Migrants to UK 'returning home'

Harry_Powell

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I thought it was agreed that there was a need for an increasing birthrate to counteract the ageing population

But this is just not sustainable. Do we keep increasing the population indefinitely?

I laugh when I see the paltry attempts to cut down on emissions or other initiatives to reduce global warming and the impact of mankind on the planet. Whatever we do is wiped out by unrestricted population growth. For example, no one can deny that modern cars are twice as energy efficient as those in the 70's, yet as we have three times as many of them on the road now than in the 70's, we've made zero progress. The only way to reduce our impact on the planet is to reduce population. Fact.

It's a disgrace that we are subsidising parents to increase population via childrens tax credits, child allowances and child trust funds. If people can't afford to have children, then they shouldn't have them. Why should the rest of us fund them?

IveSeenTheLight

Harry_Powell wrote: »

But this is just not sustainable. Do we keep increasing the population indefinitely?

I agree it's not sustainable, hence why I said a few posts back that through education and a change in the system future pensioners could maybe not be so dependent on the welfare state.

It may be wishful thinking, but I am sure that it could be done if addressed

IveSeenTheLight

Harry_Powell wrote: »

It's a disgrace that we are subsidising parents to increase population via childrens tax credits, child allowances and child trust funds. If people can't afford to have children, then she shouldn't have them. Why should the rest of us fund them?

I'm pro for the child trust fund.
While I agree that ideally people should consider being able to afford children as the saying goes, you'd never be able to afford them.

One benefit of the child trust fund is that it is a long term fund which becomes payable to the child on their 18th birthday.

For all financially disadvantaged families, this could ease the costs of further education and potentially reduce peoples student debts etc

Harry_Powell

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I'm pro for the child trust fund.
While I agree that ideally people should consider being able to afford children as the saying goes, you'd never be able to afford them.

One benefit of the child trust fund is that it is a long term fund which becomes payable to the child on their 18th birthday.

For all financially disadvantaged families, this could ease the costs of further education and potentially reduce peoples student debts etc

Our parents afforded us without too much help, and our grandparents afforded them with no help (and on and on). It seems each generation needs more and more money to help them raise children. It's no coincidence that each generation's children have received more and more toys and such. No wonder the poor old parents need my financial assistance. Little Timmy's Ipod doesn't grow on trees you know! :rolleyes:

(please note: the :rolleyes: smilie is part of the "grow on trees statement" and is not meant to be sarcastic against ISTL)

IveSeenTheLight

Harry_Powell wrote: »

Our parents afforded us without too much help, and our grandparents afforded them with no help (and on and on). It seems each generation needs more and more money to help them raise children. It's no coincidence that each generation's children have received more and more toys and such. No wonder the poor old parents need my financial assistance. Little Timmy's Ipod doesn't grow on trees you know! :rolleyes:

I'm not going to argue that there is a change in society of provifing for the children.
Of course previous generations had to make do with a lot less.

The child trust fund is not about getting little tommy an Ipod though, its about [STRIKE]providing[/STRIKE] ensuring that there is some sort of financial assistand for young adults as they prepare to start out in the real world.

Harry_Powell

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I'm not going to argue that there is a change in society of provifing for the children.
Of course previous generations had to make do with a lot less.

The child trust fund is not about getting little tommy an Ipod though, its about [STRIKE]providing[/STRIKE] ensuring that there is some sort of financial assistand for young adults as they prepare to start out in the real world.

I know it's only £500 quid from the tax man, with the rest made up by payments from the parents, grandparents, etc. but it all adds up and to be honest, why should I be expected to pay into it at all (as a tax payer). My generation didn't receive trust funds and didn't get uni grants but we managed. My student loan is immense but you don't hear me moaning... much!!

Why can't parents do without the £500 and just save for their kids themselves? Perhaps if they put away the money they would have spent on their kid's mobile phone contracts they'd be able to save a decent amount?

IveSeenTheLight

Harry_Powell wrote: »

Our parents afforded us without too much help, and our grandparents afforded them with no help (and on and on). It seems each generation needs more and more money to help them raise children. It's no coincidence that each generation's children have received more and more toys and such. No wonder the poor old parents need my financial assistance. Little Timmy's Ipod doesn't grow on trees you know! :rolleyes:

Just another point on previous generations children.
Keep going back in time, think about films you may have seen like Oliver.
There were many children back then who were utilised unsaviouraly.

Did you not read / hear about young children having to leave school and work?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_labour

During the Industrial Revolution, children as young as four were employed in production factories with dangerous, and often fatal, working conditions

I trust you would not consider a return to these previous generations times

Finally, do not think that these are resigned to days of old, I see many young children around South East Asia who are working to help their families get by. I also watched recently a programme about Romanian children forced into begging throughout Europe.

Yes children have never had it so good, but I do not think that there really should be an argument about trying to ensure that children get an oppertunity to have a good start in life

IveSeenTheLight

Harry_Powell wrote: »

I know it's only £500 quid from the tax man, with the rest made up by payments from the parents, grandparents, etc. but it all adds up and to be honest, why should I be expected to pay into it at all (as a tax payer). My generation didn't receive trust funds and didn't get uni grants but we managed. My student loan is immense but you don't hear me moaning... much!!

Why can't parents do without the £500 and just save for their kids themselves? Perhaps if they put away the money they would have spent on their kid's mobile phone contracts they'd be able to save a decent amount?

You keep bringing up things like Ipods and mobiles, but I do not see many newborns walking around with these. For many new parents, it is an extremely expensive time with a newborn (nappies, cream, baby milk etc etc etc), where it may not be possible to start the investment from day one

I'd rather pay into a child tax fund as a tax payer than all the other benefits that are paid out.

At least it's an investment for the future

Harry_Powell

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Just another point on previous generations children.
Keep going back in time, think about films you may have seen like Oliver.
There were many children back then who were utilised unsaviouraly.

Did you not read / hear about young children having to leave school and work?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_labour



I trust you would not consider a return to these previous generations times

Finally, do not think that these are resigned to days of old, I see many young children around South East Asia who are working to help their families get by. I also watched recently a programme about Romanian children forced into begging throughout Europe.

Yes children have never had it so good, but I do not think that there really should be an argument about trying to ensure that children get an oppertunity to have a good start in life

Do you really think that if we get rid of the child trust fund (which has only been going since 2002) and tax credits (going for a similar amount of time) that we'd end up with child slavery and a return to Dickensian times?

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

You keep bringing up things like Ipods and mobiles, but I do not see many newborns walking around with these. For many new parents, it is an extremely expensive time with a newborn (nappies, cream, baby milk etc etc etc), where it may not be possible to start the investment from day one

I'd rather pay into a child tax fund as a tax payer than all the other benefits that are paid out.

At least it's an investment for the future

The parent can pay into a trust fund once the child is older, much like some people cannot afford to pay into pensions when they first start work, but do once their finances allow.

As far as investing in the future, I'd rather target resources than use a blunderbuss approach. If we need teachers, Doctors, nurses, etc. then I'd rather subsidise university courses in these subjects than just give out cash to kids who can spend it on anything they like.

IveSeenTheLight

Harry_Powell wrote: »

Do you really think that if we get rid of the child trust fund (which has only been going since 2002) and tax credits (going for a similar amount of time) that we'd end up with child slavery and a return to Dickensian times?

No I don't, It was a response to my parent and their parent etc managed.
I was pointing out that it was not all rosy back in them days either, linked to the purpose of the child tax fund was to provide a financial benefit to the children when they get older and hence give them an oppertunity they may not have had otherwise.

It's an investment for the future, hopefully to reduce costs for the government later.

Harry_Powell wrote: »

The parent can pay into a trust fund once the child is older, much like some people cannot afford to pay into pensions when they first start work, but do once their finances allow.

They could, but then the investment would not have the oppertunity to grow over the longer period

Harry_Powell wrote: »

As far as investing in the future, I'd rather target resources than use a blunderbuss approach. If we need teachers, Doctors, nurses, etc. then I'd rather subsidise university courses in these subjects than just give out cash to kids who can spend it on anything they like.

Do you think investing £250 now and another £250 in seven years time would cost the governemt more than subsidising university courses?

I would have thought your method would cost the government and the taxpayer more