Reply to: limit families to three children?

[Troll]

At the same time, utilise mandatory genetic screening and subsequent abortion of embryos with any genetic disorder.

Additionally implement Action T4...sorted

Regards
Adolf

[MarillionFan]

Of course 3 children is the worst number to have. After that you stop caring.

Now I just need wife number 3 for that 4th child.

Wouldn't 5 autistic kids be too many?

[BrilloPad]

Of course 3 children is the worst number to have. After that you stop caring.

Now I just need wife number 3 for that 4th child.

[d000hg]

are you trying to suggest removing the benefit incentive to breed is akin to Eugenics?

No, I'm saying a legal limit on how many children you may have is. The 3 child limit FOR BENEFITS was the other thread.

[vetran]

At the same time, utilise mandatory genetic screening and subsequent abortion of embryos with any genetic disorder.

are you trying to suggest removing the benefit incentive to breed is akin to Eugenics?

[eek]

What if a couple with NO children have twins....

They receive a different amount for each child. The one born first is "worth" £20.50 and the other one £13.55

So the concept of each child being "worth" different amounts has been ingrained in the child benefit system for decades.

And that is something that Tamba has been campaigning about for decades. The official excuse for the difference is that parents will already have bought stuff which can be used. It absolutely falls about if you get twins. I remember the price of a suitable pushchair was and the size of it meant it wouldn't fit in the current car....

[centurian]

What if a couple already have two children, decide to have a third and then end up with twins?

What if a couple with NO children have twins....

They receive a different amount for each child. The one born first is "worth" £20.50 and the other one £13.55

So the concept of each child being "worth" different amounts has been ingrained in the child benefit system for decades.

[NotAllThere]

You can't make it work in a democracy let alone China, the best you can do is take away financial incentives to have more children

The financial incentive for not having many children is that having children is expensive. Large families are only of benefit to the feckless who should all be sent for medical experimentation for the benefit of the rest of us.

[original PM]

Just give benefits for the first 3 in this modern world there is no need for the state to support large families

By all means have as many as you want though

[barrydidit]

What if one of the kids is ginger? Will they still count?

[d000hg]

Solves the child benefit issues, solves the pressure on the NHS and schools, solves the housing shortage and solves the immigration issue as we will have more room as less over crowding.

At the same time, utilise mandatory genetic screening and subsequent abortion of embryos with any genetic disorder.

[CloudWalker]

Simples , You can have as many kids as you like BUT for each child you have the benefits half and when you get over 4 you have to pay the state a fine doubling with each new child born.

[darmstadt]

Is this going to turn into a eugenics thread? If it is, who's going to get banned first

[Willapp]

IMO child benefits etc should only apply to the first child. Want more kids? Great, pay for them yourself.

[tomtomagain]

Must have worked a bit.

We should just tax people according to their children. Have as many as you want, if you can afford it. Then you can opt to avoid tax by killing one if you so wish.

I have 4 children and they cost me a fecking fortune. After all the ballet, horse-riding, dancing & ice-skating lessons I don't have anything left to pay tax.