Author Topic: Child benefit an unnecessary drain on the nation  (Read 4397 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 66
Child benefit an unnecessary drain on the nation
« on: March 26, 2012, 10:36:41 am »
Recent proposals to cut child benefit have met with uproar.
Higher rate paying households were aggrieved that they may lose their child benefit.
So much so that in last week's Budget the Chancellor watered down plans to lessen the impact of cuts in child benefit for those earning up to £50,000.

But, why should the state reward those irresponsible people, who decide to have children for their own selfish reasons, be rewarded with a state handout?
Child benefit is currently £20.40 a week for the first child and £13.40 for every other child that mothers decide to have.
If you cannot fully support the cost of having children without a handout from the state then you should not have them.

Children are a drain on the nation's finances. They need educating. They need medical care. They often need social workers. 
All of which is paid for by every taxpayer, whether they have children or not. 

Sure, it is hoped that the children will be the future taxpayers, contributing into a system to fund current taxpayer's pensions. 
But, with more than one million, 25% of all 16-24 years olds, out of work this is unlikely.
Some household even have three generations who have never worked!
Indeed, the expensive education they receive results in only 84% achieving the reading level expected by age 11 and 75% the expected writing level.

Whilst having nothing against children, I do prefer cats. 
They are quieter, less trouble, cost less, and appreciate what you do for them!

As a cat owner, I pay more to the state and add to the nation's economic activity.
My cat needs a vet, veterinary nurse, medication, cattery, pet insurance, all providing employment and therefore income tax.
On top of this Vat is charged on these services and even payable on cat food.
Do I get a Cat Allowance for being responsible and not having children?  No.
So why should parents, who unilaterally decide (no one forces them) to have a child to fuss and fawn over for the next 20 years get child benefit?

As Mr Grainger once said on 'Are you being served?'
"Children should be seen and not heard and preferably not seen either"
Other people's children should certainly not be at my expense!