What's the Future of Child Benefit?

missyrichards

onlyroz wrote: »

Which is exactly why we, as a society, should be doing everything we can to help those "middle-class professional women" with childcare costs and family-friendly work policies (such as flexible hours).

Yes, I agree.

I still don't think it will result in a baby boom even if that did happen. I think a lot of behaviour is driven by economics and most women are practical enough to know that having kids is not all it's cracked up to be. After all parents tend to be less happy than people without kids.;)

This is going off topic but I think it is an interesting subject as now women have complete control over their reproductive system which is a fantastic thing honestly and because of that I cant see the birth rate going up here any time soon.

remorseless

missyrichards wrote: »

...as now women have complete control over their reproductive system which is a fantastic thing honestly and because of that I cant see the birth rate going up here any time soon.

I wouldn't say 'complete control' as they still need the other 'stuff' to make it happen... and that is another problem (off topic indeed) of the male drought in many countries!

antrobus

missyrichards wrote: »

...This is going off topic but I think it is an interesting subject as now women have complete control over their reproductive system which is a fantastic thing honestly and because of that I cant see the birth rate going up here any time soon.

British women are having significantly more children than a decade ago, with birth rates for mothers in England and Wales up by 18 per cent, official figures show.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/british-birth-rate-leaps-by-18-in-a-decade-9107483.html

missyrichards

remorseless wrote: »

I wouldn't say 'complete control' as they still need the other 'stuff' to make it happen... and that is another problem (off topic indeed) of the male drought in many countries!

I meant control over birth control and pregnancy. Most women aren't usually short of willing sexual partners either.:p

missyrichards

antrobus wrote: »

British women are having significantly more children than a decade ago, with birth rates for mothers in England and Wales up by 18 per cent, official figures show.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/british-birth-rate-leaps-by-18-in-a-decade-9107483.html

I think women born here with the education and opportunities won't be increasing the birth rate and I would expect the trend to continue as women of the world become more educated. Hans Rosling made some interesting points about how the population will stabilise once women worldwide all have the same opportunities.

Sorry this is all off topic.:rotfl: Get back to arguing about child benefit.

antrobus

BobQ wrote: »

This is not correct. In 1945 through to the 1970s Family Allowance was never paid for the eldest child or the only child in a family. The allowance went to the 2nd and later children at a flat rate......

On a point of order.

Originally FA was only paid in respect of the 2nd and subsequent children. But it was extended to all children in 1956. And there were times when there were different rates.

remorseless

antrobus wrote: »

On a point of order.

Originally FA was only paid in respect of the 2nd and subsequent children. But it was extended to all children in 1956. And there were times when there were different rates.

What was the child age limit back then? I'd thought in those days children started working earlish 15/16 yo and contributed to the household...now the child is 20 years old if in school!

antrobus

remorseless wrote: »

What was the child age limit back then? I'd thought in those days children started working earlish 15/16 yo and contributed to the household...now the child is 20 years old if in school!

I think it was originally 16 in 1945, but became 18 in 1956.

remorseless

antrobus wrote: »

I think it was originally 16 in 1945, but became 18 in 1956.

do you think you it should lowered back to 'child' age?

At 20 (if in school) they drive, smoke, sexually active, smartphones, computers, tatts... surely if they can afford all of that, why should tax payer keep paying?

michaels

antrobus wrote: »

British women are having significantly more children than a decade ago, with birth rates for mothers in England and Wales up by 18 per cent, official figures show.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/british-birth-rate-leaps-by-18-in-a-decade-9107483.html

Any stats on fertility rates and mother's country of birth?