Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
Benefit's Capped By Number Of Children
This poll is closed.
- Yes - 470 votes
- 84%
- No - 89 votes
- 16%
Stats until: 00:15 Sat 04th May 2024 (Refreshed every 5 minutes)
© AnswerBank Ltd 2000 - 2024. All Rights Reserved.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by AB Editor. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
It is immoral and selfish to deliberately have more than 2 children when the world population is groaning at over 7 billion. No-one should have more than 2, Having 2 is just replacing yourself and your partner, 3 is producing extra to the population. Those thoughtless souls who have many should be taxed on the extra as a deterrent to others and definitely not rewarded with benefits.
I think people are missing something important here. There's a great deal of difference between what people should do and what they end up doing all the time. Assuming that people should have fewer children, especially when they can't afford to keep them really, then we should encourage them to be careful and to plan more sensibly. Thats fine and proper. But what happens when they aren't careful, and do have another child? Do we punish the parents for their "mistake", or do we support them now that it's too late to do anything about it (short of a forced abortion)?
People seem to be adopting an attitude that the parents and family should be punished. That's a similar attitude to, say, the one we saw around teenage pregnancies up until the 1960s. Any teenage girl becoming pregnant was stigmatised (if people found out) and so to avoid the shame of being discovered people would run away to back-street abortion clinics. This was often dangerous for the expectant mother. Alternatively if she chose to keep the baby she'd be an outcast, or certainly looked down on by others. That had the potential to end up wrecking not only her life but that of her child's. Yes, she should have been more careful, or more responsible. But she wasn't -- and it's too late to condemn her for that. Instead, we should -- and have -- be more understanding, and provide her with the support she needs to care for the child, or to have a safe abortion.
I think a similar idea should apply here, too, in the case of Child Benefit. Yes, we can encourage people to have fewer children. But once they have, cutting off the support they need damages that entire family. Their mistake, you might say. Yes, it was the parents' mistake. But it wasn't the child's. And the child doesn't deserves punishment, and should have care and support.
This is why I am opposed to a cap by number of children. Not because I disagree with the principle that people should be more careful -- but because once they've had the child it's too late to tell them so. Except for next time, perhaps. But in the meantime we have another child that needs support and cannot be ignored. You can say "tough" to the parents all you like. Try saying the same to the baby who had no say in the matter.
People seem to be adopting an attitude that the parents and family should be punished. That's a similar attitude to, say, the one we saw around teenage pregnancies up until the 1960s. Any teenage girl becoming pregnant was stigmatised (if people found out) and so to avoid the shame of being discovered people would run away to back-street abortion clinics. This was often dangerous for the expectant mother. Alternatively if she chose to keep the baby she'd be an outcast, or certainly looked down on by others. That had the potential to end up wrecking not only her life but that of her child's. Yes, she should have been more careful, or more responsible. But she wasn't -- and it's too late to condemn her for that. Instead, we should -- and have -- be more understanding, and provide her with the support she needs to care for the child, or to have a safe abortion.
I think a similar idea should apply here, too, in the case of Child Benefit. Yes, we can encourage people to have fewer children. But once they have, cutting off the support they need damages that entire family. Their mistake, you might say. Yes, it was the parents' mistake. But it wasn't the child's. And the child doesn't deserves punishment, and should have care and support.
This is why I am opposed to a cap by number of children. Not because I disagree with the principle that people should be more careful -- but because once they've had the child it's too late to tell them so. Except for next time, perhaps. But in the meantime we have another child that needs support and cannot be ignored. You can say "tough" to the parents all you like. Try saying the same to the baby who had no say in the matter.
In reply to Jim 360:
If we go on paying out unlimited child benefit because 'it's not the child's fault', then the situation will only continue to get worse. We must find ways of encouraging social responsibility and of discouraging reliance on state handouts. Capping child benefit is one small step towards this.
Yes it was regrettable that, in the past, unmarried girls who got pregnant resorted to back street abortions, and that the stigma of being an unmarried mother affected people's lives. That's not the case now. It seems to have become the norm for babies to be conceived out of wedlock, so there's no longer any stigma attached, but there's also no longer any excuse for anyone having an unplanned baby.
It's time for revamping the welfare state and getting back to its original ideals of providing support for those on low income or unable to work through no fault of their own. The state should not be taking complete financial responsibility for those who choose to contribute nothing to society, but have been allowed to believe that they are 'entitled' to everything. Nor should it be providing extra money to those, irrespective of employment status and income, who, by having more than two children, add to the state's financial burden and to overpopulation.
I'm afraid it's you, Jim, who is missing the point. The world is overpopulated. This country is overpopulated. We should be doing everything in our power to discourage the feckless disregard of those who add to the burden on our environment and the financial burden on their more responsible fellow citizens by having too many children.
If we go on paying out unlimited child benefit because 'it's not the child's fault', then the situation will only continue to get worse. We must find ways of encouraging social responsibility and of discouraging reliance on state handouts. Capping child benefit is one small step towards this.
Yes it was regrettable that, in the past, unmarried girls who got pregnant resorted to back street abortions, and that the stigma of being an unmarried mother affected people's lives. That's not the case now. It seems to have become the norm for babies to be conceived out of wedlock, so there's no longer any stigma attached, but there's also no longer any excuse for anyone having an unplanned baby.
It's time for revamping the welfare state and getting back to its original ideals of providing support for those on low income or unable to work through no fault of their own. The state should not be taking complete financial responsibility for those who choose to contribute nothing to society, but have been allowed to believe that they are 'entitled' to everything. Nor should it be providing extra money to those, irrespective of employment status and income, who, by having more than two children, add to the state's financial burden and to overpopulation.
I'm afraid it's you, Jim, who is missing the point. The world is overpopulated. This country is overpopulated. We should be doing everything in our power to discourage the feckless disregard of those who add to the burden on our environment and the financial burden on their more responsible fellow citizens by having too many children.
You're welcome, Jim 360. Then I'm afraid we must agree to disagree.....yet I find it hard to believe that anyone wouldn't agree with this.....
"It's time for revamping the welfare state and getting back to its original ideals of providing support for those on low income or unable to work through no fault of their own."
"It's time for revamping the welfare state and getting back to its original ideals of providing support for those on low income or unable to work through no fault of their own."
Well I suppose in that I do agree with you although not with how to go about it. For example, I think there's a case to be made for reducing the level at which these benefits are paid out, for example, and for lowering slightly the thresholds for receiving such. I just don't agree with a cap by number of children.
-- answer removed --
I had my first child just before my 21st birthday in 1970. Already there were reports of population problems in the new millennium an so when I fell again the next year, I asked to be sterilised after the birth of the new baby when I would be 23. I was sent to a psychiatric hospital and asked questions such as, "What would happen if you were free and someone else was interested in you?". To which I replied that is he wanted a breeding machine and not me then he should look somewhere else.
I won the argument but at a great loss because they did the op on psychiatric, ie mental, grounds. This was in 1971 and I wanted to make sure that I only had 2 children because I was worried about what would happen if there were too many people in the UK and this was at a time during which we had Vietnamese refugees sailing up our estuary and being given council houses which locals who had been bred and brought up in the area were not!!
Also, if there are less people reaching retirement age at any one time, then surely there would be more cash available for every one reaching retirement age?
Finally, I remember reading about a mother who encouraged her under-age daughter (at 13) to become pregnant because of the benefits and...no just once...but again the next year!! And I leave it to you to surmise what happened next!
I won the argument but at a great loss because they did the op on psychiatric, ie mental, grounds. This was in 1971 and I wanted to make sure that I only had 2 children because I was worried about what would happen if there were too many people in the UK and this was at a time during which we had Vietnamese refugees sailing up our estuary and being given council houses which locals who had been bred and brought up in the area were not!!
Also, if there are less people reaching retirement age at any one time, then surely there would be more cash available for every one reaching retirement age?
Finally, I remember reading about a mother who encouraged her under-age daughter (at 13) to become pregnant because of the benefits and...no just once...but again the next year!! And I leave it to you to surmise what happened next!
Years ago, child benefit (or the old family allowance) was only paid for the second and subsequent children. My mum never got any family allowance for me, being the eldest but she did for my brother. Child benefit for all children is a relatively recent thing. (my brother and I grew up in the '60's and '70's)
-- answer removed --
Latest Posts
Your Vote Is Not Confidential.
News3 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles4 mins ago
Crosswords8 mins ago
News12 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.