15 kids and counting

Odette

Cash incentives for non-breeders I'm in!

elvis86

EdgEy wrote: »

Why cap it at two?
Why should taxpayers pay for you to have children?

Come on, I'm all over the current benefits scandal and am all for these kinds of discussions, but it's not quite that straightforward.

It makes economic sense to support people when they have kids (after all, we do need some children to pay taxes and fund our retirements), and aside from that, I want to live in a society that values family life (though not when this statement is wheeled out and used as a weapon to bash ethnic minorities and gay people).

The issue for me, is that whilst it's reasonable that anyone who is working for a living should be afforded the opportunity to have a family (and I'll define a family as 2 kids, for arguments' sake), and supported in that by way of maternity/paternity pay and child benefit; someone who isn't working should be dissuaded from doing so until they are, and nobody has the right to have kids that they can't support.

I think that citizens should have a "right" to expect the state's support when they have a family, but they should not have the right to expect the state to fund them in 20 year baby-making mission. You want more than 2 or 3 kids, you need to make that decision knowing that you can pay for them.

IMO, the benefits culture is currently so vastly different to the culture of working, that it's no wonder people are reluctant to move from the former to the latter.

For example, a working couple who decide to have an additional child have to then effectively make their existing income "stretch" further (with the exception of a little child benefit or whatever), and often endure an income drop whilst the mum is on maternity leave. Whereas a couple on benefits seem to get a "payrise" as soon as they have a new baby, in the form of additional benefits and allowance for housing etc increasing.

It simply shouldn't be the case that someone who works and owns their own home has to think long and hard about another baby that might neccesitate a house move or less space in their current home (eg existing kids sharing rooms etc), whilst someone in subsidised or even wholly state-funed council/HA accomodation can have another baby safe in the knowledge that they will probably be rehoused in a bigger house due to "overcrowding", which is inexplicably seen as the state's problem to solve rather than their own(?!).

As far as I'm concerned, the state should not be funding or subsidising any houses with more than 3 bedrooms. If you choose to have so many kids that your house becomes overcrowded, that's your problem. If it becomes a threat to your children's wellbeing, you should be held responsible for it as it was your decision to put yourself and your kids in that position.

I cannot for the life of me understand why the benefits system has to be so complicated that a simple principal cannot be adhered to:

Someone working should never be better of than someone who is not working.

Eg. An unemployed single mum with 2 kids should not be in receipt of benefits greater than the income of a working single mother with 2 kids. It's not difficult, is it?

I think we should scrap most of the various benefits/allowances etc. As the current system stands it's far too complicated to work out what anyone actually receives and to make straightforward comparisons as above.

It seems to me that when you factor in the "hidden" benefits that people get (eg their rent and council tax paid, their kids' school lunches paid for, free prescriptions etc), you realise that what they're actually paid in child benefit/JSA/tax credits is only the tip of the iceberg.

Give these people their benefits in one payment and make them manage their own affairs (rent, council taz, school meals etc), like everyone else has to. Cheaper to administer too, surely.

Fifer

johnny_storm wrote: »

It would be so easy to make child benefit ...

... abolished.

Fifer

elvis86 wrote: »

It makes economic sense to support people when they have kids (after all, we do need some children to pay taxes and fund our retirements

I couldn't disagree more. It makes no sense to incentivise reproduction in an already overpopulated world. To justify it as necessary to support the unsustainable Ponzi system of population growth required to support pensions, is lunacy of the highest order and will condemn future generations to a disaster of global proportions at some not too distant future point.

How much more exponential population growth do we think the Earth can support before something breaks?

Derivative

elvis86 wrote: »

Come on, I'm all over the current benefits scandal and am all for these kinds of discussions, but it's not quite that straightforward.

It makes economic sense to support people when they have kids (after all, we do need some children to pay taxes and fund our retirements), and aside from that, I want to live in a society that values family life (though not when this statement is wheeled out and used as a weapon to bash ethnic minorities and gay people).

I disagree with the above statement.
I do not think that bribing people into having children is a sensible thing for us to be doing.

Why should our children pay for our retirements? Is there some fundamental problem with being expected to provide for yourself?

People do not need an economic stimulus to have children - it is only in the past few decades that we have had such a scheme.

There is a very large gulf between "valuing family life" and incentivising people to have children - especially when it's at the expense of those who choose not to breed.

elvis86

EdgEy wrote: »

I disagree with the above statement.
I do not think that bribing people into having children is a sensible thing for us to be doing.

Why should our children pay for our retirements? Is there some fundamental problem with being expected to provide for yourself?

People do not need an economic stimulus to have children - it is only in the past few decades that we have had such a scheme.

There is a very large gulf between "valuing family life" and incentivising people to have children - especially when it's at the expense of those who choose not to breed.

If everyone stops reproducing, who's going to wipe your behind when you're too old and infirm to do it yourself?

Fifer

elvis86 wrote: »

If everyone stops reproducing, who's going to wipe your behind when you're too old and infirm to do it yourself?

(a) People will never stop reproducing and (b) the overwhelming majority of people are never too old to wipe their own behinds. But I do despair for the next generation that they appear to be being raised as pension fodder and wet-nurses for their parents' dotage. What a selfish purpose for creating a life.

Derivative

If everyone stops reproducing, who's going to wipe your behind when you're too old and infirm to do it yourself?

On the whole I defer to the post above. People will not 'stop reproducing' if child benefit is reduced or stopped. Do people reproduce in countries without explicit child rearing payments? There's your answer.

However, even if there is a marked reduction in the younger population, we'd just end up a bit like Japan.

If I have enough capital in my old age, someone will do it if I pay them enough. Supply and demand.

If I don't, then I'll probably pop my clogs. Is it really worth living a life in which you can't take care of basic necessities?

drc

elvis86 wrote: »

If everyone stops reproducing, who's going to wipe your behind when you're too old and infirm to do it yourself?

Your argument is that all children will "serve" the country when they are older by working and paying tax.

The problem is that this has not proved to be true and why we have multi-generational workless households who are a net burden on the state. There is absolutely no way these households will be wiping anyone's bum as they have no incentive to do so, since they don't need to work as the state provides for them in the form of welfare (ironically you could say that the state is currently wiping their bums). That is the whole issue. If the children of chronically workless households were guaranteed not to produce workless households themselves, your argument might be valid but evidence has proved otherwise. That is why the welfare state costs more than income tax receipts at the moment.

elvis86

drc wrote: »

Your argument is that all children will "serve" the country when they are older by working and paying tax.

The problem is that this has not proved to be true and why we have multi-generational workless households who are a net burden on the state. There is absolutely no way these households will be wiping anyone's bum as they have no incentive to do so, since they don't need to work as the state provides for them in the form of welfare (ironically you could say that the state is currently wiping their bums). That is the whole issue. If the children of chronically workless households were guaranteed not to produce workless households themselves, your argument might be valid but evidence has proved otherwise. That is why the welfare state costs more than income tax receipts at the moment.

With all due respect, that wasn't really my point at all.

On the contrary, I absolutely agree that the chronically workshy underclass should be discouraged from reproducing. My point was that working people should be supported when they have children (to a reasonable degree - eg for the first 2 children) through maternity pay etc, because, aside from the human reasons like it being natural that people want to raise families, the country needs a next generation of workers.

Without maternity pay etc, who could afford to have a child? Only the very wealthy. The working classes would effectively be precluded from a family life. That's not something I aspire to for our country. Anyone who is working should be able to have a family. Only those without the means or the intention to support their kids should be discouraged.