Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Is two children too little? Dunno. Seems about right.
</Friday morning tentative opinion>
there is an "economies of scale" effect with large families, I think - I don't think it costs four times as much to look after four children as it does to look after one children (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong).
at present, child benefit pays £20.30pw for the first child and £13.40pw thereafter. Tax credits could be modelled in a similar way.
of how many you have.
That's just not true.
can you explain your answer to my specific question:
Do shoe shops in the UK do buy 2 get 1 free offers?
If i've misunderstood the point, please enlighten me.
but if your answer to my question raises a wider point then I'll take that up
I'm just confused by your answer and so I'm not sure what your wider point is in reference to my question
could you expand?
This is a worthwhile exchange.
But generally not.
because it looks like you are, and you probably are.
the literal answer to your question is "maybe, who knows. some probably do, but it's not a big thing"
the answer to the, perhaps unintended, rhetorical inference that he's talking bullshit is the one he's given
but for our second we didn't have to buy a new buggy, a new cot, hardly any new clothes, redecorate a room to become a nursery, didn't have to buy a steriliser and all that shit, towels etc... yes of course there is some additional expense incurred when a second child is born but not twice as much. hence the taper suggestion.
hand-me-downs aren't exclusive to those who share identical bone marrow matches
the point can be made that all children & parents can buy cheaper, second hand goods. All of us can buy Tesco supersize 5kg mayo and stick it in the back of the pantry for a decade.
A wider point could be made for more frugality and less consumption anyway
but to pretend that a third child will not incur any additional expense to having two already is clearly bullshit
Are you going to have hand-me down nappies? What if child 2's wellies leak? You have to buy new wellies for child 2 AND child three because they're not going to get the hand me downs etc.
by taking away the universal child benefit you ARE (whatever way you tackle your household expenses) depriving that 3rd child in any family in comparison to their siblings
race to the bottom
some things can be handed down / shared / can benefit from the economies of scale; some things can't. I don't know what an appropriate taper would be.
ffs if you're going to argue then at least read my response before wading in with your non-handed-down shoes :)
so yes, technically we could use them as hand-me-downs, but i don't know if I can face the horror of starting to use them again!
(look, if it was a choice between a cap and leaving it as it is, I would choose the latter)
I can't imagine theres THAT many people who have a boatload of kids just for the extra £10 a week or whatever they get for each one, and in the grand scheme of things, what will it add up to? Barely 0.1% of taxes I'd imagine.
It's not just child benefit and tax credits, it's housing benefit, council tax excemption etc.
I work in a fairly affluent town in a shop and there're a hell of a lot of people come in and discuss pregnancies in terms of government help.
They'd still get all those other things regardless, wouldn't they? Something that really strikes me always is that the lower classes are almost vilified for having children. These poorly educated children will be needed as adults to dig up roads, work on roofs, stand in a prodcution line for 12 hours a day. You're not going to get little Tarquin and pandora grwoing up happy to work sweeping litter, are you?
if half of the financial incentives were removed.
Don't get me wrong, the DM reader in me gets riled when you hear of 8 children families in mansions getting more than me for sitting about. They're not living in luxury though, and the outlay when looking at the big picture is nothing. I just cant see the point of it other than FUCK THEM THEY SHOULD LOOK AFTER THEMSELVES. I dont see any other positive other than satisfaction that they have a slightly more difficult life, you know?
... it's not like we have a ridiculously high youth unemployment rate or anything, especially among those from lower class backgrounds who've left school with a poor education, is it?
The office market is booming at the moment. We should build some more call centres so those poor fucks can be de-humanized in the most brutal ways possible for minimum wage
especially in certain areas.
That said, it's not so much that people have kids for the benefits - more they know they can get the benefits if they do have a kid.
And I'm kind of supposed to for my job. They're deeply confusing things.
you just drown the runt of the litter
anyone with a Landed family will tell you that - it's good stewardship
Less than 1/6th of recipients have more than two children anyway, and if you genuinely think £20.30 a week for the first child plus £13.40 for every other child is enough to pay for bringing up a child for a week, well...
obviously won't be having any for quite a while, but yeah, I'm aware of the costs of bringing kids up, because my family talk about them quite openly.
since we're deciding what or who is a waste of fucking time
my parents experience with them, dozen or so good mates with young kids, and knowledge from my previous job of work.
glad to clear this up, pal.
I can see why that might have embittered you.
Having children is a horribly selfish lifestyle choice. I've never understood why the state supplements it.
you have your cats and your sense of self-righteousness to keep you going.
only took 11 mins
I mean think children are a personal choice (and specifically not a right) and I've sympathy with the argument that fertility treatment shoudn't be available on the NHS.
But once the kids are born they're born. You can't just let 'em starve to death 'cos you think their parents are selfish.
plus the fact that the economy needs new workers and consumers and taxpayers to replace the old ones that get worn out
And that's not to say people can't have more than 2, as long as it is within their means.
they have 2 kids
so it's not as simple as two people, one couple, two children, one family
(Though obviously married couple =/= couple with children).
the divorce rate trend, especially with the recession
Yeah, the state supporting everyone to have two children is probably a fair use of resources and supporting more probably means people are getting more than they're fair share.
But the problem is what happens when people have more than 2 children even though it isn't within their means? It seems to me either you let the children starve without support, or you get a crack social services team to raid the maternity ward at dawn and take the 3rd child away. Compared to both of those I think the current system is the lesser of evils.
And then the person can't have any more, even if they subsequently improve their financial situation and could fund them themselves?
Seems a bit unfair.
If they're that desperate for children then they can adopt some unwanted ones.
not the selfish one here
Would you rather you didn't exist?
1) First off this absolutely should not be applied retrospectively. If it was done when people have kids in the future so they can make informed choices that's one thing - if they take it away from existing kids you're just increasing child poverty.
2) Ultimately the danger in any case it's the kids who will suffer.
2) Surely in future cases that's the parent's responsibility, not the state's.
But the problem around children is that, whilst in principle I agree people shouldn't get the support to get as many kids as they can whilst other people struggle to cost up whether they can afford one or two children, the reality is in practice that - parents' responsibility or not - the kids are the ones that grow up without toys, books, appropriate nutrition, clothing etc. Should you suffer because of your parents' mistakes?*
*I know really everyone does anyway.
Emotional development, a strong moral compass for example.
And who's to say they would suffer, perhaps if parents are more responsible they would be able to work once the children entered nursery/full-time education and the need to lean on the state would be reduced.
It isn't fair that a couple who work and provide for their family with little to no state assistance would have to consider putting off having children, whilst those who do not contribute (and yes, I'm aware how awful this language sounds) do not have these same worries.
But the fundamental thing is that isn't the children's faults. We're effectively punishing parents by making their kids suffer.
It's based - admittedly like many Tory policies - on a belief that taking support away will massively improve people morally but I'd say, whilst it might (and only might) have an impact over several generations, people don't lose the environment they've grown up in overnight.
I'm not entirely sure what taking away benefits is going to do for children's emotional development or strong moral compass either.
it could go properly tits up -
i think i pretty much agree with the idea in principal, but am pretty worried about what i expect to be near inevitable unintended consequences.
you've swallowed the hook, and the line and you're half way up the rod
And I do, for a lot of things.
I also think that countries and their populations have to roll with the punches though.
brainwash you into thinking that the something-for-nothing culture of poor people is the problem
but the bigger problem is that the something-for-nothing culture of rich people are using all their riches and power to cast the other end of the scale as the demon and force all the responsibility and consequence on societies most vulnerable - the poor and their children ffs
i think that's getting off the subject a little
And I see evidence of it on a daily basis.
the selfish something-for-nothing attitude of working the system at the bottom is THE SAME selfish something-for-nothing attitude of working the system at the top
and yet you allow those selfish bastards at the top to work the system while simultaneously condemning the selfish bastards at the bottom
what's more, you entertain the selfish-bastard directives of the haves as the (a) solution
There are other solutions to other contributing factors at the other end of the scale. And I happily support those too. The recession isn't one class' fault. You can rant all you want about the rich being the power-holders in this country but the fact remains that all sections of society have contributed to it.
you've lost me again
it isn't the fault of class or wealth it is the fault of selfishness - the selfish people at the top design their selfish system
if the people at the bottom utilise their selfish streak in order to survive (as they are often forced into thinking they have to) they are cast as pariahs and seen as being UNFAIR to people like you. Yeah you.
And this unfairness makes you unhappy. You work hard. You care for your family. You don't have a 40inch TV or whatever. There must be something wrong here! And that story, that narrative makes you that little bit more selfish, infects you with that righteous individualistic shiver
But it's all an illusion and it's all part of their fucking system to justify their own selfishness and self-righteousness.
If you're 'clever' enough or 'work hard' enough to be rich then you can employ an accountant to bury your shekels on a treasure island and not have to take your collective responsibility for raising everybody up.
If you're 'lazy' or 'stupid' enough to be poor and dependent on the state then you are a parasite! and you must be cast down!
But J.K. Rowling probably has a better way with words than I do on the subject of benefit cuts and collective responsibilty vs congratulatory individualism
but I find myself agreeing with you on this :s
i think i'm broadly in favor of it as long as point 1 is applied.
point 2 ---------- hmmmmmmmmmm............. that's true, but we don't regulate other parental choices that have negative effects on kids. I'd argue that if you have parent's who are bringing kids into the world that they know they won't be able to support then they are not going to be the best parents anyway. I know that's a bit of a shitty argument with loads of holes in it, more an example that there will always be kids who don't get the proper support from their folks and i don't think that's really the states responsiblity.
well we bloody well should
smacking should be illegal
there should be much stricter controls on advertising aimed at children
there should be much stricter controls of food nutritional content aimed at children
there should be free nursery care for all
thus regulating them would preclude a range of negative or forced parental choices
And I don't think they are bad things to address. In fact, I agree with you completely.
when it comes to abortion?
parents (or at least one of them) should be able to choose to kill a child for a certain period, but thereafter should be restricted from making certain "bad" choices that would impact on the child's welfare?
I see. *raises eyebrow*
killing a child is murder
I don't condone that
choosing to drink, smoke and take drugs throughout her pregnancy? Is that fine because her parental responsibilty hasn't yet commenced?
and who said a couple or individual is not responsible for choosing an abortion?
and who said that choosing to smoke, drink or take drugs is fine or responsible in any situation?
You see, I'm pro choice because, despite the fact that I would never choose to abort a foetus myself, I can understand and empathise with a whole spectrum of different reasons why someone else would want or have to make that choice and wouldn't force my moral compass on them
in the case of an abortion it is the couple or individual who takes the responsibility of making that choice and it is them who has to live with the consequences
I would like to think that in such cases decisions are not taken likely, they are ALWAYS taken with medical guidance and supervision and always carried out by health professionals in the safest way possible
whereas in the case given in my little list above it is the child - and NOT the parent who makes the choice - who has to live with the consequences of those decisions and they certainly are not done under constant medical supervision or expert guidance
apart from the person(s) making the decision. For example, what if the father wants to keep the child but the mother unilaterally decides to abort regardless?
thus has opportunity to argue his case - even in a court of law if he feels
also, the consequence of banning abortion would cause a cascade of other problems and consequences - the like of which I'm sure you're aware
so now we've got that settled why don't you come at me with all your reasons why parents should have the right to hit their children
I think sparingly used corporal punishment is a good tool for teaching children how to behave well. How do you propose children best be punished by their parents?
How do you suppose wives best be punished by their husbands?
to bring up his wife. If she needs hitting as an adult, her parents have failed her.
There is a clear difference. A parent has a responsibility to raise his or her child, an element of which is instilling the concept of right and wrong.
that allow him or her to discharge his or her parental responsibilities fully (particularly in terms of punishment).
than corporal punishment then I suggest you think long and hard about having kids.
have you, champ?
when your giving them a smack for answering you back or whatever you deem worthy of getting physical with a child about.
The point is deterrence, not getting them to MTFU. Thinking any sort of physical discipline is "grim" is MTFU territory, though.
so what you're really saying is;
I think sparingly using corporal punishment is a good tool for forcing my child to think the way that I was forced to and see the world in the way I was forced to see it. How do you suppose children best be punished for having their own view of the world?
Glad we got your views cleared up on the subject but I'll have to leave you in this miserable little subthread on your own now because frankly I'm embarrassed to be seen engaging with you
very odd. Were your parents hippies who just let you find your own way in the world from birth?
and then using them as a workforce for free/subsidised nurseries for parents with other jobs is pretty much the best way to address unemployment, dependence on benefits, making jobs a better option than working and pretty much everything governments claim to be trying to do with the welfare state.
and I'd argue childcare skills should be taught in all secondary schools as well
I work with unemployed parents and plenty of them want to work in childcare anyway so I genuinely think it could work.
HOWEVER that's new claims as opposed to new children.
Dunno whether this policy would actually discourage people to have kids, but I certainly wish it was part of our culture that people didn't have kids if they couldn't afford to look after them properly, both in terms of financial and time commitments.
I would think that most sensible people actually plan to have children, and if you do then being able to finacnially afford to raise your child 'properly' would probably pretty much at the top of your list of things to take into consideration.
But, obviously, accidents happen. One 'mistake' I can live with, perhaps two at a push, but by the third one you're just being careless. If you can afford to maintain these accidents yourself, then fill your boots as much as you like, of course.
The problem is that even though the benefit restraints are meant to 'punish' the parents, it's the children that suffer, and it's not their fault. In that respect i'm not entirely sure what the answer is. Chemical castration, maybe?
But technically you only need one accident to go over the limit, no?
The whole concept feels like a fudge and an admission that the tax system isn't right in the first place.
Benefits? Yeah, give people (access to) resources etc. Generous levels of childcare provision. Parenting classes, if required. Promote paternity leave.
Maybe I'm missing something, our was brought up differently or something. Tax credits are a pretty decent development, right?
but not if awarded universally
With benefits, the money paid out by the state is much smaller than the money paid into it becuase you need to (needlessly) pay people in the tax office to shuffle some paper around before you get it get your taxes back in the for of benefits. Much better to just lowert the tax rate, leaving a larger amount of money directly in people's pockets than the smaller amount received through benefits.
but never, ever, say simples again.
cause he was actually talking a lot of sense.
before you get it get your taxes back in the for of benefits
1) Those that can extrapolate from incomplete data.
as 6th form trolling is a perfectly valid, mature debating technique?
The money for child benefit does not just magically appear in your bank account. It requires administration to make it happen.
Benefits aren't always in cash. Some (the best ones?) are collective or improved provision, rater than /handouts/. i.e. the aforementioned generous levels of childcare provision, parenting classes where required, promotion of paternity leave etc.
So whilst I do go along with the questioning of a logic that taxes income only to return some back after admin, I wanna see wages be decent enough to live off, and I'm not looking for THE STATE to be cut back to an absolute minimum (on the totally hollow promise of ye olde "money in pockets" cliche).
*Tax credits are a pretty *R*ecent development, right?
Gonna need plenty more immigrants to keep the country running then.
But the replacement birth rate (ie to keep the population stable) is about 2.4, this seems like an attempt to drive that down in this country. The infrastructure of this country needs a certain number of people to keep it going, the fewer births you have, the more immigrant labour you need. This is clearly a Tory plot to create a huge Dubai style underclass of immigrants to prop up the middle-class lifestyles of a smaller and smaller elite.
(I don't believe all this by the way, but there's more than a hint of truth in it)
drive down the population of the poorer families and thus increase in relative terms the population of the richer familes because we all know that having wealth means you have superior genes
it has the added benefit of reducing the number of the poor's standing army should this cold war against them turn hot
Perhaps you could advocate increasing child benefit for the first 2 children, using any money saved from cutting it after 2.
But anyway, I think the UK's population went up loads over the past 10 years? So the rate of immigration (and reduction in deaths) clearly more than made up for any falling birth rates.
but at some point soon it's going to start to fall because the birth rate is already below replacement level. There are arguable merits in that, but whatever happens this policy seems designed to drive down the birth rate amongst poorer people, as not Anschul points out. That may not be the primary aim, but the government will be considering the effects of the policy - that's why we have a census, to help plan future provisions, and if the government policy is to further drive down the birth rate you can only assume they want to increase immigration in the long run. Not that there's anything wrong with that...
we won;t be short of an economic migrant or two.
of kitchmo as a matador and thewza as a bull
1) Add a tail.
2) Add the John Inman stick figure saying ¡Olé!
Aw bite more than that, I had a really good idea to troll you with and now I'll have to wait.
and actually having read the article, i think as a policy it's flawed, too many possible negative consequences, too many assumptions that people will respond to the change in the way intended.
I give it a chris-budget thumbs down.
What are they going to do, let in foreigns instead?
one of them was a doctor banging on about people coming in to have their slips signed so they can get benefits and the other one was a single father of three kids whose wife had died and he lost his job and was on benefits. it was all very anecdotal and seemed like a bit of a waste of time. i thought radio 4 was supposed to be good
i never did find out for sure
i also saw radio 4 with har mar on bongos
but I couldn't manage a whole one.
Will be interesting to se if this actually makes it into legislaton and, if so, whether/ how quickly Labour reverse it back out when they win the next general election.
You heard it here first.
I will happily put £100 up that Labour will win the next election. Proceeds go to charity. We good to go?
... Yeah, OK then, let's do it.
I think you're a bit more up on worthy causes than me. I feel a bit like Donald Trump
*shakes on it*
Bookmark it yo. Im a man of my word and Ill hunt you down if you back down.
I just can't honestly see myself, 2 1/2 years down the line, watching Ed Miliband enter 10 Downing Street.
The Tories are ready right now. They've got their man. Labour are still in a long process of recovering from the Blair/Brown years. The party's split several different ways, even at grassroots level. Nobody knows quite what coherent new direction we should be taking.
I just can't realistically imagine any other outcome. I don't support the guy, but Cameron's the ready-made statesman. The Lib Dems are a busted flush so we can't rely on them to pull ourselves into coalition.
We just haven't done enough yet. No one knows what Labour stand for.
PLaying at ATP
Ready Made Statesmen
The Good Ship
THe polls are usually fairly arrcyuarate (or at least more so that some guy'#s 'gut feelig'.) If you're right, I'll take my hat off to you. or maybe eat it or something.
that's how i remember it
chance of coming away as the biggest party but I'd say the chances of them getting a working majority especially considering even with all of your points above Labour pulled 11 points ahead today.
but I don't think people are saying 'Labour' because they're actually convinced by Miliband (though his speech at conference was great and might have changed that)- more because they don't want the current lot in again.
These polls rarely have an 'apathetic/none' option or something similar. That'll be what rises off the back of dissatisfaction with the Coalition, not the Labour vote.
we either get a Labour government (which I'd broadly support) or songs_about_ducking looks silly.
Look your entitled to a view but yours is based on an emotive response rather than anything solid.
My prediction is hung Parliament, with Labour the largest party.
far too many people attribute an equitable amount of agency to people in very different socio-economic circumstances. Maybe that sounds patronising, but never mind. It's a hypocritical stance, anyway. Wrt the child benefits thing, the argument essentially goes `people from poor socio-economic backgrounds have the agency to make decisions, so we shouldn't create an economic structure that cares for them, because their choices are not our responsibility. However, they're making IMMORAL choices, so, as a result, i think we should STRIP THEM OF THEIR AGENCY.`
So yeah, it's pretty dumb.
£200 a week if you are childless - but it drops £50 for every child you have.