that they were raped. good grief, it looks like the depths of evil that tory run westminster is happy to sink to knows no bounds

And you believe in the idea that people on Benefits should just knock out kids as they choose because taxpayers like me fund their lifestyle? Why shouldn't everyone have the same financial discipline whether they are in work or not? I adopted my two kids but we could not afford any more. People on Benefits should have that same limitation.

As for the rape scenario you describe that addresses an obvious, exceptional and tragic situation that has been dealt with appropriately. Like all Lefties you raise the exception to criticise the whole policy....

I just want to second this since its being ignored by the OP.

It's hardly good for the country when stupid people out breed the rest of us because the laws of economics don't need to apply to them.

Have to say I totally agree with you. If someone is on benefits they should not be entitled to sny additional money for any child conceived after the date they started claiming.

This country has been breeding scroungers for years and its about time it was addressed."

At least 3 of is agree so we can stand united when the PC crowd appear and blame us for creating child poverty (which is either an oxymoron or a truism, I can't decide) or provide an anecdotal example of a jolly nice person they know on benefits

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Sorry to be controversial.

I don't understand the concept of child benefit at all.

It was introduced after the war to encourage people to have children.

We have more than enough children now.

I have no idea why non-child bearers should be asked to contribute to those who decide to bear children. They would do it anyway."

The concept of child benefits is so strange when we don't need to encourage people to have children. I think giving it for even two is too much.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Under westminster plans child benefit will only be payable two the first 2 children unless subsequent babies are the product of rape, mothers will have to prove to the dwp that they were raped. good grief, it looks like the depths of evil that tory run westminster is happy to sink to knows no bounds

And you believe in the idea that people on Benefits should just knock out kids as they choose because taxpayers like me fund their lifestyle? Why shouldn't everyone have the same financial discipline whether they are in work or not? I adopted my two kids but we could not afford any more. People on Benefits should have that same limitation.

As for the rape scenario you describe that addresses an obvious, exceptional and tragic situation that has been dealt with appropriately. Like all Lefties you raise the exception to criticise the whole policy....

I just want to second this since its being ignored by the OP.

It's hardly good for the country when stupid people out breed the rest of us because the laws of economics don't need to apply to them.

Have to say I totally agree with you. If someone is on benefits they should not be entitled to sny additional money for any child conceived after the date they started claiming.

This country has been breeding scroungers for years and its about time it was addressed.

At least 3 of is agree so we can stand united when the PC crowd appear and blame us for creating child poverty (which is either an oxymoron or a truism, I can't decide) or provide an anecdotal example of a jolly nice person they know on benefits"

When did this become a benefits thread?

There should be and must be a safety net.

But paying someone just because they have brought a child into the world? I don't understand it.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Under westminster plans child benefit will only be payable two the first 2 children unless subsequent babies are the product of rape, mothers will have to prove to the dwp that they were raped. good grief, it looks like the depths of evil that tory run westminster is happy to sink to knows no bounds

And you believe in the idea that people on Benefits should just knock out kids as they choose because taxpayers like me fund their lifestyle? Why shouldn't everyone have the same financial discipline whether they are in work or not? I adopted my two kids but we could not afford any more. People on Benefits should have that same limitation.

As for the rape scenario you describe that addresses an obvious, exceptional and tragic situation that has been dealt with appropriately. Like all Lefties you raise the exception to criticise the whole policy....

I just want to second this since its being ignored by the OP.

It's hardly good for the country when stupid people out breed the rest of us because the laws of economics don't need to apply to them.

Have to say I totally agree with you. If someone is on benefits they should not be entitled to sny additional money for any child conceived after the date they started claiming.

This country has been breeding scroungers for years and its about time it was addressed.

At least 3 of is agree so we can stand united when the PC crowd appear and blame us for creating child poverty (which is either an oxymoron or a truism, I can't decide) or provide an anecdotal example of a jolly nice person they know on benefits

When did this become a benefits thread?

There should be and must be a safety net.

But paying someone just because they have brought a child into the world? I don't understand it."

Who said there shouldn't be a safety net? All we are saying is that the safety net should not absolve people from the financial responsibility that people not using it have to abide by.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Under westminster plans child benefit will only be payable two the first 2 children unless subsequent babies are the product of rape, mothers will have to prove to the dwp that they were raped. good grief, it looks like the depths of evil that tory run westminster is happy to sink to knows no bounds

And you believe in the idea that people on Benefits should just knock out kids as they choose because taxpayers like me fund their lifestyle? Why shouldn't everyone have the same financial discipline whether they are in work or not? I adopted my two kids but we could not afford any more. People on Benefits should have that same limitation.

As for the rape scenario you describe that addresses an obvious, exceptional and tragic situation that has been dealt with appropriately. Like all Lefties you raise the exception to criticise the whole policy....

I just want to second this since its being ignored by the OP.

It's hardly good for the country when stupid people out breed the rest of us because the laws of economics don't need to apply to them.

Have to say I totally agree with you. If someone is on benefits they should not be entitled to sny additional money for any child conceived after the date they started claiming.

This country has been breeding scroungers for years and its about time it was addressed.

At least 3 of is agree so we can stand united when the PC crowd appear and blame us for creating child poverty (which is either an oxymoron or a truism, I can't decide) or provide an anecdotal example of a jolly nice person they know on benefits

When did this become a benefits thread?

There should be and must be a safety net.

But paying someone just because they have brought a child into the world? I don't understand it.

Who said there shouldn't be a safety net? All we are saying is that the safety net should not absolve people from the financial responsibility that people not using it have to abide by. "

"Financial responsibility" is a requisite of living. No one is absolved from it (bar Mr Philip Green).

Whether or not child benefit is a reasonable idea is beyond that.

Currently, it is paid whether you are rich (unless you have a mega household income) or poor.

Sure, I don't want to see child poverty. But I have no idea why families with a reasonable income see it as their right.

Hey, if I decide to adopt a Blue Cross dog, that is my choice and I do not get a subsidy. If I decide to construct a Hornby railway, no one pays me for it.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Under westminster plans child benefit will only be payable two the first 2 children unless subsequent babies are the product of rape, mothers will have to prove to the dwp that they were raped. good grief, it looks like the depths of evil that tory run westminster is happy to sink to knows no bounds "

I think this is a reasonable decision, people who plan to have kids should have a means to support them

but

mistakes do happen so its fair enough that if a pregnancy goes past the termination date its fair enough persons get support

once yes, twice well???

but 3 times absolutely not

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Under westminster plans child benefit will only be payable two the first 2 children unless subsequent babies are the product of rape, mothers will have to prove to the dwp that they were raped. good grief, it looks like the depths of evil that tory run westminster is happy to sink to knows no bounds

And you believe in the idea that people on Benefits should just knock out kids as they choose because taxpayers like me fund their lifestyle? Why shouldn't everyone have the same financial discipline whether they are in work or not? I adopted my two kids but we could not afford any more. People on Benefits should have that same limitation.

As for the rape scenario you describe that addresses an obvious, exceptional and tragic situation that has been dealt with appropriately. Like all Lefties you raise the exception to criticise the whole policy....

I just want to second this since its being ignored by the OP.

It's hardly good for the country when stupid people out breed the rest of us because the laws of economics don't need to apply to them.

Have to say I totally agree with you. If someone is on benefits they should not be entitled to sny additional money for any child conceived after the date they started claiming.

This country has been breeding scroungers for years and its about time it was addressed.

At least 3 of is agree so we can stand united when the PC crowd appear and blame us for creating child poverty (which is either an oxymoron or a truism, I can't decide) or provide an anecdotal example of a jolly nice person they know on benefits

When did this become a benefits thread?

There should be and must be a safety net.

But paying someone just because they have brought a child into the world? I don't understand it.

Who said there shouldn't be a safety net? All we are saying is that the safety net should not absolve people from the financial responsibility that people not using it have to abide by.

"Financial responsibility" is a requisite of living. No one is absolved from it (bar Mr Philip Green).

Whether or not child benefit is a reasonable idea is beyond that.

Currently, it is paid whether you are rich (unless you have a mega household income) or poor.

Sure, I don't want to see child poverty. But I have no idea why families with a reasonable income see it as their right.

Hey, if I decide to adopt a Blue Cross dog, that is my choice and I do not get a subsidy. If I decide to construct a Hornby railway, no one pays me for it."

When we create laws, there's no time stamp on them.

In other words, we might have a problem one day, but we never say "here's a law to deal with it and in 15 years the law should have dealt with the problem so it expires then, unless we vote to renew it. That way there won't be any unintended consequences".

Because of that, our laws and policies are some horrible mish mash of past problem solving and child tax benefit is a legacy of days when we felt a need to encourage couples to have children. I agree it's obsolete even though I stand to gain from it.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Under westminster plans child benefit will only be payable two the first 2 children unless subsequent babies are the product of rape, mothers will have to prove to the dwp that they were raped. good grief, it looks like the depths of evil that tory run westminster is happy to sink to knows no bounds

And you believe in the idea that people on Benefits should just knock out kids as they choose because taxpayers like me fund their lifestyle? Why shouldn't everyone have the same financial discipline whether they are in work or not? I adopted my two kids but we could not afford any more. People on Benefits should have that same limitation.

As for the rape scenario you describe that addresses an obvious, exceptional and tragic situation that has been dealt with appropriately. Like all Lefties you raise the exception to criticise the whole policy....

I just want to second this since its being ignored by the OP.

It's hardly good for the country when stupid people out breed the rest of us because the laws of economics don't need to apply to them.

Have to say I totally agree with you. If someone is on benefits they should not be entitled to sny additional money for any child conceived after the date they started claiming.

This country has been breeding scroungers for years and its about time it was addressed.

At least 3 of is agree so we can stand united when the PC crowd appear and blame us for creating child poverty (which is either an oxymoron or a truism, I can't decide) or provide an anecdotal example of a jolly nice person they know on benefits

When did this become a benefits thread?

There should be and must be a safety net.

But paying someone just because they have brought a child into the world? I don't understand it.

Who said there shouldn't be a safety net? All we are saying is that the safety net should not absolve people from the financial responsibility that people not using it have to abide by.

"Financial responsibility" is a requisite of living. No one is absolved from it (bar Mr Philip Green).

Whether or not child benefit is a reasonable idea is beyond that.

Currently, it is paid whether you are rich (unless you have a mega household income) or poor.

Sure, I don't want to see child poverty. But I have no idea why families with a reasonable income see it as their right.

Hey, if I decide to adopt a Blue Cross dog, that is my choice and I do not get a subsidy. If I decide to construct a Hornby railway, no one pays me for it.

When we create laws, there's no time stamp on them.

In other words, we might have a problem one day, but we never say "here's a law to deal with it and in 15 years the law should have dealt with the problem so it expires then, unless we vote to renew it. That way there won't be any unintended consequences".

Because of that, our laws and policies are some horrible mish mash of past problem solving and child tax benefit is a legacy of days when we felt a need to encourage couples to have children. I agree it's obsolete even though I stand to gain from it. "

That is the way laws work. No one has foresight, I am afraid.

When a law is out of date, then it is time to review it and change it.

In the case of child benefit, I can't see any party being brave enough. It would be political suicide. The Tories at least introduced a cut off, but no great shakes there.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Under westminster plans child benefit will only be payable two the first 2 children unless subsequent babies are the product of rape, mothers will have to prove to the dwp that they were raped. good grief, it looks like the depths of evil that tory run westminster is happy to sink to knows no bounds

And you believe in the idea that people on Benefits should just knock out kids as they choose because taxpayers like me fund their lifestyle? Why shouldn't everyone have the same financial discipline whether they are in work or not? I adopted my two kids but we could not afford any more. People on Benefits should have that same limitation.

As for the rape scenario you describe that addresses an obvious, exceptional and tragic situation that has been dealt with appropriately. Like all Lefties you raise the exception to criticise the whole policy....

I just want to second this since its being ignored by the OP.

It's hardly good for the country when stupid people out breed the rest of us because the laws of economics don't need to apply to them.

Have to say I totally agree with you. If someone is on benefits they should not be entitled to sny additional money for any child conceived after the date they started claiming.

This country has been breeding scroungers for years and its about time it was addressed.

At least 3 of is agree so we can stand united when the PC crowd appear and blame us for creating child poverty (which is either an oxymoron or a truism, I can't decide) or provide an anecdotal example of a jolly nice person they know on benefits

When did this become a benefits thread?

There should be and must be a safety net.

But paying someone just because they have brought a child into the world? I don't understand it.

Who said there shouldn't be a safety net? All we are saying is that the safety net should not absolve people from the financial responsibility that people not using it have to abide by.

"Financial responsibility" is a requisite of living. No one is absolved from it (bar Mr Philip Green).

Whether or not child benefit is a reasonable idea is beyond that.

Currently, it is paid whether you are rich (unless you have a mega household income) or poor.

Sure, I don't want to see child poverty. But I have no idea why families with a reasonable income see it as their right.

Hey, if I decide to adopt a Blue Cross dog, that is my choice and I do not get a subsidy. If I decide to construct a Hornby railway, no one pays me for it.

When we create laws, there's no time stamp on them.

In other words, we might have a problem one day, but we never say "here's a law to deal with it and in 15 years the law should have dealt with the problem so it expires then, unless we vote to renew it. That way there won't be any unintended consequences".

Because of that, our laws and policies are some horrible mish mash of past problem solving and child tax benefit is a legacy of days when we felt a need to encourage couples to have children. I agree it's obsolete even though I stand to gain from it.

That is the way laws work. No one has foresight, I am afraid.

When a law is out of date, then it is time to review it and change it.

In the case of child benefit, I can't see any party being brave enough. It would be political suicide. The Tories at least introduced a cut off, but no great shakes there."

Some states in America have started introduced time limits on laws. It's easy enough to extend the limits but at least it forces the question "do we still need this"

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

It's not really obsolete though. There are a number of European countries who are going to be facing serious trouble in future because their birthrate is too low and has been for awhile.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Under westminster plans child benefit will only be payable two the first 2 children unless subsequent babies are the product of rape, mothers will have to prove to the dwp that they were raped. good grief, it looks like the depths of evil that tory run westminster is happy to sink to knows no bounds

And you believe in the idea that people on Benefits should just knock out kids as they choose because taxpayers like me fund their lifestyle? Why shouldn't everyone have the same financial discipline whether they are in work or not? I adopted my two kids but we could not afford any more. People on Benefits should have that same limitation.

As for the rape scenario you describe that addresses an obvious, exceptional and tragic situation that has been dealt with appropriately. Like all Lefties you raise the exception to criticise the whole policy....

I just want to second this since its being ignored by the OP.

It's hardly good for the country when stupid people out breed the rest of us because the laws of economics don't need to apply to them. "

Brilliant post

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"The only part of Child Benefit (which has a place in assisting less well paid workers) that I object to is the £ Millions we send abroad to people living in Eastern EU countries because the parents of those children had the bright idea to give birth in the UK and then ship back home ....

Another reason I voted for Brexit. Cue abuse ... "

You voted Brexit so should be used to abuse!

Happens I agree with you 100%.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

This is something I actually disagree with labour and other 'leftie' parties on. We do need these limitations currently. Emphasis on currently.

It's not like the Tories have said, no child benefit for anyone, or you must ear a certain amount in order to be entitled to a child.

So long as child benefit is not undercut and strictly regulated then child benefit is a good way of helping to temporarily steady our population growth.

My only concern is that we are currently heading to a population demographic with more old retired people than young tax payers on good salaries, so it'll be interesting to see how this effects it.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"This is something I actually disagree with labour and other 'leftie' parties on. We do need these limitations currently. Emphasis on currently.

It's not like the Tories have said, no child benefit for anyone, or you must ear a certain amount in order to be entitled to a child.

So long as child benefit is not undercut and strictly regulated then child benefit is a good way of helping to temporarily steady our population growth.

My only concern is that we are currently heading to a population demographic with more old retired people than young tax payers on good salaries, so it'll be interesting to see how this effects it."

Of course you know what the obvious solution to demographic problems is...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"This is something I actually disagree with labour and other 'leftie' parties on. We do need these limitations currently. Emphasis on currently.

It's not like the Tories have said, no child benefit for anyone, or you must ear a certain amount in order to be entitled to a child.

So long as child benefit is not undercut and strictly regulated then child benefit is a good way of helping to temporarily steady our population growth.

My only concern is that we are currently heading to a population demographic with more old retired people than young tax payers on good salaries, so it'll be interesting to see how this effects it.

Of course you know what the obvious solution to demographic problems is... "

Well the easy option is immigration - but as we have learnt there will always be some reluctance to that in this country.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"This is something I actually disagree with labour and other 'leftie' parties on. We do need these limitations currently. Emphasis on currently.

It's not like the Tories have said, no child benefit for anyone, or you must ear a certain amount in order to be entitled to a child.

So long as child benefit is not undercut and strictly regulated then child benefit is a good way of helping to temporarily steady our population growth.

My only concern is that we are currently heading to a population demographic with more old retired people than young tax payers on good salaries, so it'll be interesting to see how this effects it.

Of course you know what the obvious solution to demographic problems is...

Well the easy option is immigration - but as we have learnt there will always be some reluctance to that in this country."

Or stop this pesky doctors and scientists from discovering all the new cures for things that use to kill us off thereby keeping the natural balance

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"This is something I actually disagree with labour and other 'leftie' parties on. We do need these limitations currently. Emphasis on currently.

It's not like the Tories have said, no child benefit for anyone, or you must ear a certain amount in order to be entitled to a child.

So long as child benefit is not undercut and strictly regulated then child benefit is a good way of helping to temporarily steady our population growth.

My only concern is that we are currently heading to a population demographic with more old retired people than young tax payers on good salaries, so it'll be interesting to see how this effects it.

Of course you know what the obvious solution to demographic problems is...

Well the easy option is immigration - but as we have learnt there will always be some reluctance to that in this country.

Or stop this pesky doctors and scientists from discovering all the new cures for things that use to kill us off thereby keeping the natural balance "

We need a long summer heatwave and exceptionally cold winter. That will do the trick

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"This is something I actually disagree with labour and other 'leftie' parties on. We do need these limitations currently. Emphasis on currently.

It's not like the Tories have said, no child benefit for anyone, or you must ear a certain amount in order to be entitled to a child.

So long as child benefit is not undercut and strictly regulated then child benefit is a good way of helping to temporarily steady our population growth.

My only concern is that we are currently heading to a population demographic with more old retired people than young tax payers on good salaries, so it'll be interesting to see how this effects it.

Of course you know what the obvious solution to demographic problems is...

Well the easy option is immigration - but as we have learnt there will always be some reluctance to that in this country.

Or stop this pesky doctors and scientists from discovering all the new cures for things that use to kill us off thereby keeping the natural balance

We need a long summer heatwave and exceptionally cold winter. That will do the trick "

I was thinking of legalising euthanasia and removing all inheritance tax but I guess immigration could work too

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *at69driveMan
over a year ago

Hertford


"Under westminster plans child benefit will only be payable two the first 2 children unless subsequent babies are the product of rape, mothers will have to prove to the dwp that they were raped. good grief, it looks like the depths of evil that tory run westminster is happy to sink to knows no bounds "
As we are paying out tax payers money it is good to see the government taking a responsible attitude towards how the funds are used. An excellent idea.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *at69driveMan
over a year ago

Hertford


"Sorry to be controversial.

I don't understand the concept of child benefit at all.

It was introduced after the war to encourage people to have children.

We have more than enough children now.

I have no idea why non-child bearers should be asked to contribute to those who decide to bear children. They would do it anyway..

Amen!.

I wouldn't pay child benefit out, full stop

i bet your mum was in receipt of child benefit , going to pay it all back as you dont believe in it ? "
Why would he pay it back.? She was legally entitled to it .

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Sorry to be controversial.

I don't understand the concept of child benefit at all.

It was introduced after the war to encourage people to have children.

We have more than enough children now.

I have no idea why non-child bearers should be asked to contribute to those who decide to bear children. They would do it anyway."

Surely it's all about balance as in I agree with tube first 2 children idea as it would stop the self styled baby farmers who just churn out kids because they don't care.

But when you actually work out the cost of bringing up children most people would have to give up on having any and then give it 10 - 20 years you start to see a problem with not enough being born to come behind and support the system.

China may be quite a brutal country but at least they see the gal e of some kind of control as in how they pay out money for people to only have a wet amount of children to try and keep the balance

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *oorland2Couple
over a year ago

Stoke


"The only part of Child Benefit (which has a place in assisting less well paid workers) that I object to is the £ Millions we send abroad to people living in Eastern EU countries because the parents of those children had the bright idea to give birth in the UK and then ship back home ....

Another reason I voted for Brexit. Cue abuse ... "
.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Sorry to be controversial.

I don't understand the concept of child benefit at all.

It was introduced after the war to encourage people to have children.

We have more than enough children now.

I have no idea why non-child bearers should be asked to contribute to those who decide to bear children. They would do it anyway.

Surely it's all about balance as in I agree with tube first 2 children idea as it would stop the self styled baby farmers who just churn out kids because they don't care.

But when you actually work out the cost of bringing up children most people would have to give up on having any and then give it 10 - 20 years you start to see a problem with not enough being born to come behind and support the system.

China may be quite a brutal country but at least they see the gal e of some kind of control as in how they pay out money for people to only have a wet amount of children to try and keep the balance "

Really;

you should check out the hundreds of orphanages

the overwhelming majority of China’s orphans suffer disabilities.

A decade ago, China’s orphanages were filled with healthy girls, a situation that reflected a national one-child policy. Now that's gone and still a cultural preference for boys. Now Chinese authorities estimate that fully 98 per cent of abandoned children have disabilities.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *iamondjoeMan
over a year ago

Glastonbury

Another staggering monument to stupidity.

This misunderstands the reason why Child Benefit was introduced, it misunderstands how CB works and it also manages to assume that (feckless) people would actually go to the trouble of dropping another baby for the sake of an extra £704 p/yr.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Another staggering monument to stupidity.

This misunderstands the reason why Child Benefit was introduced, it misunderstands how CB works and it also manages to assume that (feckless) people would actually go to the trouble of dropping another baby for the sake of an extra £704 p/yr.

"

It was introduced after the war to encourage and support the production of children.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Another staggering monument to stupidity.

This misunderstands the reason why Child Benefit was introduced, it misunderstands how CB works and it also manages to assume that (feckless) people would actually go to the trouble of dropping another baby for the sake of an extra £704 p/yr.

It was introduced after the war to encourage and support the production of children."
.

And it worked pretty well with the baby boom generation.

However we no longer need errr more kids, I'm all in favour of slowly bringing it down to zero

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *awandOrderCouple
over a year ago

SW London

Haven't read all of the thread. I have brought up three kids on my own, didn't claim housing or any other benefit, have a professional career, but live in an expensive part of the country. As child benefit isn't means tested, I got it. I only get it for my daughter now as one boy is at uni and the other a professional sportsman. The fifty pound a week I got for them meant I could compete in the consumerist market that kids are part of to get them the things they needed .... spikes, football books, kits, without having to beg the club etc for money, help fund travel costs etc. I work hard (sixty plus hours a week)for every penny I get, dont drink or smoke, didn't go out for seven years when they were young. I pay way way more in taxes each month than I get back .... why begrudge that when my kids are growing up to be the productive members of society who will be paying for all of us through their taxes. I have seen and worked with so many poor families for whom child benefit helps them keep their head above water, for the sake of their children. there is more than enough money to go around, if the super rich paid their taxes or gave something back. Proud to say that my son who now has disposable income has already set up a foundation to help gifted athletes who cannot afford to pursue their sport.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"This is something I actually disagree with labour and other 'leftie' parties on. We do need these limitations currently. Emphasis on currently.

It's not like the Tories have said, no child benefit for anyone, or you must ear a certain amount in order to be entitled to a child.

So long as child benefit is not undercut and strictly regulated then child benefit is a good way of helping to temporarily steady our population growth.

My only concern is that we are currently heading to a population demographic with more old retired people than young tax payers on good salaries, so it'll be interesting to see how this effects it.

Of course you know what the obvious solution to demographic problems is...

Well the easy option is immigration - but as we have learnt there will always be some reluctance to that in this country."

Can someone explain how immigration solves the problem of having high numbers of older people then??

What happens when the immigrants get old themselves?? "Import" more? And more? To look after them. Or send them all home?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"This is something I actually disagree with labour and other 'leftie' parties on. We do need these limitations currently. Emphasis on currently.

It's not like the Tories have said, no child benefit for anyone, or you must ear a certain amount in order to be entitled to a child.

So long as child benefit is not undercut and strictly regulated then child benefit is a good way of helping to temporarily steady our population growth.

My only concern is that we are currently heading to a population demographic with more old retired people than young tax payers on good salaries, so it'll be interesting to see how this effects it.

Of course you know what the obvious solution to demographic problems is...

Well the easy option is immigration - but as we have learnt there will always be some reluctance to that in this country.

Can someone explain how immigration solves the problem of having high numbers of older people then??

What happens when the immigrants get old themselves?? "Import" more? And more? To look after them. Or send them all home?"

It's like a pyramid scheme basically. You don't even want to start thinking about how catastrophic it'll be when the world population starts to decline.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"This is something I actually disagree with labour and other 'leftie' parties on. We do need these limitations currently. Emphasis on currently.

It's not like the Tories have said, no child benefit for anyone, or you must ear a certain amount in order to be entitled to a child.

So long as child benefit is not undercut and strictly regulated then child benefit is a good way of helping to temporarily steady our population growth.

My only concern is that we are currently heading to a population demographic with more old retired people than young tax payers on good salaries, so it'll be interesting to see how this effects it.

Of course you know what the obvious solution to demographic problems is...

Well the easy option is immigration - but as we have learnt there will always be some reluctance to that in this country.

Can someone explain how immigration solves the problem of having high numbers of older people then??

What happens when the immigrants get old themselves?? "Import" more? And more? To look after them. Or send them all home?

It's like a pyramid scheme basically. You don't even want to start thinking about how catastrophic it'll be when the world population starts to decline. "

Equally as catastrophic as the world population growing unchecked I would guess?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"This is something I actually disagree with labour and other 'leftie' parties on. We do need these limitations currently. Emphasis on currently.

It's not like the Tories have said, no child benefit for anyone, or you must ear a certain amount in order to be entitled to a child.

So long as child benefit is not undercut and strictly regulated then child benefit is a good way of helping to temporarily steady our population growth.

My only concern is that we are currently heading to a population demographic with more old retired people than young tax payers on good salaries, so it'll be interesting to see how this effects it.

Of course you know what the obvious solution to demographic problems is...

Well the easy option is immigration - but as we have learnt there will always be some reluctance to that in this country.

Can someone explain how immigration solves the problem of having high numbers of older people then??

What happens when the immigrants get old themselves?? "Import" more? And more? To look after them. Or send them all home?

It's like a pyramid scheme basically. You don't even want to start thinking about how catastrophic it'll be when the world population starts to decline.

Equally as catastrophic as the world population growing unchecked I would guess?"

Nope. Are you familiar with Thomas Malthus?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"This is something I actually disagree with labour and other 'leftie' parties on. We do need these limitations currently. Emphasis on currently.

It's not like the Tories have said, no child benefit for anyone, or you must ear a certain amount in order to be entitled to a child.

So long as child benefit is not undercut and strictly regulated then child benefit is a good way of helping to temporarily steady our population growth.

My only concern is that we are currently heading to a population demographic with more old retired people than young tax payers on good salaries, so it'll be interesting to see how this effects it.

Of course you know what the obvious solution to demographic problems is...

Well the easy option is immigration - but as we have learnt there will always be some reluctance to that in this country.

Can someone explain how immigration solves the problem of having high numbers of older people then??

What happens when the immigrants get old themselves?? "Import" more? And more? To look after them. Or send them all home?

It's like a pyramid scheme basically. You don't even want to start thinking about how catastrophic it'll be when the world population starts to decline.

Equally as catastrophic as the world population growing unchecked I would guess?

Nope. Are you familiar with Thomas Malthus? "

No. Are you going to educate me?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"This is something I actually disagree with labour and other 'leftie' parties on. We do need these limitations currently. Emphasis on currently.

It's not like the Tories have said, no child benefit for anyone, or you must ear a certain amount in order to be entitled to a child.

So long as child benefit is not undercut and strictly regulated then child benefit is a good way of helping to temporarily steady our population growth.

My only concern is that we are currently heading to a population demographic with more old retired people than young tax payers on good salaries, so it'll be interesting to see how this effects it.

Of course you know what the obvious solution to demographic problems is...

Well the easy option is immigration - but as we have learnt there will always be some reluctance to that in this country.

Can someone explain how immigration solves the problem of having high numbers of older people then??

What happens when the immigrants get old themselves?? "Import" more? And more? To look after them. Or send them all home?

It's like a pyramid scheme basically. You don't even want to start thinking about how catastrophic it'll be when the world population starts to decline.

Equally as catastrophic as the world population growing unchecked I would guess?

Nope. Are you familiar with Thomas Malthus?

No. Are you going to educate me?"

Would you like to know why I think he's relevant to the discussion?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"This is something I actually disagree with labour and other 'leftie' parties on. We do need these limitations currently. Emphasis on currently.

It's not like the Tories have said, no child benefit for anyone, or you must ear a certain amount in order to be entitled to a child.

So long as child benefit is not undercut and strictly regulated then child benefit is a good way of helping to temporarily steady our population growth.

My only concern is that we are currently heading to a population demographic with more old retired people than young tax payers on good salaries, so it'll be interesting to see how this effects it.

Of course you know what the obvious solution to demographic problems is...

Well the easy option is immigration - but as we have learnt there will always be some reluctance to that in this country.

Can someone explain how immigration solves the problem of having high numbers of older people then??

What happens when the immigrants get old themselves?? "Import" more? And more? To look after them. Or send them all home?

It's like a pyramid scheme basically. You don't even want to start thinking about how catastrophic it'll be when the world population starts to decline.

Equally as catastrophic as the world population growing unchecked I would guess?

Nope. Are you familiar with Thomas Malthus?

No. Are you going to educate me?

Would you like to know why I think he's relevant to the discussion? "

Why not?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

Can someone explain how immigration solves the problem of having high numbers of older people then??

What happens when the immigrants get old themselves?? "Import" more? And more? To look after them. Or send them all home?

It's like a pyramid scheme basically. You don't even want to start thinking about how catastrophic it'll be when the world population starts to decline.

Equally as catastrophic as the world population growing unchecked I would guess?

Nope. Are you familiar with Thomas Malthus?

No. Are you going to educate me?

Would you like to know why I think he's relevant to the discussion?

Why not? "

He is famous for writing about his concerns that the population was heading for disaster because we wouldn't be able to produce enough food to feed everyone.

His writing reflects many of the intuitive fears that people still have today about over population. His book was very logical and hard to fault.

However, he was completely wrong. He published in 1798 before world population even hit 1bn. The reason he was wrong is a counter intuitive logic, that as the population increases, the number of people capable of making innovative breakthroughs in technology increases.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

China did not get it right at all. When the one child policy was in place thousands upon thousands of baby girls were dumped on the streets and in orphanages as if the families could only have one child it was better for them economically to have a boy

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

Can someone explain how immigration solves the problem of having high numbers of older people then??

What happens when the immigrants get old themselves?? "Import" more? And more? To look after them. Or send them all home?

It's like a pyramid scheme basically. You don't even want to start thinking about how catastrophic it'll be when the world population starts to decline.

Equally as catastrophic as the world population growing unchecked I would guess?

Nope. Are you familiar with Thomas Malthus?

No. Are you going to educate me?

Would you like to know why I think he's relevant to the discussion?

Why not?

He is famous for writing about his concerns that the population was heading for disaster because we wouldn't be able to produce enough food to feed everyone.

His writing reflects many of the intuitive fears that people still have today about over population. His book was very logical and hard to fault.

However, he was completely wrong. He published in 1798 before world population even hit 1bn. The reason he was wrong is a counter intuitive logic, that as the population increases, the number of people capable of making innovative breakthroughs in technology increases. "

Maybe not completely wrong?

Re the food issue. Yes technology has brought us many things to make growing and producing food more efficient. But we dont yet know the effect that some of that technology may have. For example, pesticides have been developed to reduce pests eating crops. But that is also killing bees. Which are needed to pollinate crops. Perhaps technology may provide a solution to this before the bees become extinct and food crops fail? Or we could look at GM technology. Who knows what effect that will have? Or producing meat and the increase in levels of methane,contributing to warming of the atmosphere.

Maybe you are right. Maybe Malthus is?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"China did not get it right at all. When the one child policy was in place thousands upon thousands of baby girls were dumped on the streets and in orphanages as if the families could only have one child it was better for them economically to have a boy "

That's not entirely true.

If you are from the countryside then there's a strong possibility you won't be able to care for your child because there are no jobs in the countryside and the Government has an explicit policy to try and move countryside people to the cities.

However, if a worker moves from the country to the city, they typically rely on company provided accommodation which doesn't allow for children. So most migrant workers have no real option but to leave their children with their grandparents and send money home to them. But if the grandparents are dead or ill then there's just not much choice other than giving your children up. There is no welfare. It's that or starve to death. Don't believe everything the BBC tells you.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

Can someone explain how immigration solves the problem of having high numbers of older people then??

What happens when the immigrants get old themselves?? "Import" more? And more? To look after them. Or send them all home?

It's like a pyramid scheme basically. You don't even want to start thinking about how catastrophic it'll be when the world population starts to decline.

Equally as catastrophic as the world population growing unchecked I would guess?

Nope. Are you familiar with Thomas Malthus?

No. Are you going to educate me?

Would you like to know why I think he's relevant to the discussion?

Why not?

He is famous for writing about his concerns that the population was heading for disaster because we wouldn't be able to produce enough food to feed everyone.

His writing reflects many of the intuitive fears that people still have today about over population. His book was very logical and hard to fault.

However, he was completely wrong. He published in 1798 before world population even hit 1bn. The reason he was wrong is a counter intuitive logic, that as the population increases, the number of people capable of making innovative breakthroughs in technology increases.

Maybe not completely wrong?

Re the food issue. Yes technology has brought us many things to make growing and producing food more efficient. But we dont yet know the effect that some of that technology may have. For example, pesticides have been developed to reduce pests eating crops. But that is also killing bees. Which are needed to pollinate crops. Perhaps technology may provide a solution to this before the bees become extinct and food crops fail? Or we could look at GM technology. Who knows what effect that will have? Or producing meat and the increase in levels of methane,contributing to warming of the atmosphere.

Maybe you are right. Maybe Malthus is?"

The problem sort of solves itself in the long run. Rich countries have birth rates below 2 children. The world's population is only growing because of poorer countries birth rates. Get India, Africa and Latin America off the breadline, the way China has, and the problem will solve itself.

Then you have a new problem that our entire economic system relies on a growing world population!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Under westminster plans child benefit will only be payable two the first 2 children unless subsequent babies are the product of rape, mothers will have to prove to the dwp that they were raped. good grief, it looks like the depths of evil that tory run westminster is happy to sink to knows no bounds "

Should not pay child benefit full stop unless you can prove poverty

Why have a child if you cannot support it

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *anes HubbyCouple
over a year ago

Babbacombe Torquay

It was a 'thought' since dropped by the government, as it could only apply to children born after any change implemented.

And I believe it should be means tested.....

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Would it be radical to suggest that if you decide to have a child, you should support it?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ary_JosephCouple
over a year ago

South Shields


"Would it be radical to suggest that if you decide to have a child, you should support it?"

My God, that sounds so radical. You'll be accused of being a Tory next.....

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Would it be radical to suggest that if you decide to have a child, you should support it?

My God, that sounds so radical. You'll be accused of being a Tory next....."

Strangely, I have left wing tendencies.

I just can't really understand why child benefit exists.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *anes HubbyCouple
over a year ago

Babbacombe Torquay

Long before Child Tax Credits and their like it was brought in to help the poorest of families, back in the days when it wasn't unusual for families to have four or five children....

It wasn't means tested back then for the same reason many modern benefits like pensioners TV licences, and winter heating allowance are also not means tested....the lack of political will to dare means test in fear of alienating the middle classes.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *anes HubbyCouple
over a year ago

Babbacombe Torquay

It was only recently that a government dared to change this and means test it, but the cut off point is still way too high

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Long before Child Tax Credits and their like it was brought in to help the poorest of families, back in the days when it wasn't unusual for families to have four or five children....

It wasn't means tested back then for the same reason many modern benefits like pensioners TV licences, and winter heating allowance are also not means tested....the lack of political will to dare means test in fear of alienating the middle classes."

It was brought in to encourage the repopulation of the country after the war. I think that goal has long since been achieved.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By *at69driveMan
over a year ago

Hertford


"It was only recently that a government dared to change this and means test it, but the cut off point is still way too high"
The trouble with means testing is that it discriminates against the financially responsible . We should keep things simple and only pay it for the first two children.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top