The child allowance benefit is a good idea, but there needs to be a cap of some kind, to avoid gross abuse of the system. I find it offensive when I read of families who boast about having a great number of children and then expect the state (and the taxpayer) to pay for their keep. It is not uncommon to read of families having up to 10 or more children, when the father and mother are both not working and likely to be drawing other benefits such as housing or unemployment as well as child allowances.

The principle should be that parents cannot expect for the state to pay for their children beyond say the third child. In other words, they will only receive child allowances for the first three children. If they want to continue having children after this, then they will have to find the means to keep them, or consider using birth control or even steralisation. Why should I and other people pay for them to sit at home spending their time procreating?

Discussions need to take place on the extent and level of child allowances. Perhaps there could be a sliding scale of allowance, say 100% for the first child, 75% for the second and 50% for the third. After that, nothing.

Why is this idea important?

Irresponsible parents having large families they cannot support are a drain on the public purse.

Unlimited child allowances are an encouragement for these parents to continue to to produce football team size families.

Large families are often a component to what is called "the benefit culture"

Their children could grow up believing that what their parents did is the norm and they too are entitled to follow suit, thus perpetuating the problem.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.