I'm fed up of paying taxes which are then given to unmarried mothers or people who don't know how to use contraception and have 4,5,6 + kids.(Remember that workshy sponger with 9+ sprogs who was on £35,000 + benefits?)
Family allowance (or whatever PC name it's called now) should only be given to the first two children. If anyone wants more than 3 they should have to foot the bill themselves.
I used to get a married man's allowance, this was taken away and given to people with children. If people can afford children, fine but why should people who don't want any have to subsidise them?
2007-11-05 01:55:42 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Other - Society & Culture
Eriverpi...I've paid for NHS treatment already through my NI contributions.
Who would pay for sprog 3??....the family. If they had to give up their car/tv/ holidays etc they'd make sure they used contraception. As it is they know the goverment will throw money (our money) at then every time another little basta*d pops out.
2007-11-05 02:09:22 · update #1
Mrs Debra...my mother paid to look after me and didn't depend on state handouts .
2007-11-05 02:37:15 · update #2
Totally agree with the idea that Family Allowance should only be paid for the first two kids, maybe this would help keep the population down.
But the P.C lot will say that this infringes the human rights of people who want loads of kids.
Unfortunately there is no answer, we all pay nat ins and tax and the money goes on whatever the government wants to spend it on.
People could argue that they have never been ill so why should they contribute to the N.H.S. People can also argue that they are pacifists so why should their taxes be used on the armed forces.
We are in a no win situation. If we really want to change things we must do it through parliament.
2007-11-05 02:07:37 · answer #1 · answered by ORC 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Perhaps (and this is only a suggestion) you might wish to consider that the future of all institutions such as the NHS etc is dependent upon having a sufficient number of tax payers in future generations to pay for it..... and whatever you might think of the progeny of 'workshy spongers', the fact is that quite a substantial number of them will grow into decent citizens whose taxes will support the NHS that YOU use as you get older. BTW - are you complaining about people having more than 2 or 3 kids... you say Family allowance should apply to first 2 kids then say anyone wanting MORE THAN 3 should foot the bill themselves.... so who pays for kid no 3??? The Lottery???
Add: My dear fellow, if you reckon NI contributions alone keep the NHS going, you've got no head for figures... even if it did, by the time you retire, and are more likely to need the NHS, it will no longer (by definition) be 'your' NI contributions keeping it going, it will be those of the future generations about whom you are spouting... do you think the NHS keeps your contributions in a jar somewhere to be used when you need them? Your lack or economic capability is also reinforced by your view that 'more than three' includes 'three' (which is surely under no conceivable definition 'more than three')... laughable....
2007-11-05 10:03:30 · answer #2 · answered by eriverpipe 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
It is common mothers in the below the line of poverty condition have this very same number of kids - and in their thinking, a way to garanttee their subsistance. They take their children out in the streets to beg for money and that really sucks, because when you stop your car in the red light, dozens of these poor little ones come to you, it's everywhere!. Federal Gov. started in the last administration to provide these families with money to help in their miserable situation (less than 100 pounds monthly). To be elegible, mother has to keep them in the school. Why would they keep them at school if they can make more money in the streets is a question they make...
2007-11-05 16:29:37 · answer #3 · answered by Olho Clinico 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
well i don't want kids so i understand what you're saying but i feel better by the fact that i have a healthier, happier life without children and have more disposable income in the long run. Even with subsidising them i still think i've got the better deal!
2007-11-05 09:59:53 · answer #4 · answered by Sarah J 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Makes one wonder how they managed when there was no child benefit,no contraception and had families of 8 or more!
2007-11-05 10:26:40 · answer #5 · answered by HELEN LOOKING4 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I agree with you, I do not see why tax-codes cannot change when or if a couple were to have a baby. I am aware of Scandinavian countries that work their tax that way.
2007-11-05 10:02:26 · answer #6 · answered by brianthesnailuk2002 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think people should have to pay more taxes for every child past the first two.
2007-11-05 11:01:27 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
You were once a child. It is pay back time.
2007-11-05 10:10:01 · answer #8 · answered by mrsdebra1966 7 · 0⤊ 3⤋