Can anybody tell me why on Earth we have been paying people to have children for so many years? We don't exactly have a shortage of people in this country so why don't we offer money to those that choose not to have them instead. Better still why don't we just not pay either group and save a small fortune, which could perhaps be used to fill in the numerous potholes in my road.
Monday, October 04, 2010
Benefits, Benefits, Benefits...
A friend of mine received a cheque last week for over a hundred pounds from some sort of Government scheme to enable mothers to eat well whilst pregnant. (There are of course no restrictions on what you actually spend the money on and she is a partner in a well known firm of accountants, so there's taxpayer's money well spent).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
In the United States, people are given a payment to enable them to eat while pregnant, and to feed the baby. It's called WIC.
Strangely enough, in Canada there is no such program, and rarely do babies or pregnant women starve (thank G-d). It also raises the question of the women were eating before they became pregnant.
Perhaps more to the point, some US states require women in receipt of welfare to have a contraceptive implant. You then avoid cases like Karen Matthews (32) and Tracy Connelly (28) who had 11 kids by 9 different fathers.
Why DO we have child benefit? It should be stopped. You want a dog? Well, make sure you can afford one. Same for a kid. A car. Whatever.
It was introduced I believe in 1945 as "Family Allowance", when it was only paid in respect of the second and any subsequent children - its original purpose being to boost the birth rate after the War. That situation is now long gone, which makes a definite case I would suggest for reversing the scheme, and paying only for a first child.
And why payments continue beyond the school-leaving age of 16 is beyond me. At that age, they're not a "child" anymore.
Post a Comment