Debate: Limit on Child Tax Credits (2 children only)

[TheAnimus]

Again I disagree. Many of us have already reduced our meat intake for instance, drive less, and/or more sustainable etc.

The problem is one that future generations of people are living 'better' lives, so can afford more meat, can afford air travel, can afford to buy something like a smart phone.

20 years ago, the idea of a smart phone was very uncommon, now most people consider them an essential item. It doesn't really matter how much effort we put on to the material engineering, the fact is it's a new category of environmentally unfriendly things, one that everyone wants, and probably only for a few months before replacing too.

So whilst we can try and be more efficient in these matters, It's obvious that a decline in population is going to be the fastest. This is before we get on to those pesky places that have recently massively improved their quality of life, such as China or most of SEA.

[Saracen]

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.

Perhaps not. But that isn't the point of the exercise.

And, while tax credits may not fully reimburse the cost of having a child, they also aren't the only form of government-supplied (and taxpayer funded) subsidy.

But however you look at it, thousands of pounds a year in credits significantly reduces the cost of having that extra child, or children, and simply increases the chances that it is affordable when otherwise, it simply is not.

The message is actually pretty simple. If you can afford it, the state puts no barriers in your way to extra kids. If you can't afford however many you want, the state will provide this form of help for two ONLY. After that, you want 'em, you pay for 'em, just like anyone not eligible for credits has to.

But what that message also includes is the message that the state will no longer stick other taxpayers with the bill for these tax credits on kids beyond two.

As a nation, we have to recognise that we can't just keep on paying out for everything we might want, because we simply do not have the money. That means the principle of opportunity cost kicks in, and we MUST choose between paying for this, or paying for that. And the result is that savings are needed so we start by cutting the least unattractive things to cut, and this is one of them. In a world where we have to live within our means, what is so unethical about saying we'll help with two kids, but if you want more, pay for it yourself and don't expect taxpayers to help?

If the UK was fabulously wealthy and looking for things to spend a mountain of surplus cash on, like say oil-rich Brunei, then fine, fund unlimited kids but AFTER you've fund care for the mentally ill, a full-fund NHS, investment in high unemployment areas of the country, care homes for elderly and poor, and so, so many other worthy causes.

Until then, two kids? Fine. More than that, pay for it if you want it.

[opel80uk]

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. It's almost like blaming the child itself for being a bastard.

Both of those relate to married couples who, studies have shown, are found to be more responsible when it comes to taking economic factors into account when deciding whether or not, or when to have children. So yes, that does show an increase, albeit amongst a specific and, (in relation to today, with almost 50% of children now born out of wedlock) increasingly less and less relevant (to this discussion), grouping. What was, for example, the birthrate amongst unmarried couples/single women at the time of the study and did that change once the US tax exemptions were extended (if they ever were) to them? Furthermore, the first study doesn't observe from what, if any in particular, socioeconomic grouping the rise was coming from and the conclusions acknowledge that the rise could simply be a 'timing effect', rather than solid trend in overall birthrates. In fact, 2 different articles (1 study from Yale, 1 paper from Harvard) looked specifically at the family cap in the US, and concluded that it made no difference to birthrates.

So the real question is whether it leads to a reduction at all, as that appears at best to be inconclusive, and then whether society as a whole is prepared for the social problems that will be as a direct result of that, bearing in mind the known correlation between poverty and anti-social behaviour and welfare dependance, to name but two.

http://www.econ.yale.edu/growth_pdf/cdp877.pdf
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/...l291/smith.pdf

[opel80uk]

....what is do unethical about saying we'll help with two kids, but if you want more, pay for it yourself and don't expect taxpayers to help?

What's unethical is that in the case of someone who is truly feckless having a child they can ill afford, the decision to withdraw tax credits will have a very real, and very detrimental effect on the child who is, most I hope will agree, entirely innocent. What you are saying is that, as a society, we don't care, and you will be directly penalised because your parents didn't play by the rules.

But not only is it unethical IMO, it is actually counterproductive because by pushing that child either into or further into poverty, we as taxpayers are just simply running the risk of putting the cost of supporting him/her in some manner on the long finger, and at a bigger cost. Leaving the ethics aside from one minute, it seems counter productive, even if we are looking at this simply through the eyes of a bean counter, to implement any policy that will undoubtedly increase poverty, with all that that brings.

[Saracen]

What's unethical is that in the case of someone who is truly feckless having a child they can ill afford, the decision to withdraw tax credits will have a very real, and very detrimental effect on the child who is, most I hope will agree, entirely innocent. What you are saying is that, as a society, we don't care, and you will be directly penalised because your parents didn't play by the rules.

But not only is it unethical IMO, it is actually counterproductive because by pushing that child either into or further into poverty, we as taxpayers are just simply running the risk of putting the cost of supporting him/her in some manner on the long finger, and at a bigger cost. Leaving the ethics aside from one minute, it seems counter productive, even if we are looking at this simply through the eyes of a bean counter, to implement any policy that will undoubtedly increase poverty, with all that that brings.

So because someone who is "truly feckless" has unlimited children, the rest of us have to pay for it? Yes, I do utterly reject tbe bill for that. If they're that feckless and irresponsible, they obviously don't care about the welfare of their existing kids never mind new ones, so it'll probably be spent on beer and Sky subscriptions anyway. So why encourage fecklessness?

[opel80uk]

So because someone who is "truly feckless" has unlimited children, the rest of us have to pay for it? Yes, I do utterly reject tbe bill for that. If they're that feckless and irresponsible, they obviously don't care about the welfare of their existing kids never mind new ones, so it'll probably be spent on beer and Sky subscriptions anyway. So why encourage fecklessness?

There isn't any conclusive evidence it does encourage fecklessness, if by feckless you mean having more kids. And the notion that someone who is feckless and irresponsible automatically means that they 'obviously don't care about their existing kids' is absurd - you do realise not everyone out there is intellegent as you don't you

The reason why you don't push those types of children into further povery (and that's what this will do) is simple; poverty results in even bigger costs further down the line for the taxpayer. If you accept that it will result in an increase in poverty, then it becomes a punitive measure and the person most impacted by the punitive measure is the child. That's why it's ethically, and economically, wrong.

[Zak33]

Assuming that this cut began and was only effective from a certain date of birth onward...
lets say.. 2019 onward.. child tax credits for 2 kids maximum, and all those born before, carry on as you are....

With over 3 years notice, and plenty of advertising, so it escaped no ones notice..and budgetting for a large baby boom in 2018.......

surely every single person would know, and it would be sorted, medium term.

If you're planning a large family, it's forewarned is forearmed.

It's not trying to cut the baby rate... it's trying to cut the goverments outgoings to stop the country failing financially....

If you're 12 now, you'd be 16 by the time it kicked in... hjave your first sprog at just before 17.. the next when you hit 18... and then you've had 6 years notice....the next one gets nowt.

I am confused as to why this is so evil or barbaric?

[Zak33]

What's unethical is that in the case of someone who is truly feckless having a child they can ill afford, the decision to withdraw tax credits will have a very real, and very detrimental effect on the child who is, most I hope will agree, entirely innocent. What you are saying is that, as a society, we don't care, and you will be directly penalised because your parents didn't play by the rules.

then surely we should pay them MORE money so the kid of feckless Freda and simple Simon is better off ?

[Zak33]

better still we should determine the payment by the level of fecklessness.. yup.. that's it.. we've solved it

If you're CLEVER ... high IQ... you should get LESS money to support your kids, because you were clever enough to work out the costs on excel on your laptop and determine that you don't deserve more.

But if you're thick as pig doodoo, you should get MORE?


----

what I am (badly) getting at is that the AMOUNT OF MONEY doesn't seem to be in debate,which I think is wrong.. it's the fact that ANY amount exists that's in debate.

It's a notional amount-Should it go UP.... to save the poor from the gutter... or should it go DOWN? Down to zero? Or up to £1000 per week.

If you have 2 kids... x... the third is y... the fourth is z....

is THAT better?

Does THAT Solve the issue of unethical-ness?

Or should the FIRST kid be less.. the SECOND be more...? .. no.. that's silly....

maybe you should get more if it's TWINS because you aimed for 1 kid now and 1 in 3 years, knowing the benefit cap was at two... now you've got 2... AT ONCE.... sh1t.. didn't want that to happen.

What about QUADS? special case? prolly yeah tbh

you've had 1 kid already.. you try for a second, you're on the bread line, but it's in budget.. just.. you end up with 5 coming out of the oven... BUGGAH.

Let's face it... it's AN AMOUNT OF MONEY.... it's more than the country can afford.... at the moment

do we up everyones tax so it's payable... or not?

[Zak33]

my answer is NO.

I'd rather the money was spent on mending sick people, more nurses so the poor sods can have proper time off work and rest so they work better when on duty, more Police to let them do the same etc

[opel80uk]

then surely we should pay them MORE money so the kid is better off ?

No, what you do is invest in those groups of people. What is actually known and proven to bring birthrates down? Higher levels of education, and decent job prospects. Condemning more people to the self defeating cycle of poverty and welfare is pointless. It might put a few more pounds in your pocket, but you'll pay more than out again in the long run.

[Zak33]

No, what you do is invest in those groups of people. What is actually known and proven to bring birthrates down? Higher levels of education, and decent job prospects.

is this BEFORE they've had 3 kids in 28 months?

how do you GET to them before they're on the baby life... struggling like hell and on the verge of despair? or eternal hjappyness or that matter ...?

there's no list of "the feckless" (well... HEXUS admin staff excluded, clearly)

"Advert: Are you feckless and likely to be up the duff really soon? Would you like us to teach you about condoms and jobs? Apply here!"

Condemning more people to the self defeating cycle of poverty and welfare is pointless. It might put a few more pounds in your pocket, but you'll pay more than out again in the long run.

I know
I agree
I am on your side on that.. they truly need help and if they don't get it they WILL cost more dough.. I agree

but how....? how to get to them all?

it's not by paying Child Tax Credits for the 3rd kid... it's just not

[Saracen]

There isn't any conclusive evidence it does encourage fecklessness, if by feckless you mean having more kids. And the notion that someone who is feckless and irresponsible automatically means that they 'obviously don't care about their existing kids' is absurd - you do realise not everyone out there is intellegent as you don't you

The reason why you don't push those types of children into further povery (and that's what this will do) is simple; poverty results in even bigger costs further down the line for the taxpayer. If you accept that it will result in an increase in poverty, then it becomes a punitive measure and the person most impacted by the punitive measure is the child. That's why it's ethically, and economically, wrong.

It's not what I mean by feckless. It was your assertion. What you said was

...

What's unethical is that in the case of someone who is truly feckless having a child they can ill afford, ...

So I assume that's what you meant by feckless.

[Quinnbeast]

That chancellor guy, George Orwell (or whatever-his-name-is), sure is doing a bang-up job of baiting the opposition, if not a lot else. I wonder if he and his fellow MPs are still claiming 'expenses' for their own children while screwing over hundreds of thousands of perfectly decent people around the country?

You're a funny man, George.

[peterb]

That chancellor guy, George Orwell (or whatever-his-name-is).

It is Osborne

[SeriousSam]

It is Osborne

"You Wouldn't Let It Lie!"