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

drc

The_White_Horse wrote: »

rather than cut it off to the people who actually pay the taxes that allow it to be paid to grasping scroungers with 4 or 5 kids.

houses, could go up or down or stay the same.

Yes, but that would be common sense.

Much easier to target the middle classes who are more likely to actually work and the government knows the extent of revolt of the middle classes is writing a strongly worded letter to their mp's. Much easier to make them pay for the deficit than to stop benefits to those who will become violent at having their "right" to have their eighth kid paid for by the state revoked.

mbga9pgf

Much easier to make them pay for the deficit than to stop benefits to those who will become violent at having their "right" to have their eighth kid paid for by the state revoked.

If people from the sink estates start getting violent, we need a couple more face-offs with the riot police. With the proviso that any damage done to state social assets will not be repaired. If people want to behave like animals, they can live like them. take the council houses off the trouble makers and give them to those having theirs damaged or burned out. We could also do with the state turning a blind eye to local communities "sorting" out the trouble makers in their own communities.

Couple of D cell batteries down the barrel of the rubber bullet gun does wonders. Anyone seen a D cell bounce? Theyh do if they are fast enough.

Spartacus_Mills

chopperharris wrote: »

So does state funded procreating in making more consumers and tax payers.A chicken and egg argument really...its great how when state education , nhs free for having kids starts to be compared in the same manner as benefits then defence kicks in of ones hard earned.

Can you please rephrase this as it makes no sense ?

Education of kids is a benefit to all of us as it equips children for the world of work and the better the education the more they earn in their adult life.

Also by paying taxes to fund education we are contributing in our working life for something we had funded for us when we were younger.

Kohoutek

ALIBOBSY wrote: »

Well for a start if noone had kids it would pretty much end the world lol.

...although the world is hardly in danger of running out of people

moggylover

Generali wrote: »

Not true.

The history of child allowance was that in the very early C20th, women that had children found it very hard to earn money and married women with children were pretty much unemployable.

A group of educated women took up the cause of women trying to bring up children without a reliable income and in the end forced it into law. Many of that group went on to become a core of the fight to secure the vote for women in the UK.

I really do have to disagree with that totally:D I was a child during the 50's and 60's (19 hundreds btw;)) and thus the mid 20th Century. For most of my childhood, the only "child allowance" was a small tax break, usually on the husbands earnings because women in general were still mostly expected to stay at home with children then.

The educated women who "took up the cause" did not want a "benefit" as such, they merely wanted the amount that would have been a tax allowance in their husbands pocket, made direct to themselves instead because there were (then as well as now) men who failed miserably to provide for their children and family until their own "needs" had been well served:D

The original payment of "family allowance" and "child-tax allowance" was introduced in 1945 (when the Country was trying to encourage the nation to have children and thought such tax breaks would assist in this) and this was not payable on the first child, only subsequent ones, until 1975 (my own parents only got this for a few short weeks before I left school:D).

These tax allowances were then replaced by (only really re-named) Child Benefit between 1977 and 1979:)

moggylover

ALIBOBSY wrote: »

Well for a start if noone had kids it would pretty much end the world lol.

We paid tax before having children and will pay tax once they are grown up during which periods we will effectively pay for other peoples children. I have already said I am happy for the child benefit and tax credit to be limited and we would manage.

The same arguement could be applied to other stuff, like we don't drink but our tax goes towards policing drunks in city centres and the NHS bill for drinkers, we also don't smoke and pay towards the NHS bill for them as well.

ali x

How much tax do you think those two industries provide though? If you consider that a packet of cigarettes at £6.29 carries tax to a total of £4.83 can you imagine the catastrophe to the Countries tax coffers if all the smokers did actually pack it in? And the knock on effect then of all the people employed in the industry out of work and not paying tax, and the Corporation tax not coming in anymore, etc. etc.:D

http://www.the-tma.org.uk/tma-publications-research/facts-figures/eu-cigarette-prices/

This one gives you some idea of the cigarette consumption in the UK (both those UK taxed and those smuggled or otherwise brought in)

£10.5 bn is just the amount raised on the actual ciggies themselves btw, this article makes it clearer just how much revenue would be lost to various tax takers should that industry fold

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/459157.stm

and I draw your attention to this particular paragraph from therein:


"In the UK, the tobacco industry generated over £10bn in tax revenue in 1998, enough to pay for three quarters of the Education and Employment Budget.";)

Any smoker going into hospital has MORE than paid for their treatment over the years despite all the carp about other tax payers paying for them. I suspect the same could be said for drinkers (who pay around 47p excise duty on a pint, and then a further 33p ish in VAT;) for example) although I would make those involved in violence due to alcohol actually pay for their treatment at that time and also for the treatment of those they injure:D

Everyone just seems to use these discussions to grind their particular "I can't stand" axe, I just find it such a shame that the bigger picture seems to escape so many:D

loveGSDs

personally i would stop all child benefit. i dont have kids, yet. i would like them in the future, probably 3.

however nice it would be to have the extra 'free' money, i dont think its right, you choose to have kids, you should pay for them. i choose to have dogs - therefore i pay for them!

i think stopping the child benefit would reduce the number of teen pregnancies and reduce the number of folk needing emergency council houses due to having a child and no job.

silvercar

Child benefit is a max of £20 a week. I doubt its possible for anyone to bring up a child on that. Its the entitlement to child tax credits and increased LHA (due to an entitlement to a larger property) that makes having children profitable.

neverdespairgirl

Not all families with more than 2 children are workfree zones, on the scrounge!

I'm the eldest of four children. My mother didn't work for most of my childhood, but my father did, he was (and is) self-employed.

Child benefit was paid, certainly. That was it.

No cost in education, either, because we all went to private schools.

muskoka

I think capping the child benefit would be a good thing. Maybe a benefit as OP said for up to two children. BUT stop any benefit going to Europe for parents who are in the U.K. and say they have children somewhere in Europe - that we are paying for!! AND any parents should have worked for a certain period for get any child benefit.