Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Child Benefit - What's your opinion?

Announcements Posted on
  • View Poll Results: What should happen with the current child benefit's system?
    Scrap it completely
    17
    20.24%
    Leave child benefit as it is
    16
    19.05%
    Proceed with plans to scrap it for higher tax payers
    23
    27.38%
    Change their plans to make a fairer system
    27
    32.14%
    Do something else (post your ideas)
    1
    1.19%

    • 10 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (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    Either way, it's outdated and a benefit that makes no sense at all.
    • 14 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (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    Either way, it's outdated and a benefit that makes no sense at all.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?
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (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    Either way, it's outdated and a benefit that makes no sense at all.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.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    • 19 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    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.

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: March 10, 2012
New on TSR

Find out what year 11 is like

Going into year 11? Students who did it last year share what to expect.

Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.