Should the tax and benefits system prioritise families? poll discussion

chardir

robpw2 wrote: »

none of these offer the oppurtunities for cant have children

i personaly cannot have children just because you cant have doesnt mean that you dont plan on having

I don't see how the poll excludes you? You don't have children and either plan on having them or don't, so any of options E to H are valid.

My opinion is that families should be prioritised but not to the extent that people see having children as a way to get more money from the state.

dronid

I will say that I also am not in a position to have children, not having a womb (which is no-ones fault – not even the Romans:D ) but I do defend my right to want to have children!

Seriously though as a gay man I am in a position where I have to support families in a way that didn’t exist when I grew up. My mother worked even though she didn’t make as much as she would have on benefits. When she raised that with a rather unhelpful benefits officer she was told rather snootily “I don’t think that’s the point”! As long as wages for work do not allow the people doing them the opportunity to reach the breadline the state will have to top up income.

I recognise that, with a better start, like further education, children should end up in better paid or vocational jobs which help support society through taxes or the very nature of their jobs. I’m just not sure the current benefits set up ensures that children and families end up with the money spent effectively. There are a lot of people (particularly on here) who end up doing astonishing things with what they get but there are a good few people who do blow the money on oven chips and takeaways and ensure that their children become little clones of their parents.

Comments like the Nanny State are not helpful generally as we don’t ‘nanny’ some people enough. Until home economics actually is the economics of the home, managing life and compulsory we’ll never reach a good proportion of the population.

I would like to have children but can’t. I agree with supporting those who need support but I don’t agree with supporting those who just go limp and expect everything to be sorted for them and then gripe that the support is not enough. People need to manage their lives rather than expect to whine until they get the treatment they want.

Gosh, that was a hot button wasn’t it!

“Why do you want to be called Loretta, Stan?”

“Because I want to have babies.”

“But you can’t have babies”

“Don’t you oppress me!”

(Monty Python – Life of Brian)

JimmyTheWig

Have voted A, but I'm not sure that "prioritised" is the right word.
Basically, I believe that looking after children is a form of work. Bloomin' hard work at times. And it is that work that I think should be renumerated. The only way to do that is via the tax and benefits system - hence my answer in the poll.

JimmyTheWig

robpw2 wrote: »

i personaly cannot have children just because you cant have doesnt mean that you dont plan on having

Can you not adopt?

dronid

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

Can you not adopt?

Do you know, that's an interesting question. I don't know the requirements for adoption and whether you have to be in a financially stable situation to adopt or if you'd have to resign to take care of the kids and then be on benefits (where we live one income would leave us very tight).

Also, not to denigrate adoption in any way,:o I'd rather like my child/ren to be a decendant of me. Under the circumstances that isn't possible.

And, how can I put it? I might apply for adoption, but it doesn't mean I would get one. For us there is no 'right' to have a child whereas there are plenty of people having several children children and then getting state support as though that was their right. Family breakdown situations I can understand and support but just having children again and again with no regard does rather grate.

ceridwen

The argument that its hard work to have children and therefore should receive financial help is a total non-starter. I totally acknowledge that it is hard work to have children - but no-one forces people to do so - they do so because they want to.

Its also hard work to do a thankless poorly-paid job.

Its also hard work to do voluntary work.

People are responsible for their own choices in life and the choice to have children shouldnt be paid for by other people. It would be all well and good to subsidise people having children if we ALL did so - then it would be a case of "swings and roundabouts" - pay out at one stage in our life and get back at another stage in our life. As it is - many people dont have children (for whatever reason) and are therefore subsidising those who chose to have children.

The State subsidising people having children made sense back when we didnt have control over these things - with the best will in the world accidents used to happen. But we have now had the contraceptive Pill and legalised abortion for literally decades - so it no longer makes sense for the State to subsidise childbearing any longer (quite apart from the fact that we live in an overpopulated country in an overpopulated world) - as no-one has to bring up a child they didnt want any more.

robpw2

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

Can you not adopt?

yes i could go throught the process for adoption ,
this could take years and paper work filling and checks and more checks then finding the right child.

yet if i was a straight lad i could get a child in one night by not using protection and hey presto 9 months later we have a kid,
NO CHECKS done on my suitability or any forms etc NO one even checks if its the right child for me

Coveredinbees!!!!

I voted H but if I do happen to have a child I'll change that to A thanks

76rosie

it is a nice idea to have little ones. But we need to appreciate the personal and financial responsiblity of the individual. How can the little money the state might give be enough. You have to do for yourself. Housing, education food and their futures must be paid by you for the next 18 years plus. Anything less and you'd be letting your offspring down and that might not be pretty!!! I'm saving for my own place and a secure career before I even think about it!!

scaty

Well, for my 2 penny worth - had the children and they were my priority. ONLY TROUBLE IS THEIR CHILDREN are becoming my priority. As I now am the only adult they can turn to in (every ) time of need I would like the term family to include grand parents when it comes to any tax breaks -fat chance I know.

yes it was my choice, yes I should have known better but some times people just don't take advice.

As to the poll - the wording can be seen as directing towards certain outcomes - for /against helping "familes". I

t can be difficult to 'slot' conveniently into some sections. I quite dislike being put in a box anyway - Once had the cenus people knock on my door as I had ticked the white carribean box as ethnic origin, well it has to be done, doen't it. I try to encourage my students not to be boxed - and think beyond the the constraint forms in life.

Good debate though