ADK Posted 20 March 2013 Posted 20 March 2013 You do know the population of the UK is decreasing excluding immigration don't you? Tell me, what happens in 100 years time if every two people have 1 child. I'd be happy with that, the population of the country is too big. It's not likely to be that dramatic though, losing out on a few benefits isn't going to stop people having kids.
Jon the Hat Posted 20 March 2013 Posted 20 March 2013 That is their choice, I don't think the government should fund socialisation. On the contrary, all the evidence suggests earlier intervention is exactly what the Government should do to overcome most of the issues faced by kids from deprived backgrounds. I'd be happy with that, the population of the country is too big. It's not likely to be that dramatic though, losing out on a few benefits isn't going to stop people having kids. As long as you dont mind allowing mass immigration to prevent an even more rapidly aging popoulation.
Captain... Posted 20 March 2013 Posted 20 March 2013 On the contrary, all the evidence suggests earlier intervention is exactly what the Government should do to overcome most of the issues faced by kids from deprived backgrounds. Not really sure what that has to do with the parent wanting to socialise, but government intervention sounds like the nanny state to me, are you drifting to the left Jon?
FoxyPV Posted 20 March 2013 Posted 20 March 2013 I'd be happy with that, the population of the country is too big. It's not likely to be that dramatic though, losing out on a few benefits isn't going to stop people having kids. Yes it will. It will mean that more and more working parents are unable to have kids due to the cost of childcare. It costs me £800 p/m to go to work because of childcare costs. MsFoxy and I can't afford to have more kids.
FoxyPV Posted 20 March 2013 Posted 20 March 2013 Not really sure what that has to do with the parent wanting to socialise, but government intervention sounds like the nanny state to me, are you drifting to the left Jon? The government should pay the full cost of childcare. I'd gladly pay higher taxes to fund this. Parents working is better for the economy.
ADK Posted 20 March 2013 Posted 20 March 2013 As long as you dont mind allowing mass immigration to prevent an even more rapidly aging popoulation. The 'aging population' dilemma would only be a problem for a couple of generations after which things would be evened out.
Jon the Hat Posted 20 March 2013 Posted 20 March 2013 Not really sure what that has to do with the parent wanting to socialise, but government intervention sounds like the nanny state to me, are you drifting to the left Jon? We were talking about the Children socialising. Free childcare helps identify families that are going to cost the taxpayer a fortune in care and head it off before it gets to that stage.
Webbo Posted 20 March 2013 Posted 20 March 2013 We were talking about the Children socialising. Free childcare helps identify families that are going to cost the taxpayer a fortune in care and head it off before it gets to that stage. More social engineering with government experts prescribing this weeks theory on child care.
Captain... Posted 20 March 2013 Posted 20 March 2013 We were talking about the Children socialising. Free childcare helps identify families that are going to cost the taxpayer a fortune in care and head it off before it gets to that stage. Sorry I misunderstood Foxy's post, But going by free childcare for all, then surely you are encouraging a disincentive to work, you can pop out a kid, get paid for it, get paid not to work and then get someone else to look after it for free.
FoxyPV Posted 20 March 2013 Posted 20 March 2013 Sorry I misunderstood Foxy's post, But going by free childcare for all, then surely you are encouraging a disincentive to work, you can pop out a kid, get paid for it, get paid not to work and then get someone else to look after it for free. That's an incredibly negative way to look at things. You are making easier to work and therefore enabling more people to work. This would reduce then pressure on older family members to look after kids to save their kids a fortune and allow those older members to spend their time doing life fulfilling activities (whatever they choose them to be).
Captain... Posted 20 March 2013 Posted 20 March 2013 That's an incredibly negative way to look at things. You are making easier to work and therefore enabling more people to work. This would reduce then pressure on older family members to look after kids to save their kids a fortune and allow those older members to spend their time doing life fulfilling activities (whatever they choose them to be). that is how a lot of people on here, think in regard to benefits, and scroungers, I don't actually subscribe to that thinking, and even if there are a minority that do really take advantage of the system then I don't believe we should be making policies based on the minority. ...but I do think if there is a limited pot to spend subsidising childcare, then it should go to those that need it the most primarily, (disabled, working single mothers etc), but after that it should go to those that work ahead of those that don't. I would love there to be good quality state funded nurseries and pre-schools, but that costs a lot of money, and that is something we don't have a great deal of at the moment, and whilst you may be happy to see a tax increase I suspect many others wouldn't.
FoxyPV Posted 20 March 2013 Posted 20 March 2013 that is how a lot of people on here, think in regard to benefits, and scroungers, I don't actually subscribe to that thinking, and even if there are a minority that do really take advantage of the system then I don't believe we should be making policies based on the minority. ...but I do think if there is a limited pot to spend subsidising childcare, then it should go to those that need it the most primarily, (disabled, working single mothers etc), but after that it should go to those that work ahead of those that don't. I would love there to be good quality state funded nurseries and pre-schools, but that costs a lot of money, and that is something we don't have a great deal of at the moment, and whilst you may be happy to see a tax increase I suspect many others wouldn't. People in Britain can't see beyond their own noses when it comes to taxes. There is definitely a culture in the UK of being almost paedophobic when it comes to our treatment of kids and child raising.
Captain... Posted 20 March 2013 Posted 20 March 2013 People in Britain can't see beyond their own noses when it comes to taxes. There is definitely a culture in the UK of being almost paedophobic when it comes to our treatment of kids and child raising. I'm not paedophobic, quite the opposite...
FoxyPV Posted 21 March 2013 Posted 21 March 2013 I'm not paedophobic, quite the opposite... Not funny.
ADK Posted 21 March 2013 Posted 21 March 2013 I think my idea of a universal benefit for the first two children is a good one. If people want to use that money to pay for childcare and go out to work then they can do that, but i think if a parent wants to stay at home and look after their children then that should be equally rewarded.
Dr The Singh Posted 21 March 2013 Posted 21 March 2013 Going through the budget calculator, I lose nearly £2k from it, i'm not happy!
digitalalba Posted 22 March 2013 Posted 22 March 2013 Parents will be able to claim back up to £1,200 a year - or 20% of childcare costs - from 2015, under plans set to be unveiled by the government. What group of tax payers will pay for it?
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.