Quick links: NewsBiscuit Home • Chat Room • Writers' Room • Top Ten
Ironduke
offlineMember
removal of child benefit from higher rate tax payers sounds fundamentally sensible in our straitened circumstances.
However, viewed at another way...the nation will only pay poorer people to have children, rather than richer people (who are more likely to have been succesful)...which rather flouts Darwinism.
Surely announcing that child benefit will only be paid for the first one or two children born in the future would achieve economy without skew?
medici2471
offlineMember
why pay anyone to have children, cancel it for all in 5 years
The All New Jeni B
offlineMember
The money I receive in Child Benefit means we can cope with unexpected minor expenses. Mr B's income is over the thresh-hold by something ludicrous like 23p so we will lose CB.
Yet we know of lots of people where there are two earners below the thresh-hold by a matter of pence who won't lose CB. Inherently unfair.
And as for why should anyone be paid CB, perhaps when you consider that today's children are tomorrow's tax-payers, and will therefore be paying towards the previous generation's health-care etc, it doesn't seem such a bad thing.
waylandsmithy
offlineMember
Jeni: quite agree. 2 just under the limit pay a lot less tax, too.
Should change it to a 'household tax'. Although that might be helpful to people who are married. The media hate those conventional bastards. That won't work then.
Pay benefit per child, but have it reduced significantly if they turn out thick, with annual tests.
waylandsmithy
offlineMember
Al, that still doesn't stop stupid people from breeding. I think there should be a series of devilishly hard logic puzzles and obstacles to gain access to maternity wards. That'll learn 'em.
Ironduke
offlineMember
We'll lose child benefit too...two kids...a huge amount of our income goes on business loan, so probably less disposable income than those under the salary limit.
Another dicotomy though- if a couple over a salary cap (whether one individual or both combined) seperate, they could once again be eligible for child benefit.
My point was that evolution has always progressed and advanced species by the most succesful breeding most succesfully. Just recently we are flouting that principle, in that anyone can breed, and furthermore poorer people get a subsidy to do so (poor does not necessarily equal succesful, and the rampantly in-bred upper classes rather flout my theory, but run with me a little here).
I am not advocating a return to high infant mortality and starvation in slum housing; but there is a fundamental point here in that now we seem to view it as everybodies 'right' to ahve as many children as they like, and thats not the way it ought to be.
Mafaking Carwongo
offlineMember
But if poor people don't have children where are we going to find soldiers for our wars?? You need to think it through. And do the sums. Which, if you do, will show that child benefit is a lot cheaper that a university education, and a ticket to Lords for the test!! We used to do tests when we were at school. I failed all of them!!
You must log in to post.
