Re: Debate: Limit on Child Tax Credits (2 children only)
I agree with the limit, but in the long run child benefit is going to have to change further. It should only be applied to people who have up to 2 children and then run into financial difficulty e.g. redundancy. What it should not cover is those who are unemployed who then have children. This may sound harsh but at some point we are going to have to ram home the message that the state is not there to fund your lifestyle choices. This will take time so for now merely setting the limit for future claimants is a good first step.
Re: Debate: Limit on Child Tax Credits (2 children only)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SeriousSam
... we are going to have to ram home the message that the state is not there to fund your lifestyle choices. ....
You know, I had a reasonable response all lined up for Saracens post above, but this quote pretty much amounts to economic eugenics, and there's no reasonable response to be made to that.
Benefits caps are a nice easy cheap shot at a disenfranchised segment of the community. They make for striking headlines, but in real terms they'll have very little effect on the economy whilst having huge impact on the individuals affected. Sledgehammer to crack a walnut. Divisive and segregational. Utter insanity.
Re: Debate: Limit on Child Tax Credits (2 children only)
I don't know the full figures involved, but surely tax credits aren't possibly enough to cover the total cost of having a child? So no-one would consider having additional children in order to get money.
Re: Debate: Limit on Child Tax Credits (2 children only)
I'd like to see it taken the level that the Chinese do.
Re: Debate: Limit on Child Tax Credits (2 children only)
Hmmm, interesting one this. My first thought, like Kalniel's, was the question - what's the idea behind the tax credits? Is it just to help people out who might struggle? I don't any certain knowledge as to what the official reasoning is or was but my general understanding about tax breaks for marriages and families is that they exist because society has an interest in promoting healthy family units. That being the case, reducing financial burdens on parents and encouraging people to marry/stay married/raise their own kids was beneficial for those kids and therefore beneficial to society in the long run. Obviously those idea can be debated but just off the cuff I can't see other substantial reasons for tax credits, unless it's just seen as a form of welfare (but surely that would be income related and therefore means tested?) or else just because people have gotten used to it.
Re: Debate: Limit on Child Tax Credits (2 children only)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
kalniel
I don't know the full figures involved, but surely tax credits aren't possibly enough to cover the total cost of having a child? So no-one would consider having additional children in order to get money.
Well, the fact that total benefits income is going to be capped at £20k should give a reasonable indication. I live relatively frugally in a cheap part of the country with 1 older child and spend that just on committed monthly expenditure. And that's with the benefit of being relatively comfortable and middle class, so I can make capital investments that reduce my regular expenditure (Sam Vimes' boots theory of economics, for the discworld readers).
Anyone who thinks the UK benefits scheme is a money making system is living in fantasy land. It's a subsistence. If it happens to be a slightly better subsistence than working in some circumstances, I'd suggest that it's not necessarily the benefits system at fault there...
Re: Debate: Limit on Child Tax Credits (2 children only)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
scaryjim
You know, I had a reasonable response all lined up for Saracens post above, but this quote pretty much amounts to economic eugenics, and there's no reasonable response to be made to that.
Benefits caps are a nice easy cheap shot at a disenfranchised segment of the community. They make for striking headlines, but in real terms they'll have very little effect on the economy whilst having huge impact on the individuals affected. Sledgehammer to crack a walnut. Divisive and segregational. Utter insanity.
If you "reward" indolence it will perpetuate and become embedded within the collective psyche. We cannot afford to "carry" those that do not wish to contribute now and certainly won't be able to do so in the future. Moreover having to cover this cost takes away money that could be spent on those that want to contribute but can't due to circumstance e.g. disability.
Plus I am not talking about cutting people off at the knees in one go. This has to be a gradual "weaning" process over time as social change cannot be made overnight. It also has to be coupled with a shift change in the functional purpose of our society, but that is a different debate. I don't agree with the state our society is in, whereby the vast majority are borderline drones conditioned to consume and not think about the long term consequences. However, "opting out" and still expecting the state to pay for you is rank hypocrisy.
Finally it is not "economic eugenics" as what you are "weeding" out is not biological but intellectual, i.e. the idea that the state is there for your benefit.
Re: Debate: Limit on Child Tax Credits (2 children only)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
shaithis
I'd like to see it taken the level that the Chinese do.
Yeah, me too.
From http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...d-policy.html:
'Women are regularly inspected to check if they are pregnant, even well into their 40s and 50s. Those who are found to be in breach can suffer forced abortions and even sterilisations.'
Stay classy eh.
Re: Debate: Limit on Child Tax Credits (2 children only)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
opel80uk
Yeah, me too.
'Women are regularly inspected to check if they are pregnant, even well into their 40s and 50s. Those who are found to be in breach can suffer forced abortions and even sterilisations.'
The general premise, not the heavy-handed treatment. 1 child per couple, large taxes beyond that. The world needs this, the population is out of control. The sooner people realise that, the better.
Re: Debate: Limit on Child Tax Credits (2 children only)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
shaithis
The general premise, not the heavy-handed treatment. 1 child per couple, large taxes beyond that. The world needs this, the population is out of control. The sooner people realise that, the better.
I'm not sure I agree. It could be argued it's out of control while we're also increasing the resources we use, but reducing population growth is only one half of the equation in that case - the other is to reduce the resource usage, which is something there is a huge scope for. Reduce meat consumption, increase GM and other food security research, improve energy efficiencies, use more sustainable power sources etc. etc. and there's room for an awful lot more of us on this blue and green marble.
Re: Debate: Limit on Child Tax Credits (2 children only)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SeriousSam
If you "reward" indolence it will perpetuate and become embedded within the collective psyche. We cannot afford to "carry" those that do not wish to contribute now and certainly won't be able to do so in the future. Moreover having to cover this cost takes away money that could be spent on those that want to contribute but can't due to circumstance e.g. disability.
Plus I am not talking about cutting people off at the knees in one go. This has to be a gradual "weaning" process over time as social change cannot be made overnight. It also has to be couple with a shift change in the functional purpose of our society, but that is a different debate. I don't agree with the state our society is in, whereby the vast majority are borderline drones conditioned to consume and not think about the long term consequences. However, "opting out" and still expecting the state to pay for you is rank hypocrisy.
Finally it is not "economic eugenics" as what you are "weeding" out is not biological but intellectual, i.e. the idea that the state is there for your benefit.
This has been done to death, on here and elsewhere, and I always ask the same question, and get no reply. In defiance of Einstein, I'll ask again. Can you give me an example of where simple financial contraints alone have been implemented and resulted in a decrease of the birthrate within any particular social-economic group?
Look at birthrates in the third world, or across the globe in General and they will tell you that welfare plays little or no part in affecting birthrates, so the notion that you will change peoples 'lifestyle choices' using economic means is naïve at best, or wilfully ignorant at worst. It is a fair argument to say that one doesn't believe the state should pay, but it is simply incorrect to say that it will have any bearing on birthrates, or will have the (supposedly) desired affect of encouraging people to have less children. So in reality what you will be left with is people having the same amount of children as they would regardless of child tax credits being reduced, with less money to raise them. You may think that that is fair, and it is a perfectly valid argument. But the notion it will actually engineer 'social change' is, I'm afraid, nonsense.
Re: Debate: Limit on Child Tax Credits (2 children only)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
shaithis
The general premise, not the heavy-handed treatment. 1 child per couple, large taxes beyond that. The world needs this, the population is out of control. The sooner people realise that, the better.
The reason why the Chinese use heavy handed tactics is because they know simple financial penalties do not work on their own. And if it is merely a population issue, why have the Tories not said all families are restricted to 2 children, with taxes for additional children thereafter set rates based on ability to pay? Because that's not what it's about.
Re: Debate: Limit on Child Tax Credits (2 children only)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
kalniel
I'm not sure I agree. It could be argued it's out of control while we're also increasing the resources we use, but reducing population growth is only one half of the equation in that case - the other is to reduce the resource usage, which is something there is a huge scope for. Reduce meat consumption, increase GM and other food security research, improve energy efficiencies, use more sustainable power sources etc. etc. and there's room for an awful lot more of us on this blue and green marble.
All theoretical future fixes. None of them address the issue today nor promise to fix them in the future.
We have already had a recent report from a lot of scientists saying we have already entered the era of the sixth mass extinction event and that it's our fault. So while you and many others may think there is room to expand more and have lofty ideas that the problems will be miraculously solved tomorrow, the actual situation we are in now isn't that rosy theoretical future you might like to make yourself believe in.
Put in perspective, it makes the debate on tax credits seem silly and pointless IMO. The situation is one that demands larger action.
Re: Debate: Limit on Child Tax Credits (2 children only)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
shaithis
All theoretical future fixes. None of them address the issue today nor promise to fix them in the future.
Again I disagree. Many of us have already reduced our meat intake for instance, drive less, and/or more sustainable etc.
Quote:
We have already had a recent report from a lot of scientists saying we have already entered the era of the sixth mass extinction event and that it's our fault. So while you and many others may think there is room to expand more and have lofty ideas that the problems will be miraculously solved tomorrow, the actual situation we are in now isn't that rosy theoretical future you might like to make yourself believe in.
Put in perspective, it makes the debate on tax credits seem silly and pointless IMO. The situation is one that demands larger action.
So what are you personally doing to reduce your environmental impact? You can start now. No need to wait.
Re: Debate: Limit on Child Tax Credits (2 children only)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
opel80uk
This has been done to death, on here and elsewhere, and I always ask the same question, and get no reply. In defiance of Einstein, I'll ask again. Can you give me an example of where simple financial contraints alone have been implemented and resulted in a decrease of the birthrate within any particular social-economic group?
Look at birthrates in the third world, or across the globe in General and they will tell you that welfare plays little or no part in affecting birthrates, so the notion that you will change peoples 'lifestyle choices' using economic means is naïve at best, or wilfully ignorant at worst. It is a fair argument to say that one doesn't believe the state should pay, but it is simply incorrect to say that it will have any bearing on birthrates, or will have the (supposedly) desired affect of encouraging people to have less children. So in reality what you will be left with is people having the same amount of children as they would regardless of child tax credits being reduced, with less money to raise them. You may think that that is fair, and it is a perfectly valid argument. But the notion it will actually engineer 'social change' is, I'm afraid, nonsense.
Hence, my comment as part of my reasoning It also has to be coupled with a shift change in the functional purpose of our society, but that is a different debate.
The key is education, as has been shown in the Indian subcontinent where teaching girls leads to a reduction in birth rate. However, the question has to be "for what purpose" as a significant aspect of our societies decline is due to "consuming" being the be all and all of life.
Re: Debate: Limit on Child Tax Credits (2 children only)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
opel80uk
This has been done to death, on here and elsewhere, and I always ask the same question, and get no reply. In defiance of Einstein, I'll ask again. Can you give me an example of where simple financial contraints alone have been implemented and resulted in a decrease of the birthrate within any particular social-economic group?
http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/1607049
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/958066
In not even 10 seconds on google.
The real question is how much it leads to a reduction, whilst at the same time creating social problems due to relative poverty. **snip **
edited by Zak... over the top Animus... no more with the illegitimate words please.
