surely it is better to limit child benefit to 2 kids per family

The_White_Horse

Doctor_Gloom wrote: »

For once horsey you're being too soft. There shouldn't be any child benefit at all. They are far too many people in this country (and the world) squandering the world's resources. The government should be encouraging people to have less children not more by giving them child benefit, family tax credit and all the other nonsense.

i would agree, but it is unfair on the decent middle class people who are taxed to the hilt to pay for this.

I would definitely be up for no benefits at all, provided the tax burden is reduced.

i don't look at child benefit as a benefit at all for the tax payer, simple a means of getting some of their hard earned money back. it is only a benefit for those who are net takers from society.

michaels

Does anyone feel like they are part of a focus group each time TWH posts - question is are we a sounding board for the Govt or for the Daily Mail headline writers?

silvercar

Administratively difficult to limit it to 2 (or 3). The number of family units that comprises of step and half siblings would make it cost more to administer than it would save.

Safer to announce now that it would be abolished in 2015 or similar, so that anyone thinking of children will have fair warning.

Percy1983

You could just do it based on the mother, the mother is registered at birth so that women gets paid for the first 2 etc.

But maybe just getting rid is the best option.

marklv

The money spent on child benefit would be better spent on more pressing social issues.

chopperharris

How about we go the whole hog , licence having kids and sterilisation after 2 for both man and wife.Ban gays/lesbians from having them.Prevent mixed race babies.Euthanise any handicapped born.Next stop only allowed if your C of E married.

Two birds with the one stone , no more multi parent families and no more blame hounds.

If you cant see what a thin line it is benefit bashing with a broad brush is then eventually it will expand beyond JUST those on benefits and to yourself being the next legally abusable minority.

We are all being conned into having whipping boys by the tories and their media lapdogs , because we cant blame everyone else as they have legal protection....which is good.

Just think thats what our etonians in westminster are secretely doing to the working classes , fooling them into thinking that they are middle classes first ,not blaming their economic downturn on the rich breaking the banks , then using we the voting sheep and bigots to do their bidding.These rich think of you as their benefit scroungers....ponder that for a moment.

Generali

chopperharris wrote: »

How about we go the whole hog , licence having kids and sterilisation after 2 for both man and wife.Ban gays/lesbians from having them.Prevent mixed race babies.Euthanise any handicapped born.Next stop only allowed if your C of E married.

Two birds with the one stone , no more multi parent families and no more blame hounds.

If you cant see what a thin line it is benefit bashing with a broad brush is then eventually it will expand beyond JUST those on benefits and to yourself being the next legally abusable minority.

We are all being conned into having whipping boys by the tories and their media lapdogs , because we cant blame everyone else as they have legal protection....which is good.

Just think thats what our etonians in westminster are secretely doing to the working classes , fooling them into thinking that they are middle classes first ,not blaming their economic downturn on the rich breaking the banks , then using we the voting sheep and bigots to do their bidding.These rich think of you as their benefit scroungers....ponder that for a moment.

Another way to look at things of course would be to say that people should pay their own way generally and that people should be free to chose how to live their lives without expecting a subsidy or to subsidise as a result.

Gorgeous_George

I think it should be limited to the number of adults (ETA: or better still, taxpayers) living in the property.

GG

chopperharris

Generali wrote: »

Another way to look at things of course would be to say that people should pay their own way generally and that people should be free to chose how to live their lives without expecting a subsidy or to subsidise as a result.

SO does that include people without kids paying taxes to educate others kids.?

Pay their own way , I am for it ,we can now add only have kids you can afford to pay to go to school....that will be next anyway.

The true reason for child allowance is to increase the amount of people born , kept fed and healthy , or the population dwindles and theres no one left to pay bloody taxes in a a generation , by that time the rich have !!!!ed off abroad to protect their wealth or changed the taxes in their favour and made out its what the voter wanted.

ninky_2

the cost to the taxpayer for children is far greater than child benefit. free schooling and healthcare (including maternity care) cost more than child benefit.

i'd rather have children provided for than punish parents for having children they can't support.

however, i think there is something to be said for shifting the mindset that encourages procreation. being childfree should be seen as a valid, if not admirable, position. also the benefits of being childfree both on future finances and lifestyle could be better encouraged. i don't think the condems are helping with all the talk about giving married couples tax breaks and putting the family at the centre of things (by which they clearly mean the nuclear family of mum, dad and kids).