General Chat

One thing that does peev me off, are the young (single) mothers
on various benefits who (miraculously) go on to have several
more kids! I mean are they artificaly inseminated !!!

There,s something wrong with the system somewhere ?

Ray

All this two-kids-and-you're-out (or no kids, or whatever) bemuses me.

A two-child policy? I can only imagine what all the same people would have to say about China's one-child policy. Same deal. No benefits for extra children. Except it applied to everybody.

What about the children then, hm? Have the misfortune to be born to an unpartnered woman, and no nappies and formula for you, kid.

I've no issue with children being born to unpartnered mothers. That's their concern.

What I most certainly do have an issue with is subsidising families (single parents or otherwise) who have children, just because they have children.

I've no problem with supporting people in need (single parents or otherwise), but family allowance is paid to all parents, regardless of their circumstances, and this cannot be right .... in my opinion


Sue x

Still not getting it!

What about the kids?

Open abortion clinics on every corner and have somebody with a megaphone inviting all the single women who have reached their limit in for free terminations. (Any women, really, since no woman can predict whether she'll still be partnered when the kid is born, or a year later ...)

Open adoption malls with display windows for all the babies whose mothers have been denied benefits for being parasites on society. Offer a free toaster with every kid adopted. Soon they will all be happy well-adjusted middle-class adult members of society.

It isn't good for young women with no resources, financial or social or personal, to have children. Any such women, any children For the women or the children, or their society.

Fixating on some minority subculture of such women who allegedly have children for the money it gets them, and cutting off the money to everyone who might fall within the rules for whatever reason, just doesn't make sense. It really, really is not going to make things better. For the women, for their children, or for society.

You misunderstand me Janey

I've no problem with helping people in need (be they parents or not)

What I do disagree with is universal family allowance (which we have in GB) - where anyone who has children is de facto given money from the taxpayer.

If times are hard then any kind of state support should be means tested. In my opinion,

Sue x

Okay, I was just ranting in general then. ;)

On that other particular point, we have "clawbacks" in Canada. You gets your benefits, but when you files your income tax return, if you have over a certain taxable income, they are gradually clawed back from you.

There really are disadvantages to this.

When people don't see a social benefit as universal, the ones who aren't getting it - and don't need it - do start to get stroppy about paying it to others. Universality really is a good principle for this reason.

Remember what happened to the NHS when the rich started going off and buying their own health insurance? They didn't need the NHS. And they didn't want to be taxed to support it. And it went into the proverbial crapper. (This I do know -- I spent a night in an NHS hospital waiting room in 1994, and I was aghast. At the same time, my friend's partner was in a private hospital, because they had private insurance, and she was ordering from the room service menu.)

Make the rich pay through higher tax rates, but keep social benefits universal, is my advice. ;) It increases social solidarity, the belief in the importance of decent benefits to help those who need them, or may need them in future -- all of us.

I take your point, Janey

But I believe in the dictat "from each according to their means, to each according to their needs"

And if "when people don't see a social benefit as universal, the ones who aren't getting it - and don't need it - do start to get stroppy about paying it to others" then I'm afraid that's their problem

Sue x

Except that when they get together (and dupe enough other people) and elect a Maggie Thatcher, they make it everybody's problem but theirs. ;)

Well, I see Family Allowance is still with us - despite this being a time of austerity, apparently.

Cameron said that taxing it was unfair, as it is payed to the mother, and not all mothers pay tax, so - de facto - some will be disadvantaged

Means testing it is also apparently fiscally inappropriate, as that would require a whole new machinery of government - and more cost.

But abolishing it was never mentioned. I'm so relieved that the richest amongst us will still be collecting their un-needed, un-deserved £20.30 a week for their first child and £13.40 for each additional child after that.

Set that against the loss of jobs that the 25% cut in public expenditure will definitely mean after the CSR in October, then I for one would rather risk the emegence of another Maggie the Mad.

Sue x