Over population - should births be taxed?

[Loz]

  Quote

i wouldn't specifically encourage people to have more children either (or give them tax incentives for doing so)

So do you agree that child benefits and tax credits should be limited to one child only?

[PeckhamRose]

And the Camerons have another mouth to feed and she's entitled to more child benefit.

It's wrong, I tell you.

[SteveT]

I heard on the radio that Mrs Cameron has gone into labour. Geddit!

[ST&NLY]

Tax has to be the dirtest and filthiest word in the world and it's meaning just the same. You've been taxed, sounds so horrible and vile. Pay your tax or you will be taxed. Why don't you just tax my seaman and be done with it.

[Jeremy]

You have your own sailor? Cool.

[mockney piers]

No need to be facetious Jeremy, of course he means he owns the retired arsenal goalkeeper of poor hair choices and getting lobbed a lot fame.

[ST&NLY]

Indeed Mockery. Watching Seaman being lobbed was one of my wifes favorite past times. (She supports Spurs)

[James Barber]

Various sources believe UK population will increase by around 10 million net in the next 20 years from 62 million to 71.5 million.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/oct/21/uk-population-growth-70-million

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article21565.html

For Southwark that could mean an extrs 50,000 people!

[Keef]

  Quote

For Southwark that could mean an extrs 50,000 people!

Christ, that's like all the students in Liverpool!

[mockney piers]

I seem to recall that the study was discredited as it used peak migration from eastern Europe to project forward and didn't take things into account like eastern Europe getting wealthier.

And call me a cynical old fool but i also seem to recall it coincided with some draconian legislation or other, typical new labour tactic, conflating scaremongering with debate.

Thank goodness for the new governm... Oh shit.

And yes plenty of room in this island, but every nimby doesn't want a new town spoiling their local bit of countryside, so we only seem to have a bunch of disaster waiting to happen flood plains available, and without much greater investment in public services and infrastructure this country does creak at the seams absorbing local population increases, so far be it from me to ever agree with the OP, but there is more than a kernel of truth in his own particular brand of dubious scaremongering.

[Loz]

In 2008 the population rose 408K - that roughly consisted of 240K net natural increase (births v deaths) and 165K net immigration. Birth rates are on the up, partially boosted by new immigrants having a higher average rate of birth (2.5 to 1.84 average per female), though the non-immigrant birth rate is climbing. Births in 2008 were around 700K.

So the population rising by 10M over 20 years does not take much of a projection.

[DJKillaQueen]

Yeah but those children are growing up in an educated country and where girls are educated they generally have less children. I remember the same doomsdays projections being made 20 years ago and they haven't materialised. In the sixties there were projections claiming we'd be 75 million by 2000 and offering same old tired arguments on immigration.

In 1960 popoulation was around 52.2 million. So it has grown by just 10 million in the last 50 years. And there's no reason to expect accelerated growth over the next 50 years. What becomes an issue is whether we keep up with infrastructure and resources. I have no qualms about taking land for new towns. After all how did 5% of the population end up owning all the land in the first place? They certainly didn't earn it.

Worldwide, population increase is definitely an issue. If we want to control it, we need to educate people and give them other options in life beyond producing babies. That's not going to happen to a great enough measure of course and in some parts of the world we are heading for disaster unless some other method of forcing population change happens.

It's worth also mentioning that in China, where there is a law limiting children, people do regularly have more than one child. As a result many children are abandoned, usually girls, ending up in orphanages with little hope of ever being homed.

[????]

You're all barking up the wrong tree - compulsory Euthanasia at 80 that's what we should be debating. Contribution to society is minimal, use of society's resources massive.

[expat]

Why as late as 80 surely as soon as people go on pension it is time?

[SteveT]

A familiar term for the retired in Japan is 'big garbage'!

Quids the potential for a new industry,

'finality shops' or "the Terminus" which will provide a good send off,

errr provided the octogenarians have the money of course.

[expat]

Well the terms many Japanese women use to describe their retired husbands, ?Sodaigomi? or oversized garbage and ?nureochiba? or wet fallen leave. I am not aware theat is gneric in Japan.

Perhaps anyone 1 year younger then steve t and up should be terminated?

[HAL9000]

SteveT - your idea brings to mind the 1973 movie Soylent Green - recycling is all the rage these days.

[SteveT]

Good movie Hal, the plot though was enough to make me shiver.

expat wrote:- Perhaps anyone 1 year younger then steve t and up should be terminated?

That would be two years before pensionable age which would suit the governments accounts books just fine.

An interesting concept expat but withdrawal of benefits would be more efficient and target the poorest, weakest and most dependent.

Sounds to me like the world of expat is a paradise waiting to happen, personally I don't think you've a dogs chance to make your idea stick!

[Tarot]

What about the immigrants ,who have more than one wife, kids galore and claim benifits for all of them. Abu Hamsa was one, he done well. a lot better than most deserving folk. I.ll have the P. C brigade squealing now. Face facts this country is a soft touch for all and sundry.

[SteveT]

That's why they are flooding in,

and each one that enters takes a part of the birthright provided by the indigenous population's parents, grandparents, and great grandparents.

[Tarot]

Back in the fifties and sixries, people did not have benifits, they had to sign on at the labour exchange every week, just to get half a stamp franked for their future pensions. They also had to go for an interview for a job that had been chosen for them. They never had any money,and if they were stone broke, they had to go to the assistance board. where they were humiliated and got a pittance. There wasnt family allowance for every child no help with rent fuel or heating. You had to pay for condoms. and you certainly gave it some thought before having children. Men had more control and were more respectful towards their women. Women wanted a good life for their children. To have a place you had to wait five years on the waiting list; or go into an halfway house. The main holiday for most was a working one in the hopfields. Good times. The people that worked were proud; Everyone wore their Sunday best booted and suited, respected their parents, and ate food at the table.Now we have a nation of parasites.thanks to the goverments. letting every Tom Dick and Harry. swamp the place from far flung lands who are either not at war or just plain chancers.

[DJKillaQueen]

And oh life was so perfect then wasn't it. Women had very few opportunities and often stayed in unhappy marriages. Higher education was for the rich. And everyone had really good health care didn't they....and entire families weren't living in single rooms were they? I could go on.

We need births to fill the shortfall in work force needed to keep the now top heavy Malthaus Pyramid from falling over altogether, or a heck of a lot of pensioners are going to find there's no money to pay their state pensions.

But there is definitely a case for saying that benefits should be for the first two or three children only. The kind of benefits cases that the likes of the Daily Mail often leaps on are the ones where families have so many children that the benefits they receive are worth the equivalent of a 100k salary and I think most people (including me) would say that can't be right. Oh and nearly all of them are white British families...not a trace of a foreign ethnic origin to be found.

[Tarot]

No it wasnt perfect, but women got educared and had the laws changed for divorce. It was called womens lib. There were whole families living in one room in the half way houses. Often in most homes ther were three generations under one roof.with no hope of getting rehoused,Surprise..including whites. To say "education was for the rich" is a stupid thing to say, If you had nous,you could go to evening classes,libraries, and even open university. I f people are relying on any work being done by todays lot to pay out their pensions forget it. Child benifit should be curbed.,and whats your hang up about ethnic people, whites ,and race. Give it a rest.

[????]

Oh and nearly all of them are white British families...not a trace of a foreign ethnic origin to be found.

Come on! Race is irrelevant here IMO but that is a ridiculous statement DJKQ. Even the Guardian wouldn't write such crap!

[SeanMacGabhann]

  Quote

Agreed - but of all the ludicrous claims in the last couple of pages, THAT'S the one you pounce on?