Survival is the number one instinct for any living creature. Nowt wrong with being selfish then? Any parents on here would say they had kids for the good of humanity or for their own selfish reasons?
Read JR's quote again, Major. He's saying it's selfish for someone to have kids and expect others to help fund it. Rather than it's selfish just to have kids.
I agree with the original poster. Why should my taxes go to pay for cheap fags for single mothers? I've never had kids myself, but buried my stepson ( who was basically my son) without ever getting any state aid... i don't see why I go to work, pay my taxes yet layabouts can sit on their arse all day, wishing they were on Jeremy Kyle and get handouts for all the good they give to society!
The case for society as a whole to provide children's benefits such as free healthcare, free education, and child allowances to support the next generation is so strong, and so obvious, that it is not worth debating. More interesting, I think, is the question whether these benefits should be made available to all, or means-tested. There is an argument that wealthier people above a certain financial threshold should be excluded from entitlement to some or all of the benefits; only the less wealthy should get them, thus saving a slice of public expenditure. There are strong counter arguments. Universal benefits are very cheap to administer, but means-testing involves an expensive bureaucratic apparatus so part of the expenditure saving is wasted. It is desirable for the wealthy, since they pay more in taxes, to get something back and feel socially included, rather being alienated with means-testing. Benefits are focused specifically on the children rather than their parents. The present ConDem government seems to be moving more towards means-testing, so they have presumably decided to accept the drawbacks. I suspect the move will be regretted, and reversed in a few years.
Yep provide a free hospital check, provide a free education, yep check, .......its the flaw in the plan that particularly giving free money to parents that gets lost in amongst everything else other than for the children thats being debated.......not the whole picture. So why do we give people money just because they chose to have children? Why can i be given money from the tax payer because i choose to do track days?
That sounds pretty sensible to me. Maybe it shouldn't be paid to families where no one works, unless they already have x years of contributions. Just to discourage people from having no intention of working but of just producing sprogs instead.
I have no problem with free healthcare for children ( or for anyone else for that matter ). I have no problem with free education - obviously that is a good thing. I do have a problem with a system that gives money to people just because they have children when, as has happened in some sectors of society within the UK, just producing more children becomes more financially attractive than getting a job. There is a fundamental flaw in a welfare system that bases its benefits on AVERAGE earnings, not minimum earnings. A system that does that will always penalise hard working lower paid people and advantage people who have no intention of working but know how to use the system.
Where does this 'free' come from? I can assure you i have paid more than my share to support my family. I'd have saved a fortune if we had a system like the yanks, which some like Funky and JR seem to want, whereby you're out for yourself, very low income tax, own insurances, pay for education etc. I'd probably be able to own a Desmo
its still free....... you get it basically because youve got kids, i havnt so i don't. Its got nothing to do with your contribution to society or to support your family....i can assure you i contribute and have contributed just as much as you to society from the same system and support my and mine just as much too. the bottom line is you get money back from the system because you decided to have kids, and i don't.
Bradders - it's free at point of use. ie you don't pay, directly, for your kids to go to school. The American system is far from perfect, and not something I would like to see here. My point is just that I would like to see a level playing field. I choose not to have kids, some people make different choices. My point is only that I don't see why I should pay for something that someone else wants and I don't. No more, no less...
And Bradders - I get a pension because of the money I have saved, and subsequently invested, specifically by NOT having kids. My pension is provided by my own good planning and has nothing to do with other people's offspring.
