Having a child is a lifestyle choice; if people can't afford to have more than 2 children, they shouldn't. Removing the cap would give people a free reign to have more children, and claim more benefits at the expense of tax payers.

Why stop at two Robbie? On your logic no child should be supported by the state, in whatever circumstances. Also, where does the evidence come that a cap would influence behaviour? Wouldn't it be better to encourage a responsible society instead?

robbiex wrote:
Having a child is a lifestyle choice; if people can't afford to have more than 2 children, they shouldn't. Removing the cap would give people a free reign to have more children, and claim more benefits at the expense of tax payers.


What do tax payers get? Nothing at all

Green Man wrote:
robbiex wrote:
Having a child is a lifestyle choice; if people can't afford to have more than 2 children, they shouldn't. Removing the cap would give people a free reign to have more children, and claim more benefits at the expense of tax payers.


What do tax payers get? Nothing at all

I imagine that this is another rare occasion where GM agrees with me. The birth rate is down granted, but immigration is through the roof. When you have a child, it doesn't come out of the womb and go into a job. They are born and then remain a net loss to the state for at least 16 years. When they grow up, the need for labour will be much reduced as AI will take over many jobs. One of the reasons that we have a lot of old people now is because the baby boom generation was so large, and now they are old. If we have another baby boom, then the problem will re-occur in a few generations. The birth rate around the world is not going down. and if necessary we could import labour in the unlikely event that this is necessary.

robbiex wrote:
Green Man wrote:
robbiex wrote:
Having a child is a lifestyle choice; if people can't afford to have more than 2 children, they shouldn't. Removing the cap would give people a free reign to have more children, and claim more benefits at the expense of tax payers.


What do tax payers get? Nothing at all

I imagine that this is another rare occasion where GM agrees with me. The birth rate is down granted, but immigration is through the roof. When you have a child, it doesn't come out of the womb and go into a job. They are born and then remain a net loss to the state for at least 16 years. When they grow up, the need for labour will be much reduced as AI will take over many jobs. One of the reasons that we have a lot of old people now is because the baby boom generation was so large, and now they are old. If we have another baby boom, then the problem will re-occur in a few generations. The birth rate around the world is not going down. and if necessary we could import labour in the unlikely event that this is necessary.

We know why the birth rate is low. The jab fucked up periods. There is lower T- Levels in men due to wifi, digital devices and UHP foods. I see young women are heavier then they were before.

Give it time AI will be doing bricklaying.

There needs to be a serious debate on taxes. However, the government don't care because it's not their money.