The population of the planet is growing exponentially to the point where there are now more people alive today than have ever lived in the past. We all know the damaging implications of population growth!

So, here's an idea for discussion. It's a 3 point plan for the UK ...

1. In the spirit of the Chinese One Child Law, child benefits are limited to one child only. If you want any more children then you pay for them from your own means. That also goes for tax credits, housing and all the other state handouts. The cut off is one child.

2. The upside is that the state can offer optional but free sterilisation for those who have their one child and have no need of any more.

3. Those couples who don't have any children, and therefore have less need of state funds can then have a tax rebate and increased pension provision in return for having no child to care for them in old age.

Well?

Wouldn't this have to be applied worlwide,Tony.....otherwise a pointless exercise, I would think.............

I'd back the idea if it was a 2 child law. The general feeling of a lot of British people without children, is that they want 2 - A family of 4.

I don't think there are enough of us here in the UK for this to make enough of a difference worldwide either.

The population of the planet is growing exponentially to the point where there are now more people alive today than have ever lived in the past. We all know the damaging implications of population growth!

So, here's an idea for discussion. It's a 3 point plan for the UK ...

1. In the spirit of the Chinese One Child Law, child benefits are limited to one child only. If you want any more children then you pay for them from your own means. That also goes for tax credits, housing and all the other state handouts. The cut off is one child.

2. The upside is that the state can offer optional but free sterilisation for those who have their one child and have no need of any more.

3. Those couples who don't have any children, and therefore have less need of state funds can then have a tax rebate and increased pension provision in return for having no child to care for them in old age.

Well?

i have 1 child myself and in my personal opinion one is more than enough for me! but i guess some people want more?

i think that what your suggesting is a good idea and no doubt some others will find fault with it

well i have to say its gonno be interesting to see how this thread goes:D

What is this "exponential" rate of population growth in the UK?

I thought that without immigration, we were fairly static.

Wow , I hope it wouldn't be applied retrospectively - seeing as I have 4 kids!

You know in France, There was a lady in my Mum's village who was given a medal because she had 4 kids and thus helped to swell the population.. maybe I should move to France.

What would happen if a couple were to have akid and break up? Would the 2 people then be able to have a kid in another relationship?

In the spirit of the Chinese One Child Law, child benefits are limited to one child only. If you want any more children then you pay for them from your own means. That also goes for tax credits, housing and all the other state handouts. The cut off is one child.

If taxes were reduced, as the Social Services bill would be cut, then I'd look on it more favourably.

However, I suspect taxes would continue to rise instead :|

This assumes that child benefit exists to benefit the parents.
It doesn't, it exists to ensure that the children involved have a certain standard of living.

If you are happy accepting that your proposals may mean that some children live in poverty then I guess they are workable. Otherwise I think the search for a solution must go on.

PS - it's probably incompatible with the european human rights act, specifically the right to family life.

Its not the Uk that has the problem is it- infact- arn't we an ageing population now? I seem to remember that we currently only have around 1.4 children per couple and to keep up the population growth we need to be having closer to 2?

The world is a big enough place for ALL of us- its just we don't treat it right when we move into untouched places!!

Sounds good to me, being rewarded for *not* having kids, but I've been on the anti-child threads ranting about the excess of annoying children in the world.

There seem to have been a couple of threads around lately aswell that have suggested the government have decided not enough children are being born and they want to reverse this trend :loopy:, or that women are putting their careers first, waiting too long and gambling with their fertility. One look at all the pushchairs, Baby on Board signs, 4x4 school run mums and teen pregnancy and benefits stats is enough to convince me otherwise.

From what I can remember about the child benefit that my mum got when I was a kid though, it's hardly enough to keep a child in food for a week or month or however often it's handed out, never mind those expensive trainers they'll be screaming for.

The problem with the Chinese law was people wanted boys and all those girl children were killed or smuggled away and that's not very ethical...people would be finding out whether their kid was a girl or boy and if they knew they could only have the one, making decisions based on the sex. It might progress to other things then - determining eye colour, hair colour etc. or advanced methods to determine the genetic makeup of the child... I wonder whether it would encourage the whole genetically perfect engineered children that at the moment are only a reality in Sci-fi programs and movies (like Gattaca) and the vivid imaginations of scaremongers.

Also what would happen if the child had a disability that was missed before birth - would allowances be made for that? Could they try again for free for a healthy child? And if a child died, would they be able to replace it for free?

Ooh I see a whole can of worms being opened..

We do currently have an aging population, there are less people born every year than die. I think most of the difference is made up for though by immigration.
If there were a need to keep down the number of children, then paying a 'no children' benefit would be more ethical than withholding child benefit that is supposed to benefit an existing child.

The population of the planet is growing exponentially to the point where there are now more people alive today than have ever lived in the past. We all know the damaging implications of population growth!

So, here's an idea for discussion. It's a 3 point plan for the UK ...

1. In the spirit of the Chinese One Child Law, child benefits are limited to one child only. If you want any more children then you pay for them from your own means. That also goes for tax credits, housing and all the other state handouts. The cut off is one child

Could this be legally obliged to Muslims or Catholics in religions which encourage the growth of the population above the masses of the impassive?. The upside is that the state can offer optional but free sterilisation for those who have their one child and have no need of any more.... or could it be an encouragement to it. Those couples who don't have any children, and therefore have less need of state funds can then have a tax rebate and increased pension provision in return for having no child to care for them in old age.... Import a false religion and alien beliefs? ( and do away with them ) People have equal and recognised benefits in Britain.... that is why many people want to breed here.... irregardless of their ethnicity.... it is free to do so..... charge them what you want.... you cannot buy freedom.

2. The upside is that the state can offer optional but free sterilisation for those who have their one child and have no need of any more.

that is sick man.... coming from me.... who couldn't have a baby by my ex wife and it ended my marriage.

3. Those couples who don't have any children, and therefore have less need of state funds can then have a tax rebate and increased pension provision in return for having no child to care for them in old age.

No children gets you no where.... I hope this post is a jest. Even Mods are not above the law or public opinion.

1. In the spirit of the Chinese One Child Law, child benefits are limited to one child only. If you want any more children then you pay for them from your own means. That also goes for tax credits, housing and all the other state handouts. The cut off is one child.Well?

Child benefit is hardly a kings ransom Tony. Should we also terminate everyone over a certain age as they no longer make a valid contribution to society.

What if someone has twins or triplets? Its not their fault so should they be penalised?

2. The upside is that the state can offer optional but free sterilisation for those who have their one child and have no need of any more.

What if god forbid the child dies? They would have none and no chance to have another baby.

3. Those couples who don't have any children, and therefore have less need of state funds can then have a tax rebate and increased pension provision in return for having no child to care for them in old age.

I take it from your thoughts that most parents must be irresponsible and are just churning out kids for the sake of it to get more benefits? Not the case.

I would have hated to be an only child and many children who have no siblings tend to have underdeveloped social skills as well. My personal preference was that myself and the father of my children have replaced ourselves on the planet. Two for two so to speak.

Birthrates in the UK are plummeting.

Surely we would be a selfish society if we financially punished parents for choosing to have a couple of kids instead of just the one. Parents on the whole invest a huge amount of finance into raising their children and the 'state handouts' don't amount to much at all.

Does your plan include removing all healthcare benefits aswell?

Did I not see something the other day which said we had an economic crisis coming in the UK because of the falling birthrate? In the foreseeable future there will be more retired people on pensions, with insufficient working younger people paying taxes to support them? I think the implication was that people should have more children, not less!

From what I can remember about the child benefit that my mum got when I was a kid though, it's hardly enough to keep a child in food for a week or month or however often it's handed out, never mind those expensive trainers they'll be screaming for.

Its about £15 a week for the first child and £9 for every child after that

Over population of children does not apply in this country.
If we decided to all have 1 child then the future of this country would suffer a lot more than it does now.
Children are the next generation and its important that the cycle keeps going.
However your point about over population only applies in third world countries and that is a problem for them and globel to.

There some great comments up above :)

Now, to expand it further, having taken some of those points on board:

The overriding intention is for those who require additional services to pay for those additional services after the first child.

Child benefit goes
Tax credits go
Nursery provision goes
Subsidised social housing for larger families goes.
etc.

So, under the 3 Point Plan you can still have as many children as you like, but you won't get any government support for the second or more child.

It would apply regardless of the child's health, remembering that an unhealthy child is a bigger financial burden. If a child dies, then you would get another go, with child-free tax breaks in the intervening period.

Any tax breaks will be transferred to those without children as they require fewer services and will be encouraged to work, and to contribute financially to the UK.

Since the 1960s, the average number of babies born to women over their reproductive lifetimes,has been declining in both more developed and less developed countries.
In both developed and developing nations, fertility rates are actually lower than the level required for long run replacement of population in the world's more developed regions.

Annual global population growth has declined from 2% in 1970 to 1.24% today, and is projected to drop to .43% by 2050. The U.N. predicts that the world's population could peak at under 8 billion by 2050 then begin to decline. Global fertility could fall below replacement as soon as 2015.

The stark reality of global under-population can be seen in fertility trends over the past decade. In 1990, between 50 and 60 countries, mainly developed, had below-replacement fertility.

79 countries, or over a third of all nations, have TFRs of 2.1 or less. And low fertility countries are increasingly likely to be found in the world's less developed regions... TFRs will remain below replacement level in China, Eastern Europe... and the rest of the world during the next 25 years and will fall below replacement in Latin America and the Caribbean by
2025.

Still think its a good idea?

. If a child dies, then you would get another go, with child-free tax breaks in the intervening period.

How do they get another go? You sterilised them!

Umm sorry but a flaw in your plan about increased pension would be that there would be less young people to pay into the pension fund - hmm you are going to need to rethink that one:)

In China the one child policy came about as there was a population and overcrowding problem. In this country it is reversed and we are actually having trouble having enough babies (remember in the future it are they who will be paying for your hospital, pension, etc). At the moment we have a society where we have more older people so that is why we are having problems with NHS funding and the pensions crisis etc.

My thoughts are no a one child policy is not required in this country - actually it would be detrimental to the economy. Sorry if this has already been said but Ive not read the whole thread. BTW good discussion even if I think your point of view is not correct:D

LisaH xxx

Still think its a good idea?

We have to start somewhere, and anyhow, this is also about the financial health of the UK today :)

How do they get another go? You sterilised them!
Under the Tony 3 Point Plan sterilisation is optional and Government funded. There is always adoption! Maybe of a 3rd world orphan from a large family! :)
What if someone has twins or triplets? Its not their fault so should they be penalised?
A valid exception.

We have to start somewhere, and anyhow, this is also about the financial health of the UK today :)

Ahh but if we just think of the hear and now, what about the future of the economy. I get the impression you don't care if the place falls to ruin after you have keeled over in your bathchair and croaked. :rolleyes:

Wow!.... I typed a long answer to another thread in the hope I could help.... genuinely.... only to be told I was banned.... should we have one answer only to threads now Tony.... or did someone change their mind again?

Does your plan include removing all healthcare benefits aswell?
Point 4 would allow people to opt out of the NHS providing they made private provision. In return they would recieve further tax breaks.


Jake.. I don't know what you're talking about - PM me.

There is some merit to this scheme and I for one have often thought that the Chinese stance worked in principle (although as another poster pointed out females were penalised) What hasn't been mentioned is the fining system that the Party has in place, so if you go over your alloted child then you have to pay a hefty fine.

In our society there is now a mentality where , by and large, people are not fussed what gender their offspring are - at least not from a traditional point of view where the male child is considered superior.

While the initial benefit may well be a reduction in benefit payments then the subsequent yields would be exponential. As Tony pointed out it would benefit housing etc, but extrapolate it to the degree of if parents were'nt having to take even more time off of work because one their children did a funny looking poo - what kind of savings would that bring to industry?

As someone who wishes to remain childless for a long time (hopefully for the foreseeable future) then I would love a tax break to recoup some of the money I've had taken off me during my working life.

As someone who wishes to remain childless for a long time (hopefully for the foreseeable future) then I would love a tax break to recoup some of the money I've had taken off me during my working life.

Considering it apparantly costs a parent £100,000 to raise a child to adulthood I'd say you're quids in already. Stop being greedy! ;)

.. and as about 75% of what you earn goes back to the government to pay for things like children I'd say swan_vesta is doing a great job in providing for other peoples children whilst taking nothing out for himself. ;)

Jake.. I don't know what you're talking about - PM me.

Done..... and while I trust you it doesn't mean I have to agree with your every thought.

Interesting post! I would be interested to know if the original poster Tony is an only child, if not you possibly wouldn't be here mate if your rules applied, neither would I and neither would my brother or two of my children. I would have thought though that many people, like myself, simply have more than one child because they have enough love to go around, I certainly didn't jump into the reproductive sack thinking of the 'massive' amount of money I was going to get from the government for having more than one child. Interestingly, I am one of three and out of the three of us I am the only one to have children so the balance has been met 'cause you could say that I have my brother and sister's share. The other way to look at this would be to say that a working man's wage would be exactly the same for everyone regardless of the job they do then maybe we would all be able to take of our brood without government help.

To my knowledge the number of children being born is on the decrease. There are other reasons for the actual number of ppl increasing.

I think limiting the number to one woudl be wrong. One child is ideal for many although many kids and adults often wish they had a brother or sister.

What happens if a couple have twins or triplicats under the Tony law?

I know I seem like a greedy so and so but just for once I'd actually like to stop being the cash cow and subsidising others who don't have the means to pay but certainly have no objections in getting a total stranger to finance their kids hence their reliance on me "chipping in" with my ever increasing tax payments.

A restriction on people breeding would mean that there was a little more of the pie available for little old me :)

I suspect our beloved Admin Tony is enjoying playing devil's advocate here and winding us all up..... good discussion resulting from it though!

The truth of the matter is that there are simply not enough babies being born in Britain to replenish the existing population. The government is clearly very worried about this trend - as are many other governments, eg in Italy - but their only answer at the moment seems to be to import people from elsewhere, rather than encouraging people here to have (more) kids.

I think the government is seriously concerned in particular about the relative lack of babies being born to educated women - teenagers may be having babies like there's no tomorrow, but older, educated women - whose offspring would be expected to form the backbone of tomorrow's workforce - are simply not reproducing.

As a society, we need to ask why that is - what can be done to make it easier for a woman to have children AND have a career - there needs to be a lot more flexibility in terms of working hours, career breaks and the like, and it needs to happen NOW. Is it simply too hard for women to try to look after a family while being expected to compete on an equal footing with men in the workplace?

Society needs to get its head sorted out about some of these issues, or we are all in for a rather uncomfortable old age.

StarSparkle

your plan sounds good,and theres always a " but " so, it would work out that only the rich could afford as many children as they liked, now , as the rich do not like manual work,who would build our houses and roads,factories etc,who would deliver our goods to the shops ? who would fight our battles ? with the working class decimated britain would be in a massive economic mess, then of course theres the churches,the human rights groups the interfering god knows who groups that would want their say, a good plan though never the less

WTAW I'm the eldest of 2, so I would be here, but that's not the point ;)

Like the 3 Point Plan plainly says, you can have as many children as you like, so if you've got lots of love to go around that's great! All that happens is that government assistance stops after the first child. Nothing more. You don't have to send them up chinmneys. So...

Need new shoes for kiddie 2? Pay for it yourself.
Need a bigger house for kiddie 3? Pay for it yourself.

There's nothing more to it than that. I'm not offering communism as an alternative, just suggesting an way of letting people make informed choices to stop them taking government hand outs. Carrot & stick if you like :)


Depoix - you appear to have answered StarSparkles question

This assumes that child benefit exists to benefit the parents.
It doesn't, it exists to ensure that the children involved have a certain standard of living.

If you are happy accepting that your proposals may mean that some children live in poverty then I guess they are workable. Otherwise I think the search for a solution must go on.

PS - it's probably incompatible with the european human rights act, specifically the right to family life.

The idea of children in this country living in poverty always intrigues me, what is poverty.

No, Play Station, TV, CD player, MP3, Nike trainers, mobile phone etc

Or are we talking about no food and cloths that’s poverty.

I know I seem like a greedy so and so but just for once I'd actually like to stop being the cash cow and subsidising others who don't have the means to pay but certainly have no objections in getting a total stranger to finance their kids hence their reliance on me "chipping in" with my ever increasing tax payments.

A restriction on people breeding would mean that there was a little more of the pie available for little old me :)

I have TWO children. I work. I pay my council tax, my value added tax, my income tax, my national insurance contributions to name but a few of the many taxes we all have to pay. I have the means to raise my children. I think this is a cloaked attempt to attack benefit recipients in general.

One thing that does irk me is that the child benefit :rolleyes: As previously posted its not alot and certainly wouldnt cover the running costs of a small person for food let alone anything else.

But, a blue collar worker on say £12k a year gets the child benefit £15 a week, and Cheri Blair Q.C gets the same allowances for little Leo as well!

I think it should be scrapped and the money saved should be used in the child tax credit system instead. Child benefit should be there to top up low incomes if at all.

(ducks and runs from the room)

The government is clearly very worried about this trend ... but their only answer at the moment seems to be to import people from elsewhere, rather than encouraging people here to have (more) kids.

I agree with this.

And while Big Business™ will profit shorterm from hiring slave labour from overseas, this will eventually have a detrimental effect on the economy, because imported workers will usually send much of their salary overseas, spending less in the local economy than indigenous workers do.

as the rich do not like manual work,who would build our houses and roads,factories etc,who would deliver our goods to the shops ? who would fight our battles ? with the working class decimated britain would be in a massive economic mess

Yep, labour costs would skyrocket, unless an alternative source of cheap labour could be found.

From prosperity to penury in 3 generations. There will never be a shortage of cheap local labour, even if their grandparents were wealthy.

This government wants people to have children. As I mentioned in another thread us at the Tax Office had a day learning the Revenue's core purpose which included encouraging people to have children.

However what appears to be happening is that it is only the feckless proles that are having children who then turn into benefit sponges later on in life, rather than the educated, tax-payers of the future that the govt. wants.

Solution - Baby farms!! All babies born should be rounded up and sent to a govt. education centre somewhere near Dresde...no sorry Derby....what was I thinking..
Then the govt. would pay directly for their upkeep and programming....sorry..sorry..education and this would lead to a population of super children that could be released back into society when they are old enough to survive on their own, work and pay taxes. These super children will then adequately provide the pensions for us when we are older without us having to notice them before they reach working age. This solves the "youth" problem as well - bonus!!

I cannot see any possible drawback to this plan :P

As someone who wishes to remain childless for a long time (hopefully for the foreseeable future) then I would love a tax break to recoup some of the money I've had taken off me during my working life.

I have two children but following on from your argument, I haven't used the fire service at all during my life so can I have a huge rebate for that? While you're at it I haven't used the hospital service for eight years so maybe a small windfall for that. I don't use the libraries etc etc etc.

It just wouldn't work.

There will never be a shortage of cheap local labour, even if their grandparents were wealthy.

Skilled local labour costs, such as plumbers and electricians etc, will rise.

I have TWO children. I work. I pay my council tax, my value added tax, my income tax, my national insurance contributions to name but a few of the many taxes we all have to pay. I have the means to raise my children. I think this is a cloaked attempt to attack benefit recipients in general.


Hi Fox20thc,

If it's as you state then good on you. You evidently have the means, wherewithall and the ability to raise your kids on your own. :)
Personally I admire anyone who can do all of those things as there are precious few who can, me included - I just don't have the patience.

My bugbear is lies with those who are reliant on child benefit and have neither means or intent to further their or their childrens lives but conversely have no compunction in popping out another illiterate, unwanted child. These are the people who I would like to prevent pebbledashing society with their idle seed and generally draining the collective coffers but adding to the social ills.

A little bit of benefit bashing? Yes, I plead guilty.
Is it so wrong? Not when weighed in the balance.

Skilled local labour costs, such as plumbers and electricians etc, will rise.
Errr, why?

it appears that you are searching for a solution Tony to a problem which doesn't exist.
And the idea that people 'pop out' children simply to claim the massive government handout of £15/week simply doesn't make sense. A child costs more to raise than that.

If you have an issue with 'the benefits culture' which I think could stand a little reorganising then you'd be better off saying that that was the problem rather than couching it behind other less suportable arguments.

Well done Cyclone. I too pointed out that this was a cloaked attempt to have another bash at the benefit recipients.

Lets call a spade a spade shall we?

Please reread Point 1 of the 3 Point Plan from the opening post. :)

I never called a spade anything else.

The population of the planet is growing exponentially to the point where there are now more people alive today than have ever lived in the past. We all know the damaging implications of population growth!

So, here's an idea for discussion. It's a 3 point plan for the UK ...

1. In the spirit of the Chinese One Child Law, child benefits are limited to one child only. If you want any more children then you pay for them from your own means. That also goes for tax credits, housing and all the other state handouts. The cut off is one child.

2. The upside is that the state can offer optional but free sterilisation for those who have their one child and have no need of any more.

3. Those couples who don't have any children, and therefore have less need of state funds can then have a tax rebate and increased pension provision in return for having no child to care for them in old age.

Well?

My bugbear is lies with those who are reliant on child benefit and have neither means or intent to further their or their childrens lives but conversely have no compunction in popping out another illiterate, unwanted child. These are the people who I would like to prevent pebbledashing society with their idle seed and generally draining the collective coffers but adding to the social ills.



Maybe I just dont mix in the right circles but I ( a mum with 2 small boys - 1 at school the other nursery (fully paid for by me and my wages)) dont actually know anyone who has kids and lives off the state. All the people I know actually work for a living - even those with kids - shock!!! I know people who have kids and live off the state do exist but maybe they are a smaller proportion of the population that you actually think. It probably matters where you live in the city but the Langsett estate/ Hillsborough isnt well known for being affluent;)

V interesting debate:D

LisaH xxx

Interesting thread!

Hmm, isn't the idea of a welfare state that everyone pays in according to their earnings -that's if the tax is progressive, like income tax, and not regressive, like VAT of course, which you pay more of proportionately the lesser you earn! Then you are able to access services and benefits when you need them regardless of whether you have paid in? A small minority of people may take more than they give and vice versa, but on the whole, over a lifetime, most people will achieve some kind of balance.

Consider what we get from our taxes, not only benefits but education, health care, police, culture, environment, roads, fire services, sporting facilities, promotion of trade, etc etc. The list could be very long indeed. And any of us could pinpoint services that we think (and sometimes know) we will never use.

For example, child benefit may be paid to those who have never worked, but it is also paid for those who have lost their work, either through redundancy or sickness. Those kinds of circumstances are not predictable.

I used to feel quite annoyed about all the money which goes to children, but then I consider the dole I've claimed myself and the times I've had to go to the doctors, being somewhat mishap prone, circumstances out of my control. And what about the expensive and lengthy education, four years of University, all those free museums I regularly visit, subsidised theatre and art and the countryside I love. None of that comes for free, and I also doubt that the hypothetical media vision of the benefits mum with her five kids will partake of any of that, even though she's perfectly entitled.

What happens if a couple have twins or triplicats under the Tony law?

I think number of cats is unlimited as they're not state funded;)

So how would surrogacy work? If a family has one child and someone has another child which they then give to the family, is this a loophole? Is this child considered fundable under it's birth parent, or non-fundable under it's adopted parents?

As for the next generation keeping us in our old age and contributing to pensions, I for one don't believe there will be much in the state pension fund for me when I reach retirement age anyway and they probably won't exist at all in a few generation's time. As people are advised now to start paying into a pension scheme when they start their working lives, I can see it becoming compulsory in a few years time, the way things are going. Which kind of makes sense - people being responsible for providing for their own retirement. And if they keep raising the age of that retirement people will have plenty of years to save up and having worked themselves to death by the time they do get to retire they probably won't need the pension for very long!

Hmmm, some interesting ideas from Tony - who seems to be expounding a principle that parents should be financially responsible for the upkeep of their children, rather than the state.

A few questions for Tony.....

1. Why are you suggesting that child benefit should only be paid for the first child? Why any child? Why not do away with all child benefits, and make parents responsible for the upkeep of their children, irrespective of how many they may have?

2. By extending this same principle, why should parents escape the financial responsibility for paying for their children's medical treatment? For example, my disabled daughter had over 20 operations during her childhood. Shouldn't I, as her father, have been made to pay for her life-saving operations after we'd used up our one medical credit on minor surgery? I now realise how irrresponsible I have been as a parent by using NHS facilities for my daughter. May Tony and like-minded forum members forgive me for using their hard paid taxes and national insurance contributions. After all, there is such a thing as medical insurance. I really have been very selfish.

3. Can I throw myself on the mercy of Tony and fellow travellers as I further confess that, as a parent of two children, I took everyone's hard-earned taxes to actually have my children educated in state schools at your expense. I now realise that this was utterly selfish, and I should have sent my kids to a private school, and paid for their education out of my own income.

4. The list of my offences to society grow, as I've even had the temerity to spend many a happy time when my kids were young by taking them to public parks, where they played on swings and roundabouts and suchlike - all provided for from the common public purse. I now realise that I had no right to expect such generosity from taxpayers, and should have clubbed together with other parents to purchase recreational facilities and installed them in our back gardens. I'm very sorry.

I'm now recognising that I have truly been an awful member of society by so selfishly claiming child benefit payments and using so many facilities that the taxpayer provided for my children.

But maybe I can make reparations? Maybe if Tony's suggestions are enacted, I could join in a Chinese-style witch-hunt for those feckless people who dare to have more than one child. And if some of them who can't afford to have more than one kid don't take up the kind offer of sterilisation, maybe we should go one step further and insist on compulsory abortion.

Lastly, can Tony please advise me if I should now be putting some money aside for when I am in my doteage? I really don't want to add to the burden of my fellow tax-paying citizens, by expecting them to fund any residential care and medical attention that I might need. I must cure myself of being so selfish all the time, and stop expecting the state to make provisions for me and my kids.

Oh redrobbo, no need to be so melodramatic, the politician in you is showing ;)

I'll just point you back to the incredibly simple 3 Point Plan :)

1. In the spirit of the Chinese One Child Law, child benefits are limited to one child only. If you want any more children then you pay for them from your own means. That also goes for tax credits, housing and all the other state handouts. The cut off is one child.

2. The upside is that the state can offer optional but free sterilisation for those who have their one child and have no need of any more.

3. Those couples who don't have any children, and therefore have less need of state funds can then have a tax rebate and increased pension provision in return for having no child to care for them in old age.

You can still have more than one child, health care, education, and swings in the park. No need for sterilisation or abortion if you don't want them. The state will even support you with your first child, and let you choose where and how you recieve medical treatment while providing you with the financial assitance if you choose outside the NHS.

The 3 point plan only requires one thing of people. Responsibility!

Blimey red, I'd be no good as a politician. I'm far too consistent :hihi:

The state will even support you with your first child, and let you choose where and how you recieve medical treatment while providing you with the financial assitance if you choose outside the NHS.



You are indeed being far too consistent to be a politician Tony. Not even the Tories under Mr Cameron are now advocating "financial assistance if you choose {to go} outside the NHS". Nope, you must constantly change your opinion according to the mood of the electorate if you aspire to be a politician. Clearly this thread is just research for your manifesto, and given the hostile reception to your plans, I now expect to see you advocating free dummies for all 2nd, 3rd and 4th., babies! :hihi:

You'll never garner votes for your maverick proposals when out on the election stump though Tony, unless.....well.....just maybe.....you're seen to be kissing babies of course! :hihi:

You are still basing this on the flawed presumption that the current system allows parents to take NO responsibility for their children (or 2nd or 3rd if you wish).
Can you prove that this is the case, or is there a straw man in need of a good kicking around here?

Oh redrobbo, no need to be so melodramatic, the politician in you is showing ;)

I'll just point you back to the incredibly simple 3 Point Plan :)



You can still have more than one child, health care, education, and swings in the park. No need for sterilisation or abortion if you don't want them. The state will even support you with your first child, and let you choose where and how you recieve medical treatment while providing you with the financial assitance if you choose outside the NHS.

The 3 point plan only requires one thing of people. Responsibility!

Blimey red, I'd be no good as a politician. I'm far too consistent :hihi:

Tony , an alternative slant to your argument might be to withdraw state support to those parents who do not bring their children up to be decent,law abiding members of society. That should save an enormous proportion of the family allowance budget and also with a bit of luck reduce the numbers of such individuals walking our streets.

PS State sterilisation is already free for both male and females

You are indeed being far too consistent to be a politician Tony. Not even the Tories under Mr Cameron are now advocating "financial assistance if you choose {to go} outside the NHS". Nope, you must constantly change your opinion according to the mood of the electorate if you aspire to be a politician. Clearly this thread is just research for your manifesto, and given the hostile reception to your plans, I now expect to see you advocating free dummies for all 2nd, 3rd and 4th., babies! :hihi:
Ah, you're so right, but I have the advantage of not having to bow to the whims of daily fortune and Paxman. I can test the water to whatever depth I require for my evil purpose :D

unless.....well.....just maybe.....you're seen to be kissing babies of course! :hihi:

Babies? Is that all you have to kiss as a politician these days ? :hihi:


You are still basing this on the flawed presumption that the current system allows parents to take NO responsibility for their children (or 2nd or 3rd if you wish).
Can you prove that this is the case, or is there a straw man in need of a good kicking around here?

Ah, that would involve the later (and somewhat confusing) expansion with Point 4 of the 3 Point Plan. From post #25... Point 4 would allow people to opt out of the NHS providing they made private provision. In return they would receive further tax breaks.
Looks, sounds and is "financial assistance" to me ;)




Mo, I like that idea as an addition, but I think we would fall foul of the courts... and thanks for confirmation that we've already had a result on sterilisation!!! Whoohoo!

Tony , an alternative slant to your argument might be to withdraw state support to those parents who do not bring their children up to be decent,law abiding members of society. That should save an enormous proportion of the family allowance budget and also with a bit of luck reduce the numbers of such individuals walking our streets.

PS State sterilisation is already free for both male and females
By starving them to death?

Also, wouldn't it be better to allow for two 'state-funded' children, research has shown that only children have less social skills and reasoning ability (in general) than children from a large family. We'd end up with a society of people with no clue how to interact with one another... Also, unless you allowed for this, chances are the population would dive dramatically...

I don't understand how the 4th point of the 3 point system addresses the fact that you are trying to solve a problem that does not exist.

it appears that you are searching for a solution Tony to a problem which doesn't exist.
And the idea that people 'pop out' children simply to claim the massive government handout of £15/week simply doesn't make sense. A child costs more to raise than that.

If you have an issue with 'the benefits culture' which I think could stand a little reorganising then you'd be better off saying that that was the problem rather than couching it behind other less suportable arguments.can i just say that child benefit isnt based on the size of income,every one is allowed to claim it,whether earning a bisic wage or a few thousand pounds a week, years ago when my first son was born, i was awarded child benefit, i forget how much,but when i worked it out later i was paying more tax for excepting the payment than the payment was worth,i tried to explain this to the tax office and say i didnt want the benefit,but they insisted i had to have it by law,even the queen gets it,i was told,so what im trying to say is that the benefit payment is worthless if you are paying tax,so tony could be right, if you can afford kids then maybe you dont need the payment, now how about mortgage tax relief ? should that be payable ? and off shore tax havens ? why shouldnt those earning money in britain pay their full dues and demands like the rest of us ? :hihi: :rolleyes:

Like the 3 Point Plan plainly says, you can have as many children as you like, so if you've got lots of love to go around that's great! All that happens is that government assistance stops after the first child. Nothing more. You don't have to send them up chinmneys. So...

Need new shoes for kiddie 2? Pay for it yourself.
Need a bigger house for kiddie 3? Pay for it yourself.
You also said that sterilisation happens after the first child.

I thought that UK is a democratic country. To merely suggest extreme measures such as that within the Communistic political system of China is a tad ironic.

There are encouragement to Joe Public to not have more than 2 kids. (Other SE Asian countries do this, I think.) Then, there's forcing married couples not to have more than 2 kids by law. What a field day we will have on human right issues. :rolleyes:

No i think this is a rubbish idea Tony!

In China, there are many problems with abandoning of babies and even attempts to kill their child if they already have one child.

Even if everybody is sterilised, there will still be mistakes made such as getting pregnant as soon as their first child is born, before they have a chance to be sterilised and this may result in the above or abortion.

If everybody took extra precautions in sex then there wouldn't be as many 'mistake' pregnancies, or abortion, single mothers, benefit grabbing families etc.

Plus children give so much joy to parents, why should we stop people having children?

Why should there be any such thing as child benefit?

People should demonstrate that they are responsible emough to have children by making the effort to earn enough to look after them.

Taxpayers should not have to pay for under-achievers to breed.

Point 4 would allow people to opt out of the NHS providing they made private provision. In return they would recieve further tax breaks.

I take it you’ve had a long, face-to-face talk with Gordon Brown on this subject because if you haven’t it isn’t going to happen; which up to now ties in with the thoughts of the majority of Posters. At the risk of repeating myself about all things political, all decisions and ideas always work in practice but never in theory. Respect your ideas, but I don’t think they’d work. And anyway, you’d have to get them past the other Tony — the Right Honourable one, who isn’t!

[QUOTE=fox20thc]

What if someone has twins or triplets? Its not their fault so should they be penalised?
QUOTE]

My thoughts exactly - we have twins and I wouldn't have considered aborting one to fulfill a financial criteria. With family tax and child benefit the second one gets much much less anyway. In fact the baby element of family tax only counts for one baby so it doesn't help that much!
Isn't child benefit only given to those under a certain income anyway? Although I remember reading that even Tony Blair claims his, so maybe I'm wrong.

Why should there be any such thing as child benefit?

People should demonstrate that they are responsible emough to have children by making the effort to earn enough to look after them.

Taxpayers should not have to pay for under-achievers to breed.
Under achievers? tread carefully there! My partner works as a civil servant and I'm mostly self employed, we pay our way but our total income means we still get child benefit, as I understand all people with an income under £45,000 do.
How much do you earn? Are you an under achiever if you earn less than the amount?

Why should there be any such thing as child benefit?

People should demonstrate that they are responsible emough to have children by making the effort to earn enough to look after them.

Taxpayers should not have to pay for under-achievers to breed.

Barfast! For once I agree with you! When child benefit first arrived on the scene I was a young man, and the idea that I should have to pay for the married man’s pleasure for the rest of my working life, filled me with horror. My father brought me up without any help froom the state. In fact, in my formative years his dole money (he had worked at Brown Bayleys until they laid off employees in the 1920s) the dole money was reduced from 16s.6d, to 15s. Nevertheless, he still managed to feed and clothe me — and not with second-hand clothing either.

Under achievers? tread carefully there! My partner works as a civil servant and I'm mostly self employed, we pay our way but our total income means we still get child benefit, as I understand all people with an income under £45,000 do.
How much do you earn? Are you an under achiever if you earn less than the amount?
Mmm - I think I may owe an apology here - I didn't realise that it was paid to middle incomes.
That aside, it still means that childless people pay for those who choose to have families - which I think is wrong.
(More, and not necessarily, in answer to your questions)

I'm sure that bartfast is aware that child benefit doesn't exist for the benefit of parents, but to ensure a minimum standard of living for the child.

So the why of child benefit is to make sure that no child grows up in poverty in this country, a worthwhile aim.

Child benefit is means tested if I understand correctly, so it's not just a free ride for anyone who has a child.

The benefit should only apply to one child though and only for people earning less than national average. Parents on a good income shouldn't be getting benefit from the taxes of non parents.

shoeshine: Well, as far as I can tell. This thread posed a scenario, and asks the SF members whether such suggestions would work. It may be playing devil's advocate, but I thought it was interesting anyway to say the least. You've not offended me personally, but I found the post offensive. Though, this I have to say has to be one of those, differing of opinions. I think I know where you are coming from, and I think I've made it clear what my views are.

----------------------
Back on topic.

If slashing the child benefit, wouldn't there be an outcry from the people from those who 'had', and those who 'have not' ?

Mmm - I think I may owe an apology here - I didn't realise that it was paid to middle incomes.
That aside, it still means that childless people pay for those who choose to have families - which I think is wrong.
(More, and not necessarily, in answer to your questions)


The majority of us pay at least some tax that will be spent on something that we don't personally benefit from.
There are obviously hidden benefits though from ensuring that children don't grow up in poverty.

Those of us without cars might complain about the money spent on roads, those of us who aren't ill might complain about the nhs and those of us who don't use stadiums might think that the new wembley was a bit of waste.

Fortunately decisions are made by the people with the loudest voices (or supposedly not).

shoeshine: Well, as far as I can tell. This thread posed a scenario, and asks the SF members whether such suggestions would work. It may be playing devil's advocate, but I thought it was interesting anyway to say the least. You've not offended me personally, but I found the post offensive. Though, this I have to say has to be one of those, differing of opinions. I think I know where you are coming from, and I think I've made it clear what my views are.

----------------------
Back on topic.

If slashing the child benefit, wouldn't there be an outcry from the people from those who 'had', and those who 'have not' ?

I have apologised to you on a previous post here, and by PM just now, I apologise again if you are upset still. The post No 62. on this thread, as I have pointed out was not referring to you in anyway at all.

I can do no more than to state, to get back on topic, as you have done, that Family Allowances are a payment to the Mother of the children and always have been. In some relationships, unfortunately the fathers of children did not always behave responsibly to the mothers and children when the weekly wage turned up in their pockets. It still happens now.

Hence the mother was given a basic income for her children which theoretically was her right, and to their benefit.

No-one has a right to dictate on the one hand how many children a responsible, right minded couple should have, and on the other hand demand invasive medical procedures to prevent a woman from bearing more than one child. It is barbaric. I think that is what you, and other posters have said. I may be mistaken.

I've replied to your pm Shoeshine. (I had to reboot, sorry if you thought I avoided your PMs.)

Just for the record. Child benefit is different to Child Tax Credit.

http://www.direct.gov.uk/Parents/YourMoney/YourMoneyArticles/fs/en?CONTENT_ID=10016699&chk=8zDeix

Child benefit is not means-tested, and it is 'apparently' a set amount for per week for each child that is born in the UK. Or adopted, or is looked after.

Child Tax Credit is means-tested.

Even after knowing that a set amount is to be spent on children, do SF members still think that it should be scraped. If so, why ? If not, why ?

I will have to show this thread to a friend of mine and see what he says about it, because he as got 10 kids it would have been 11 but she lost the baby when she went the full term ie 41 weeks. she had her first when she was 16 years old as she is now only 30 she doesnt want anymore and before anybody says anything he is working and not living on state benefits or hand outs, he is a manager and as been for a very long time. would this apply to all the other nationalities who are here in this country or are saying just the english people should have there child benefit slashed?. I supose the goverment might as well give it a go they have done everything else to make the poorer people worse off whats the next thing you are going to come out with higher poll tax or even higher rents my answer to this thread is if i was a young chap then i would keep turning out babies with my girlfriend/wife/secret lover/mistress and anybody else who would like a baby or three.

Why should there be any such thing as child benefit?

People should demonstrate that they are responsible enough to have children by making the effort to earn enough to look after them.

Taxpayers should not have to pay for under-achievers to breed.

So why have we been paying for all the sprogs the Royal family produce
hardly big achievers are they .God knows they have scrounged enough from the country and still doing it.:twisted:

So why have we been paying for all the sprogs the Royal family produce
hardly big achievers are they .God knows they have scrounged enough from the country and still doing it.:twisted:
Once more you have a needless, small-minded stab at the Royal family - can we get back to the thread?

Now.. in an attempt to get this thread back on topic...

You also said that sterilisation happens after the first child.

I thought that UK is a democratic country. To merely suggest extreme measures such as that within the Communistic political system of China is a tad ironic.

There are encouragement to Joe Public to not have more than 2 kids. (Other SE Asian countries do this, I think.) Then, there's forcing married couples not to have more than 2 kids by law. What a field day we will have on human right issues. :rolleyes:

The Plan just cuts off any state support after the 1st child. You can have as many as you like though.

Point 2 of the Plan from the OP...
2. The upside is that the state can offer optional but free sterilisation for those who have their one child and have no need of any more.

I understand that the stimulation of debate can spur reactions on a quiet Forum, Tony. The point I was making was that things no longer seem to be the same as they were 3 months ago.

For example, take Bartfast, a good bloke, one I would wish to stand facing enemies of me and mine single handed if you like with just an M16 and a box of ammo in his hand. Now Bartfast has at times not been polite when putting his views, and has upset some people on here. He gets banned for being forthright in those views, and on odd occasions going over the top with them.

I quote Post 1 of this thread
Quote
The population of the planet is growing exponentially to the point where there are now more people alive today than have ever lived in the past. We all know the damaging implications of population growth!

So, here's an idea for discussion. It's a 3 point plan for the UK ...

1. In the spirit of the Chinese One Child Law, child benefits are limited to one child only. If you want any more children then you pay for them from your own means. That also goes for tax credits, housing and all the other state handouts. The cut off is one child.

2. The upside is that the state can offer optional but free sterilisation for those who have their one child and have no need of any more.

3. Those couples who don't have any children, and therefore have less need of state funds can then have a tax rebate and increased pension provision in return for having no child to care for them in old age.

Well?
End quote.

Would he have been allowed to OP that as a starting thread 3 months later, without a ban himself possibly, and without everone shouting "Troll, Troll".............and getting someone, somewhere in the thread banned for outspoken comments.

Am I making sense with this?......

I was always on topic! And it was always an inane thread started by somebody who should know better than to troll.

It would apply regardless of the child's health, remembering that an unhealthy child is a bigger financial burden. If a child dies, then you would get another go, with child-free tax breaks in the intervening period.


Is it really acceptable to be so flippant and insensitive about a heart-breaking subject? You might as well just have said "Hey, it doesn't matter that your kid's dead - have some money off your income tax to make it all better. Then you can just have another kid to replace the one who died."

Is it really acceptable to be so flippant and insensitive about a heart-breaking subject? You might as well just have said "Hey, it doesn't matter that your kid's dead - have some money off your income tax to make it all better. Then you can just have another kid to replace the one who died."

Thank you. Some sense. xxxxx

The short answer is that it's not a troll. What's trolling about a hypothetical suggestion for reforming a part of the taxation system? (That's not a question that needs an answer) ;)

I'm not sure I follow you shoeshine, because nothing much has changed in 3 months really. Perhaps you just have your feet further under the tabe than you did before, and your toes are warmer. ;)

Is it really acceptable to be so flippant and insensitive about a heart-breaking subject? You might as well just have said "Hey, it doesn't matter that your kid's dead - have some money off your income tax to make it all better. Then you can just have another kid to replace the one who died."
That seems like quite a reasonable offer.
Rather that than let the irresponsible breed like rabbits and have others pay to feed, dress and house them.

In the spirit of the hypothetical question then;

so when the population has too many boys (for example) we can scan pregnant women and abort the girls to balance things again??? :loopy:

Once more you have a needless, small-minded stab at the Royal family - can we get back to the thread?

No it was a big stab ,and unfortunately sometimes the truth hurts.:twisted:

That seems like quite a reasonable offer.
Rather that than let the irresponsible breed like rabbits and have others pay to feed, dress and house them.

Well, I'm sorry, but in this bizarre fantasy world that is being created in this thread I don't want my taxes to be used to pay for bigoted people to receive free medical care. I think that you should only get to call an ambulance for your first heart attack, then you're on your own...

Is it really acceptable to be so flippant and insensitive about a heart-breaking subject? You might as well just have said "Hey, it doesn't matter that your kid's dead - have some money off your income tax to make it all better. Then you can just have another kid to replace the one who died."
Well this is a thread about tax, not broken hearts. If it wasn't then perhaps I would be suggesting a Sympathy Benefit, or the abolition of Inheritance Tax.

In the spirit of the hypothetical question then;

so when the population has too many boys (for example) we can scan pregnant women and abort the girls to balance things again???
In the spirit of the thread you can have as many children as you like (see the OP). There has never been any other suggestion despite what a few other people have misread. :)

Well this is a thread about tax, not broken hearts. If it wasn't then perhaps I would be suggesting a Sympathy Benefit, or the abolition of Inheritance Tax.




I think you should apologise for the earlier crack you made and the way you phrased it.

That seems like quite a reasonable offer.
Rather that than let the irresponsible breed like rabbits and have others pay to feed, dress and house them.

Bartfast, whilst I may employ you to fight my and my family's enemy, I think your thinking gains few friends among the general population with comments of that sort. Sometimes it pays to soften up, recognise we all have different life experiences and try to accomodate them. I too am guilty of the same thing on another thread when I "came out" as homophobic.

I should have stilled my tongue somewhat. This is not a gladitorial contest between Members of SF. :)

Most mothers work now, (unless they have the luxury of not having to) so have paid taxes. Why then should they not be allowed (hypothetically) to have more than one child and receive a little bit of money for raising their children. After all the government want mums to bring thier children up better and this happens to involve being a mother (they have it a**se over t*t and know it at the moment).

So instead of deniying mothers the right to have access to funds in order to care for their children why not target the tax dodging builders of the world!!! :rant: :rant: :rant: purely personal example, forgive me

Hey Tony, failing the apology we could have a mini meet? I can show you my photos of my 2 babies, who are now dead. And you can cheer me by explaining your "getting another go" theory and define your position as Co-Admin. What do you think?

sugarnspice - leave it please. Whilst I'm sorry for your personal situation this thread is about child benefit payments and the matters (and realities) that surround it. It's also months old and you are treating it in an entirely different way to how it was at the time of writing.

There is no amendment to the rules that says members can abuse the Mod / Admin team because they should somehow have broader shoulders. Many members of the Team would have banned you by now for carrying this on - in fact I would if it had been another member and not me. As it is I'm being VERY polite and being very patient and using my very broad shoulders.

Now, enough please. Let the thread move on.

Then you can aplogise by PM. Like a man. And I will merrily leave this thread. Promise.

I have lost pretty much all disrespect for this forum tonight. If I start insipid threads tomorrow, I shall quote this one as my inspiration, without a ban I feel.

* He did not, in case anybody was wondering, apologise. Even though numerous SF members did on his behalf. I'm about to struggle through a birthday anniversary of my second Son too.

P** Please note, should I be banned for correcting a mod, I shall be back and am hardly likely to forget such an idiotic remark (especially from Co-Admin)!

Read away: I have tonight learned: anything making a mod look bad is deleted asap so most of the truth has gone by the morning. Although, I have reported a post by a Co-Admin ( - how convenient - nothing has happened after several hours).

* Please note: I do not usually cause trouble, JoeP I have respect for and evildrneil I find sublime, Cloudybay is always fair ( as thruthful examples).

I don't really see why you are expecting an apology from tony sugarnspice. You've made a point about your personal situation, but as ever the thread is general and clearly wasn't aimed at you.

Maybe you think the government extremely insensitive when they talk about inheritance benefit, and all the people who just lost parents should be offended? Or maybe it's one of the nasty facts of life that ultimately has to be accepted when working out something like taxation?

I don't agree with Tonys original point, i've argued against it throughout the thread, but apart from deciding to take personal offence against it, you've not made any points about it.

I'd back the idea if it was a 2 child law. The general feeling of a lot of British people without children, is that they want 2 - A family of 4.

I don't think there are enough of us here in the UK for this to make enough of a difference worldwide either.

Hello Nate

Have one child and bringing him up would have been easier if he had a brother or sister. so i think that the ideal family should stop at 4, being 2 children and the parents. i became severley disabled due to contracting meningitis when my child was just 3 years old so i could not have any more children even tho' i would loved to have 2 children.
juliediane