Blogging Up The Works

Monday, March 05, 2012

The Benefit of Hindsight

The Government are to re-look at their decision to cut child allowance to families where one partner earns £40k.

And so they should. How can it be fair that a family where the joint income is 2x £39,000 and you keep it, whereas 1 x £41,000 and you lose it. I'm a Tory by nature but even I think that is the most absurd piece of mathematical economics I have ever heard.

I actually think they are looking at the entire situation wrongly. Instead of working out the family income for child allowance they should be looking at the number of children. It's a simple enough system. You get the allowance for your first two children and then nothing.

There, that isn't difficult.

Why should we have to support families who choose to have lots of children? And these days it is a choice. We have universal contraception in this country. Not to use it is a choice. I know there is a religious argument against contraception but, if a particular religion thinks mass procreation is a good idea then let it pay for it. I don't have a problem if someone chooses to have more children as long as they can afford to support them. Historically we often needed larger families due to infant mortality but that, to all intents and purposes, has disappeared, at least in this case. The Catholic church in particular wanted the Catholic population to spread and become a majority but that argument is surely redundant as I cannot see a reason to populate a particular religious group these days unless you are planning a religious war. (I am sure there are other religions I could pick on but The Roman Catholic Church is perhaps the highest profile one in the UK.

Compared to my ex I am positively liberal. She would then go on at +2 children to start fining families by way of tax allowance loss at best. Actually, she would probably vote for +2 euthanasia, but that's another story.

The argument is of course it penalises the poor. And yes it does to a degree, but there is no argument I can see for them wanting to have lots of children.

Of course my system can't be brought in overnight as that would be unfair to larger families as they exist, or, perhaps we can keep the pay out as it is today but draw a line at some point and then bring it in. A years warning or so would be enough.

I reckon that would save a lot more money in the long run than the present proposal. I await Mr Osbourne's call!

3 Comments:

  • It used to be that you only got Child Allowance (or perhaps it was Family Allowance?) after your second child was born. I can't recall at what point this was changed but I did eventually get it for my single child, and very useful it was too. I don't pretend to have the vaguest idea of how to change the system, but I am not a politician so I don't need to.

    By Blogger Toffeeapple, At 9:45 PM  

  • That's why you don't need qualifications to be a politician. Anyone who wants to do it must be a bloody idiot!

    By Blogger kennamatic, At 1:25 PM  

  • Dave for PM! Actually, we've already got one of those.

    We can't claim family allowance for exactly the reason you state, despite the missus losing her job and us becoming a single income family. So, I'm all for any change that might benefit us - fuck knows ('scuse my language), between us we've paid enough into the system over the years and never claimed a single penny back in any kind of benefit.

    I've got two kids and had two vasectomies, so I'm more than happy for your Draconian Child Benefit measures to be implemented!

    By Blogger Masher, At 4:27 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]



<< Home