Why Do Taxpayers Have To Pay For Kids?

[Guest absolutezero]

No Logans Run

Quite right.

Soylent Green is no Logan's run.

[Stars]

Quite right.

Soylent Green is no Logan's run.

You poor, damaged thing

Sigh

[Britney's Piers]

Never mind kids - why do we look after old people?

what film was it got rid of you when you got to a certain age? (Was it logan's run? Oh yes - A young man at odds with his society's mandatory death sentence for all those turning 21 plots a daring escape on the eve of .... )

I think it's all going to have to stop.

Indeed, the human body is not meant to last forever, the bible gives you threescore and ten years, which sounds about right. After that the chances of cancer, dementia, and all sorts increases, nature is telling us something.

[Guest absolutezero]

Indeed, the human body is not meant to last forever, the bible gives you threescore and ten years, which sounds about right. After that the chances of cancer, dementia, and all sorts increases, nature is telling us something.

A book written 2000 years ago contains the answers to all our problems?

Pull the other one. It's got bells on it.

[keeprenting]

This discussion has been had before on this forum.

All it revealed is that there are many tight fisted, childless, immoral, c*nts on the forum

I think it's absurd to accuse the people paying into the system of being "immoral" or "c*nts" for not wanting their money taken away. The really immoral people are those who have children just to get their hands on benefits, or those who vote Labour just to give themselves the right to put their hands in other people's pockets.

Why is it immoral to want to keep the money you've earned? Surely it's far more immoral to take away from other people without giving anything in return.

In my opinion, the total abolition of child benefit would be a very good thing for society. And I don't agree with the idea of taking it away from higher earners but not from anyone else. People on about £40/£50k are the ones who deserve child benefit the most, for juggling the demands of children and work.

I would replace child benefit with a higher personal allowance for anyone with children.

[Dubai]

As mentioned earlier, I think it's very alarming that some Britons feel more comfortable paying for bogus wars, foreign "aid", the eussr and banker's / public 'servant's' bonuses than British children's welfare. Weird.

[SarahBell]

I would replace child benefit with a higher personal allowance for anyone with children.

So you can earn more but not get more benefits.

I like the idea of getting people into the "must work" mentality.

[aa3]

Simple solution,

Reform all benefits into a negative income tax. If you can't earn the money you get supported. (£12k threshold 47.5% flat tax rate, abolish employers NI and Employee NI)

No more child benefit, no more pensions, no more means tested ********.

It would make any job worth taking (even if it only paid £1 per hour), and would be a massive tax cut for anyone who earned less than about £44k. and no tax cut for anyone above that.

It simplifies the whole administration of benefits and targets then squarely at those who need them (ie the poor).

It will never happen though, as it stops politicians being able to bribe their favourite support groups.

I think your solution is a very good idea. I'm a big fan of the negative income tax. So even if a person is only worth a small wage on the free market.. they can still get out there and work.

[1929crash]

Why not just axe it?…if people want kids they should pay themselves… instant saving to the UK taxpayer of £10. 5 billion.

Ah, I see you welcome the return of malnutrition and rickets.

Children are not just commodities or personal property. They have no say in whether or not they are born, so why should they be punished?

They are also the next generation and if you sow the seeds of misery now, you will reap the whirlwind of violent disorder in less than a generation.

[1929crash]

So you can earn more but not get more benefits.

I like the idea of getting people into the "must work" mentality.

The can't be bothered to work mentality grew up in the 1980s when there were no jobs in many parts of the country.

What people - like Sarah Bell - who still hold on to this misguided view is to explain how you can create a must-work mentality when the jobs won't be there.

We're at 2.5 million now (excluding those on incapacity benefit) Does anyone seriously believe that new jobs will be created by the cuts that are on the way?

[SarahBell]

Jobs are always there. People just don't want to wipe old people's behinds for minimum wage.

We need a higher NI rate for immigrants.

And if there's not a job then make one.

Britain needs people who can see where there can be a business.

Sometimes the job isn't there until you make it there.

[1929crash]

Jobs are always there. People just don't want to wipe old people's behinds for minimum wage.

We need a higher NI rate for immigrants.

And if there's not a job then make one.

Britain needs people who can see where there can be a business.

Sometimes the job isn't there until you make it there.

the number of vacancies is currently 475,000, some 2 million + short of the official unemployed figure.

I know plenty of people who wipe people's behinds for the minimum wage and they are all Welsh/British.

You seriously believe that 2 million extra jobs can be created by people setting up their own businesses? Even if that many people were capable of coming up with a new business idea, where is the demand for these products or services? we are in a recession.

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=12

[miko]

Jobs are always there. People just don't want to wipe old people's behinds for minimum wage.

We need a higher NI rate for immigrants.

And if there's not a job then make one.

Britain needs people who can see where there can be a business.

Sometimes the job isn't there until you make it there.

I have said it so many times on here , but will say it again , don't sit on here moaning about the lazy and the work shy , try this simple exercise .

Pretend that you are unemployed and that the industry you worked in has all but vanished in this country due to outsourcing and go out looking for work.

Re train , Re skill, set your sites lower , and then see how hard it is . People say take anything wait tables ect , fine no problem with that , problem is they don't want you they want young and timid .

The hardest thing about getting a job is getting to an interview and now that most recruitment is done on line , once they see the c.v. and the age and experience they never come back to you. Im lucky after retraining i did get a job , not in what i retrained in , but out of the 4,000 people i worked with that lost their jobs when the firm shut many many are still unemployed , not because they are lazy because the jobs are not there .

Don't just tell them to start their own businesses , if it was that simple no one would work for anyone else , but it is not .

Now go and do the exercise that I set.

Edited May 17, 2010 by miko

[pablopatito]

Quite right Miko

I've also had unemployed friends who are constantly turned down for low-skilled jobs on the grounds that they are "over-qualified". A couple have even lied about their qualifications on their CVs to make themselves appear more stupid and less educated.

[TheEmperorHasNoClothes]

Because if no one had children society would completely die out within a few decades.

If a society paid people not to have children who would pay the taxes to provide the money?

So societies pay people to have children because that is the only way societies can survive.

I think Charles Darwin may disagree with you there.

And anyway the children of people who spend a life on benefits will also. most likely, spend a life on benefits, so there would be more money available if they were not born at all.

Edited May 17, 2010 by TheEmperorHasNoClothes

[abharrisson]

According to this website http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081128035558AAM1nxd there are about 12 Million kids under the age of 18 in the UK.

Child benefit is paid at £20.30 for the first child and £13.40 for the second.

According to http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7071611.stm the average number of kids per household in the UK is 1.8 but for simplicity I am going to round this up to 2.

This means, in approximate figures taxpayers are paying about £20.30 for 6 million kids and £13.40 for the remaining 6 million.

Total cost to the state per week:- £202.2 million or £10.5 billion per year.

Child benefit is not means tested, hence your average Joe and Mary earning big bucks in London get the same amount as a couple on the dole in Hartlepool.

Why not just axe it?…if people want kids they should pay themselves… instant saving to the UK taxpayer of £10. 5 billion.

By the way, I claim child benefit for my 2 year old and it goes into a long-term investment, which matures when she is 18. Hopefully a nice little nest egg to cover university fees or whatever else she might want at that age.

I have long felt that all these tax breask and perks over a certain level should go... not to re-invest in other subsidies and perks but to cut he overall govt expenditure. I also think we could go further ... for instance not giving the basic state pension ( not the earning related element) to anyone with a pension pot or a drawing pesnion over a certain level..... the basic state pension will be relatively meaningless ot me when I retire for one reason and another and I'd galdly see the system reformed in this way... the state should be there only to pick up the pieces when you fall not provide cherries on top for the wealthy or a living for the feckless.

[miko]

Quite right Miko

I've also had unemployed friends who are constantly turned down for low-skilled jobs on the grounds that they are "over-qualified". A couple have even lied about their qualifications on their CVs to make themselves appear more stupid and less educated.

Yes it's madness .

[miko]

I have long felt that all these tax breask and perks over a certain level should go... not to re-invest in other subsidies and perks but to cut he overall govt expenditure. I also think we could go further ... for instance not giving the basic state pension ( not the earning related element) to anyone with a pension pot or a drawing pesnion over a certain level..... the basic state pension will be relatively meaningless ot me when I retire for one reason and another and I'd galdly see the system reformed in this way... the state should be there only to pick up the pieces when you fall not provide cherries on top for the wealthy or a living for the feckless.

The problem is with scrapping the state pension for those that have provided for themselves is that they were forced to pay in to it.

[SarahBell]

Don't just tell them to start their own businesses , if it was that simple no one would work for anyone else , but it is not .

And that's the point. If there are no people encouraged to work for themselves and take on other staff then you may as well shoot people when they lose a job.

Yes some people will struggle to find a job and only ever want to be employed.

The answer is not to make people stay on benefits just cos they think there's no jobs.

No jobs = economic ruin = having to starve people without jobs until number of unemployed < number of jobs.

[The Ayatollah Buggeri]

Britain has a serious overpopulation problem. The Optimum Population Trust's research has concluded that in broad terms, the total population Great Britain can sustain in terms of natural resources and economic capacity is in the region of 30m. It's currently 62m and counting. Related to which, a worrying proportion of new births are to the economically inactive and/or unskilled, non-English speaking immigrants. The people who are likely to be motivated to educate their children to equip them to be a positive contributor to society are not having the children, because they can't afford to.

We need to engineer a steep decline in the population, but not suddenly and in the course one generation, which is what China has done and as a result is storing up a pensions/demographic timebomb even worse than ours when the workers currently in their 20s to 40s reach retirement age.

1. The economic immigration of unskilled workers has to stop, and the children of all immigrants no longer to get full UK citizenship until they've got 10 years of full NI contributions under their belt.

2. The unskilled and long-term benefit subsistent have to be prevented from reproducing, by means of the criminal justice system if necessary (i.e. making it an offence to have a child deliberately and in the full knowledge that you stand no reasonable chance of being able to meet the cost of its upbringing).

3. Enhanced social security provision in old age for people and couples who decide to remain childless.

4. Incentives for people to bring up children in underpopulated parts of the country, and disincentives for doing so in overpopulated parts (e.g. different levels of benefit provision according to where you live).

[abharrisson]

The problem is with scrapping the state pension for those that have provided for themselves is that they were forced to pay in to it.

People have I think had to pay into the earnings related element but I am not sure the amout you pay into the basic state element has ever been assessed.. on the basis if you had been unemployed all your life, or worked for ten years only or worked all your life you'd all get the same benefit when you hit the magic age... so I'd agree on the SERP bit but not the basic state bit as its all wrppaed up within NI contributions.

[miko]

And that's the point. If there are no people encouraged to work for themselves and take on other staff then you may as well shoot people when they lose a job.

Yes some people will struggle to find a job and only ever want to be employed.

The answer is not to make people stay on benefits just cos they think there's no jobs.

No jobs = economic ruin = having to starve people without jobs until number of unemployed < number of jobs.

Hope one day you starve..

[1929crash]

And that's the point. If there are no people encouraged to work for themselves and take on other staff then you may as well shoot people when they lose a job.

Yes some people will struggle to find a job and only ever want to be employed.

The answer is not to make people stay on benefits just cos they think there's no jobs.

No jobs = economic ruin = having to starve people without jobs until number of unemployed < number of jobs.

I thought we humans were above the level of the beasts and then I read your post.

[miko]

People have I think had to pay into the earnings related element but I am not sure the amout you pay into the basic state element has ever been assessed.. on the basis if you had been unemployed all your life, or worked for ten years only or worked all your life you'd all get the same benefit when you hit the magic age... so I'd agree on the SERP bit but not the basic state bit as its all wrppaed up within NI contributions.

For the basic state pension you have to have made 31 years of full NI contributions, used to be more for men but has just been bought in line with women . SERP is determined on what you have paid into the serps schem.

If your unemployed the state pay your NI contributions so yes you would still get the same pension as those that worked and paid in .

[miko]

I thought we humans were above the level of the beasts and then I read your post.

Ditto !!