egafd.com

Right I will cut through your crap for you because you are sadly, clearly incapable of doing it for yourself - bit like some 80 year olds I have come across !wink!

The only thing you seem capable of is moaning about my sarcastic remarks. Diddums!

1. I believe it is rignt that a government supplies some help to parents who have children.

2. The reason I believe this, I have explained here
http://bgafd.co.uk/forum/read.php?f=3&i=262442&t=262395

If we supply no specific benefits for children, the situation in which we have a rising mean age for the UK population whilst the fertility rate stays level or declines will cause a whole host of problems.

3. You appear to believe that
"One might argue why should anyone receive child benefit? Irrespective of the sums, if you can't afford children don't have them." "Before the advent of child benefit, did families not have children? My grandparents never received child benefit and still had 11 kids between them..."

4. Try to counter my argument and the links I have provided.

5. Try to defend your own argument.

6. If you are too gutless to do either 4. or 5. just say so.

PS If your reply contains any signs of dementia e.g. rabbiting on about the days when your grandparents had 11 children between them, I will ignore it.

PS PS I never did get a reply to my post which trashed your entire argument about newspapers being terrified about posting "kiss and tell" stories.

http://bgafd.co.uk/forum/read.php?f=3&i=261774&t=260081

"All of which some may see as a tidy incentive to have children, or at least not to worry too much if they do get up the duff because Joe Taxpayer will foot at least some of the bill. You seem to be trying to argue it both ways in this thread David. Either bennies are generous or they aren't. Either they're an incentive or they're not."

You are confused.

This is the definition of an incentive:

A thing that motivates or encourages one to do something.

Obviously there could be a whole host of reasons why someone has a child. Whether or not an incentive in terms of benefits for both unemployed and employed people is provided is going to be one factor. And may or may not be a tipping factor.

I have explained here why I think it is important to provide an incentive for population data reasons:

http://bgafd.co.uk/forum/read.php?f=3&i=262442&t=262395

What I have not said anywhere is that it is to use your word "generous".

Anyone who says that an unemployed single mum gets a third child as a money making venture taking into account the benefits coming in and the actual cost of feeding, clothing, amusing etc etc a small child and then teenager is in my opinion off their fucking trolley!

Understand now! An incentive is not necessarily "generous", but it can be a tipping factor in the decision. As it is with all parents irrespective of whether they work or not.

I realise facts sometimes terrorise people on this forum. Many prefer the comfort provided by a totally, unsubstantiated opinion.

So as a little test, Eric, perhaps you can tell me:

What percentage of families on jobseekers allowance have more than two kids which is what IDS was rambling on about?

How much in child tax benefit and child benefit would a single, unemployed mum get per week in total for two kids?

David Johnson wrote:

[quote]You are confused.[/quote]

Yes David we're all confused on here. That's why we come to the forum - to have you explain everything to us. Where would we be without you?! !wink!


David Johnson wrote:

[quote]What I have not said anywhere is that it is to use your word "generous".[/quote]

Fair enough, you didn't. So I'll rephrase. For "generous" read "worth having".



David Johnson wrote:

[quote]So as a little test, Eric, perhaps you can tell me:[/quote]

Nah, I'll leave you to tell us David. I know you're dying to!

And you're still trying to argue it both ways.

- Eric

"That's why we come to the forum - to have you explain everything to us. Where would we be without you?!"

Don't worry Eric, the Thoughts of Chairman DJ is winging its way to Flat Eric Mansions as we speak. The DVD will be available for the Xmas market. Place your order now Eric for guaranteed pre-Xmas delivery

"Fair enough, you didn't. So I'll rephrase. For "generous" read "worth having".

Stop back pedalling Eric. "Worth having" is a meaningless phrase. For some people having an extra ?5 a week is definitely "worth having". It still wouldn't be enough to justify having a kid with all the costs involved.


"And you're still trying to argue it both ways"

No I'm not. All I am saying is that it is an incentive but not a money-making initiative given the costs of having a child. And it is impossible for you to argue sensibly otherwise.

Here ya go one last attempt, Eric.

You say I am trying to have it both ways.

Well, imagine the situation when a woman is offered a new job elsewhere in the country with location expenses to be paid. THe location expenses are "an incentive" and "worth having". She weighs up the pros and cons and different factors such as leaving friends and family, deciding whether she really wants the new job and takes into account the location expenses. She decides against taking the new job.

In the same way a woman or a couple will typically take everything into account when deciding to have a child. Do they really want to have another child? Will they be able to manage financially, perhaps with help from parents even though the "worth having" child benefits is not going to cover the costs of having a young child and all the stuff a teenager needs. Some may decide to have a child, others may not.

That's what I mean about child related benefits being an incentive but not a "money making" thing. And certainly not enough for parent(s) not to worry about whether they can afford a kid.

If you still don't get it, can't help I'm afraid.