[OU Student]

(Original post by cl_steele)
what? having a child by any chance.... its still a universal benefit in that everyone with a child is entitled to it..

You have just proved my point - there is still criteria to meet.

Either way, it's outdated and a benefit that makes no sense at all.

[cl_steele]

(Original post by OU Student)
You have just proved my point - there is still criteria to meet.

Either way, it's outdated and a benefit that makes no sense at all.

in the contextual sense it is a universal benefit..
hang on i could have sworn you were arguing for it earlier?

[DJKL]

(Original post by OU Student)
You have just proved my point - there is still criteria to meet.

Either way, it's outdated and a benefit that makes no sense at all.

It makes sense in long term economic planning. The state pensions of those working today will be paid for by those working in the future. Taxes in the future will derive from the children born today. Parents bring in to existence the source of the country's future tax streams. Child benefit is akin to an R & D tax incentive to produce these future productive assets for the state. Of course like all production lines there are quality control issues, some of these products will never contribute to society a sum greater than the state has invested in them, however the larger view is that their total economic output will be greater than their total economic cost.

I could make a case that those couples who do not produce 2.2 children should not receive state pension when they retire as they have not produced the means for it to be paid in the future.

[arbaaz]

(Original post by ish90an)
So when people are being taxed to death they give money, but suddenly if they have more money due to lower taxes people will denote less? Plus, if you lower tax people would have more disposable income to raise kids, instead of that money going to fund foreign invasions or ponzi programs like social welfare and public sector pensions.

what percentage of people gave money despite being taxed to death as you say. A very small percentage.
Lowering tax whilst sounding appealing comes with its own set of problems. I think the last thing the UK needs is a massive increase in population.

[ish90an]

(Original post by arbaaz)
what percentage of people gave money despite being taxed to death as you say. A very small percentage.
Lowering tax whilst sounding appealing comes with its own set of problems. I think the last thing the UK needs is a massive increase in population.

Of course people are going to give less when they are being taxed to the hilt, that is why if you lower tax it gives people more disposable income and hence more to give themselves instead of central planners deciding where to spend money(usually on war, ponzi pension schemes and poorly implemented healthcare programs).
What does the bolded part have to do with lower tax? If anything, paying people to have kids does not help if population increase is your concern.

[WelshBluebird]

Its all well and good saying people should have kids only if they can afford them.
However:

1 - I know many people don't buy this argument, but what about the kids? Of course, people who cannot afford kids will still have them no matter what you do. So the issue has to come down to the kids. Why should they suffer? And then you have the issue of locking them in the poverty trap. If someones parents can't really afford to pay for essentials for them, then the kid will suffer. The kids future will suffer. They are less likely to do well at school and because a productive member of society. So in effect, they would not better themselves. When you have kids born into poverty, you want to make sure they CAN better themselves (even if you don't agree with the moral reason for that, at least to make sure they pay taxes and such).

2 - Circumstances change. People who may have been able to easily afford the kids when they were born might now be struggling financially.