Funny you should mention that. I was listening to a podcast a while back that was suggesting time travel has already been achieved, but it happened so far back in time we have no record of it, but did have evidence in archaeology. I was so confused I needed a lie down.
I think we have to weigh that against the lasting effect of creating a culture where you can fire out as many kids as you like and the state pays for it. How long in that culture before everyone sacks off working for anything - there's nothing to be gained after all, more and more of your money is taken away and given to those who know the system will give them everything they want - and it all collapses?
Same question as I asked Felltop, in that case. What happens when everybody decides they don't need to work.
Even by your standards that concept is utterly ridiculous. Do you think that is likely to happen ffs Question back. What benefit is there for society in any child living in poverty ?
An extreme outcome that seems very unlikely to me. Child benefit is hardly enough to live a life on. £16 a week isnt it. Weigh that cost against the longer term economic downsides. It isnt that much of a stretch to see some pretty grim impacts. Hungry kids dont do well at school as their ability to learn is impacted. Poor school outcomes lead to lower paid jobs, leading to lower tax income for the govt and a likely higher welfare bill. The stats on child poverty leading to a range of societal downsides, not least anti-social behaviour. If we didnt have the white elephant that is HS2 we could afford to pay this for 40 years! We found £5bn last week for a public sector pay offer. Arguably because grown adults have the ability to strike and take direct actions. Bairns cant do that so are easy to ignore. If there is one group in this country we need to look after it is those under 16, yet we fail them in many ways, or rather politicians do. Let us not forget this was an austerity measure. Way too easy to avoid reversing it. It is bad politics and bad leadership in my mind. Short term, with no sense of the long term impact. Sunak and Starmer dont need to think about the long term, sadly.
It's happening right now. Slowly but surely. The state looking after perfectly healthy individuals used to be a safety net to stop them falling into poverty. Now it's a lifestyle choice, and you want to make it more attractive. There's no benefit to a child living in poverty. But ultimately it's parents that need to understand that and understand what their responsibilities are towards the child they produced.
I think we need to join the policy dots. It needs to be more attractive to families to work, than it is to not. Simple answer is increase minimum wage, technical education streams etc. Make the gap bigger and those inclined to stay at home wont, or at least a significant percentage wont. It seems you are also assuming all 3 child families are living on the state. They arent. Familes who are working are struggling to put food in kids mouths. This is designed to help them. Some familes cant afford to work because of child care costs, and are impacted here. We cannot build policy based on some who dont want to contribute, and disadavantage those who do. It is a sure fire way to move toward the outcomes you predict. The bottom line here is a policy choice that is either equitable to many vulnerable in our society, or ignores them. We cant let the kids down, ever, in my opinion. They have no voice, we have to have it for them.
In this case I believe you do, for the reasons I have stated. At least for a significant % of kids in poverty. It is a fundamental question of offering them a better life chance. Highly likely we do this and in the future these kids go on to be higher tax paying people, amongst other things, that pays this back several fold. Personally they can tax me more to fund it, no problem at all. If a simple business case were done, with an investment period of 25 years, it would be a straight forward decision. Sadly, Sunak and Starmer are putting votes ahead of kids chances here. I genuinely think Starmer in particular is picking topics like this to stand on an economic security card, because he knows we doubt Labour on that. This though is him flexing muscles he doesnt need to. Labour should be the party that reverse this policy on day 1, it is at the heart of what the party used to stand for. It wouldnt even be a big cost item at all. Instead he is determined on HS2. That is me done on the topic. We can help these bairns, if we want to.
For some. Reality for others. We couldn't afford a third child so, bear with me here, this might blow your mind - we didn't have one. Social responsibility vs '**** everyone else, where's my free money'.
Certainly a difficult one to find the right answer to. I think no one wants to see a child go without, have a poor living standard etc. and that a child with a decent life is more likely to grow into a society contributor rather than a drain on it. But I think todays attitudes throw more considerations into the problem, in times gone by benefits were used to provide the necessities, today so many (obviously not all ) would take extra household income to finance the ''it's our right to have'' better mobiles, most expensive trainers etc and still say there's no food for the kids. How to make sure the kids directly benefit ?- I don't know
Aye I agree with that. Consumerism has become a massive problem. It’s like a compulsion or addiction. Fitting in/ belonging is a big thing for a kid and that’s why I’d argue we need to have less have nots and less have it alls, but as a parent you have to get the basics sorted before the luxuries and be honest about it. The shame of being poor isn’t a nice thing to have though.
EU calling the Falklands Las Malvinas. And they had the nerve to call us petty Maybe we should send them a picture of a Vulcan Bomber.
