We're talking £20 a week here. So what should happen if after receiving £20 a week, they still can't afford it?
So the child suffers for simply being born. Anywsy previous posters have already argued that it isn't just £20, once you take into consideration other expenses like NHS costs are involved. How about those costs, costs of immunization programmes, health visitors, state education etc, considering all those costs, denying £20 per week is both trivial and wouldn't be worth the cost of administering its abolition.
Countries are judged on how it treats it's children. We already have a pretty rubbish reputation in that department so lets leave Child Benefit alone. It's such a small amount of money anyway, it'd cost more to means test it!!
It's already means tested, they'd just need to lower the income level when you start getting tested.
And it's not just about cutting the benefits bill, there's also an argument to limit population growth.
So the child suffers for simply being born. Anywsy previous posters have already argued that it isn't just £20, once you take into consideration other expenses like NHS costs are involved. How about those costs, costs of immunization programmes, health visitors, state education etc, considering all those costs, denying £20 per week is both trivial and wouldn't be worth the cost of administering its abolition.
The risk is that you are far more likely to have children if you don't use contraception, compared to if you do.
By trying to make me look like a pray you make yourself look like a bigger one. You were clearly talking of financial risk of having children. Are you saying financial cost isn't the point you are making?
By trying to make me look like a pray you make yourself look like a bigger one. You were clearly talking of financial risk of having children. Are you saying financial cost isn't the point you are making?
You've got your wires crossed. I was talking about contraception. What's a pray?
Plan b is to take care and provide for your child like a decent parent should.
Money doesn't enable that PI. IMO a child is far better off in a loving home with parents and siblings and no money for luxuries than one who has everything that money can buy except love warmth and quality relationships.
Plan b is to take care and provide for your child like a decent parent should.
So your parents didn't accept any child benefit when you was a child? Also now that your so against it, you will now refund that money to the tax payer? Thankyou in advance, im sure more will follow your lead.
So your parents didn't accept any child benefit when you was a child? Also now that your so against it, you will now refund that money to the tax payer? Thankyou in advance, im sure more will follow your lead.
So your parents didn't accept any child benefit when you was a child? Also now that your so against it, you will now refund that money to the tax payer? Thankyou in advance, im sure more will follow your lead.
Money doesn't enable that PI. IMO a child is far better off in a loving home with parents and siblings and no money for luxuries than one who has everything that money can buy except love warmth and quality relationships.
Plan b is to take care and provide for your child like a decent parent should.
That's what working parents do PI, we're dealing with selfish people who choose to be on benefits here - planning, caring and providing do not come in to it.
Waiting until they have prepared their nest doesn't come in to it. Serious thought? No way!
That's what working parents do PI, we're dealing with selfish people who choose to be on benefits here - planning, caring and providing do not come in to it.
Waiting until they have prepared their nest doesn't come in to it. Serious thought? No way!
And of course working parents DONT claim benefits do they, and dont get state aid at all to looking after children or themselves.
Of course they do.....but at least they are contributing to it as well.
What percentage of the UK's adult population is dependent on the welfare state?
The welfare state is a big part of British family life, with 20.3 million families receiving some kind of benefit (64% of all families), about 8.7 million of them pensioners. For 9.6 million families, benefits make up more than half of their income (30% of all families), around 5.3 million of them pensioners.
That's what working parents do PI, we're dealing with selfish people who choose to be on benefits here - planning, caring and providing do not come in to it.
Waiting until they have prepared their nest doesn't come in to it. Serious thought? No way!
Caring for children including financial support is an investment. There are many other abuses of benefits and tax avoidance etc which could be addressed without punishing children and controlling and labelling parents.
I'm sure you know this already, but contraception is used to prevent pregnancy. If someone doesn't want a child then it's best to use contraception. If someone does its best not to use contraception. The choice is upto them.
I'm sure you know this already, but contraception is used to prevent pregnancy. If someone doesn't want a child then it's best to use contraception. If someone does its best not to use contraception. The choice is upto them.
I think you're being deliberately obtuse here, and if not I apologise, but what does some wanting or not wanting children have to do with whether someone should get child benefit or not?
Comments
Nobody has a divine right to a child rich or poor.
The risk is that you are far more likely to have children if you don't use contraception, compared to if you do.
i missed it.
what`s the plan b then?
So the child suffers for simply being born. Anywsy previous posters have already argued that it isn't just £20, once you take into consideration other expenses like NHS costs are involved. How about those costs, costs of immunization programmes, health visitors, state education etc, considering all those costs, denying £20 per week is both trivial and wouldn't be worth the cost of administering its abolition.
It's already means tested, they'd just need to lower the income level when you start getting tested.
And it's not just about cutting the benefits bill, there's also an argument to limit population growth.
What is your solution if £20 a week isn't enough?
By trying to make me look like a pray you make yourself look like a bigger one. You were clearly talking of financial risk of having children. Are you saying financial cost isn't the point you are making?
Plan b is to take care and provide for your child like a decent parent should.
You've got your wires crossed. I was talking about contraception. What's a pray?
Money doesn't enable that PI. IMO a child is far better off in a loving home with parents and siblings and no money for luxuries than one who has everything that money can buy except love warmth and quality relationships.
So your parents didn't accept any child benefit when you was a child? Also now that your so against it, you will now refund that money to the tax payer? Thankyou in advance, im sure more will follow your lead.
I am not against child benefit.
Don't be silly, that's not how it works.
I agree that love is more important than money.
Oh goodness, here come the outlandish examples.
Why are people having children expecting the state to pick up the bill
That's what working parents do PI, we're dealing with selfish people who choose to be on benefits here - planning, caring and providing do not come in to it.
Waiting until they have prepared their nest doesn't come in to it. Serious thought? No way!
And of course working parents DONT claim benefits do they, and dont get state aid at all to looking after children or themselves.
What percentage of the UK's adult population is dependent on the welfare state?
The welfare state is a big part of British family life, with 20.3 million families receiving some kind of benefit (64% of all families), about 8.7 million of them pensioners. For 9.6 million families, benefits make up more than half of their income (30% of all families), around 5.3 million of them pensioners.
why should they have to use contraception?
Caring for children including financial support is an investment. There are many other abuses of benefits and tax avoidance etc which could be addressed without punishing children and controlling and labelling parents.
I'm sure you know this already, but contraception is used to prevent pregnancy. If someone doesn't want a child then it's best to use contraception. If someone does its best not to use contraception. The choice is upto them.
I think you're being deliberately obtuse here, and if not I apologise, but what does some wanting or not wanting children have to do with whether someone should get child benefit or not?