KC Cantiaci
pfm Member
Also on population note that for growth and demographic reasons and if you want the nation to be collectively better off, we need to increase the birth rate not decrease it.
Why?
Also on population note that for growth and demographic reasons and if you want the nation to be collectively better off, we need to increase the birth rate not decrease it.
Baby boom hump is retiring so we need an influx of working age people to pay for it all. So babies and/or immigration.
Not sure of your point if you have one one there, John.
The 3rd biggest benefit cost in the UK should be taken more seriously than that.
Family allowance was introduced after the war to help grow the population again. I believe the threshold is currently too high and the cutoff should be a family income of around £30k, that way we could always increase the payment amount to lower income families. I don't see why parents earning a combined income of £90k per year should be entitled to it.
Family allowance was introduced after the war to help grow the population again. I believe the threshold is currently too high and the cutoff should be a family income of around £30k, that way we could always increase the payment amount to lower income families. I don't see why parents earning a combined income of £90k per year should be entitled to it.
I do.
It's because money is only ever allowed to flow toward money.
Personally I've never had a house fire so don't see why we need fire brigades.
My point was it's such a paltry amount of money I can't imagine many people are encouraged to have children by CB.
There is plenty of data on the net that shows that the richer people, or a country, get the less children they have.
What about a predominantly catholic country that is also wealthy and well educated?
The squeezed middle in rich countries don't feel well off and limit families by necessity - both working to pay mortgage, car loans, child care and so on. The very rich seem to leave a trail of children by a long line of ex-wivesThere is plenty of data on the net that shows that the richer people, or a country, get the less children they have.
I didn't suggest taking any money from anyone, so I would not be depriving anyone of anything they are currently getting.It goes to the mum, it's essential to many, pin money to a few but I'd hazard a guess that quite a large number of the squeezed middle are glad of it too.
Not needing it is no reason for depriving the many that do.
It is not a paltry amount, it is the 3rd highest benefit cost in the UK.My point was it's such a paltry amount of money I can't imagine many people are encouraged to have children by CB.
The reasoning given by governments for CB have varied a lot over the years, but like it or not there is a good argument for its' effectiveness in reducing child poverty.
There are far better targets for saving money in government, but benefit recipients are easy meat for the Conservatives and NewLab.
Someone is having a laugh, so I decided to join in! ;-)