Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Paying fixed sums for people to have children is dysgenic, which will accentuate all social and economic problems in the long term.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cryptographic)
    :eek:
    I would have child benefit at £20.50 pw as in real life.
    Then second child receives £13.50 pw (basically real life)
    Third child gets £5 per week.
    Fourth onwards is £0.
    That would work, but I do prefer welfare systems being simple because you can reduce the bloatedness of the civil service that way so I'd probably be more inclined to say keep it as £20.50 for the first kid, raise it to £20.50 for the second and drop it to zero for every child after.

    Also that means that the current Resident Income Child bill is in excess of £65bn!
    By Libertarian figures it was £43bn in 2012. Today it is probably still under £50bn, but yeah, it's still obscenely high. The entire welfare system alone came to £337bn in TSR-land vs the real life figure of ~£160bn. I don't know why I voted for it to be honest.
    • Offline

      18
      Some of you are going to love our next bill :L
      Offline

      3
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by nebelbon)
      Some of you are going to love our next bill :L
      But we have like 3828942398 bills... Which one are you referring to?
      • Offline

        18
        (Original post by Fernand126)
        But we have like 3828942398 bills... Which one are you referring to?
        I'll tell you in the sub-forum. We don't want to ruin the pure wonder of what the bill will be ...
        • Community Assistant
        Offline

        21
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by Jarred)
        That would work, but I do prefer welfare systems being simple because you can reduce the bloatedness of the civil service that way so I'd probably be more inclined to say keep it as £20.50 for the first kid, raise it to £20.50 for the second and drop it to zero for every child after.

        By Libertarian figures it was £43bn in 2012. Today it is probably still under £50bn, but yeah, it's still obscenely high. The entire welfare system alone came to £337bn in TSR-land vs the real life figure of ~£160bn. I don't know why I voted for it to be honest.
        Most people voted for it because they bought the libertarian mantra of everybody having the choice not to work and because apparently children should be treated as adults and are entitled to the money.

        I'd not object to a trust fund being handed at 16 from the state (pay for uni, buy a car) but an adult with 2 children could be getting over 25k at the moment from the state, people over 40k don't even need anything and that's being very generous considering my family benefits are about 13k.
        Offline

        18
        ReputationRep:
        As a recent mother (not relevant), I would agree with the first two children rule, and the phasing out of Child Tax credit.
        Offline

        7
        ReputationRep:
        Let the poverty commence!
        • Offline

          18
          (Original post by meenu89)
          As a recent mother (not relevant), I would agree with the first two children rule, and the phasing out of Child Tax credit.
          Congratulations!

          A lot of people have agreed with this, i think it is something we will incorporate into the second reading.
          Offline

          16
          ReputationRep:
          No.

          A while back, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation published a report on the costs of children. It found that families on low wages with just one child will often face strained finances. I will not support anything which makes the situation worse.

          The people who will suffer as a result of this bill will be the children. That's not on.
          Offline

          14
          ReputationRep:
          (Original post by InnerTemple)
          No.

          A while back, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation published a report on the costs of children. It found that families on low wages with just one child will often face strained finances. I will not support anything which makes the situation worse.

          The people who will suffer as a result of this bill will be the children. That's not on.
          In TSRland, both of the parents are given 8k each, plus another 8k for each child, that means a 4 person family already gets £36k no matter what, surely there is a case for paring it back in these dangerous financial times?
          Offline

          16
          ReputationRep:
          (Original post by Cryptographic)
          In TSRland, both of the parents are given 8k each, plus another 8k for each child
          They do?!
          Offline

          14
          ReputationRep:
          (Original post by InnerTemple)
          They do?!
          Yep, see on first page. I actually support this because the 16K universal citizens income should be able to pay for the children.
          Offline

          0
          ReputationRep:
          (Original post by Cryptographic)
          Yep, see on first page. I actually support this because the 16K universal citizens income should be able to pay for the children.
          That's outrageous! Who passed it? Wouldn't it be £24k universally by the time both parents and child are accounted for?
          Offline

          14
          ReputationRep:
          (Original post by Baby_Charlotte)
          That's outrageous! Who passed it? Wouldn't it be £24k universally by the time both parents and child are accounted for?
          Yep, but 2 child family 36k, 3 child 44k, a 4 child family is 52k per annum! Having a child is practically a license to print money in TSR land. This was back in the 16th(?) where the Socialists basically took over Labour.
          Offline

          0
          ReputationRep:
          (Original post by Cryptographic)
          Yep, but 2 child family 36k, 3 child 44k, a 4 child family is 52k per annum! Having a child is practically a license to print money in TSR land. This was back in the 16th(?) where the Socialists basically took over Labour.
          Is there a benefits cap like in real life? 8k each time you spread your legs and pop out a baby is a silly idea. It would work out better to have a child you plan on neglecting that it would to take a part-time minimum wage job. More so when child benefit is accounted for *facepalm* On Reddit there's usually a reform act passed every parliament that replaces any desirable acts to make them the same as real life. There's a friendly agreement so no MP's vote against it and all honour it. Why not do the same here?
          Offline

          14
          ReputationRep:
          (Original post by Baby_Charlotte)
          Is there a benefits cap like in real life? 8k each time you spread your legs and pop out a baby is a silly idea. It would work out better to have a child you plan on neglecting that it would to take a part-time minimum wage job. More so when child benefit is accounted for *facepalm* On Reddit there's usually a reform act passed every parliament that replaces any desirable acts to make them the same as real life. There's a friendly agreement so no MP's vote against it and all honour it. Why not do the same here?
          The Reddit one is an interesting case however since this one is much more longstanding an we like to think that we have a grip on the past. However we have had such a thing before, we called it the 'Great Repeal Act' there has been discussion of another one soon, but the main argument against it is that debate would move in a cyclical manner.
          • Community Assistant
          Offline

          21
          ReputationRep:
          http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show....php?t=2111467

          The tax changes don't apply since they've been amended by further bills but this is the bill people need to look at.
          Offline

          19
          ReputationRep:
          Has the NHS been warned about the rise in birth rates in July and August? Is the NI difference so that everyone is too exhausted with newborns disturbing sleep to bother to parade on July 12th and other parade dates?
          Offline

          3
          ReputationRep:
          If I may, I'd like to look at a point, quite possibly overlooked.
          If this was implemented, this WILL NOT physically stop parents having children; if the parents then can't fund the children and their living conditions deteriorate to such an appalling state of squalor, *Social Services WILL be involved, then the case will be looked at and examined, if necessary, the case will be heard in court, and/or the children will be taken into the control of the State, then will remain in the care of the State for some time.
          This will cost a HUGE amount of money to services! Funnily enough, I was shadowing a County Councillor Monday and yesterday (he's also cabinet member for children and young people) and was saying that a child can cost the State as much as £4M through to their 18th Birthday. £4M for a single child. This is, of course, in the most extreme circumstances, but this can happen.
          This Bill (and nor can any credible Government) does not stop people having children. People WILL have children, regardless if they have money. The problem comes when we cancel the smaller spending, and realise that the consequence will be a much greater expenditure than would be to keep the status quo.

          Point made.
         
         
         
        TSR Support Team

        We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

        Updated: August 5, 2014
      • See more of what you like on The Student Room

        You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

      • Poll
        What newspaper do you read/prefer?
      • See more of what you like on The Student Room

        You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

      • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

        Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

        Quick reply
        Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.