There is a big discussion in the UK at present about the reduction in Child Benefits - specifically cutting those subsidies to people making more than about $70,000 a year. First you need to understand that these benefits have been paid for years to anyone who has a child. I think it started after the second world war. It is something that has become entrenched and everyone thinks it is their right if they have a child, to get weekly or monthly payments from the Government just because they decided to have children. After all, who can afford children! People with children have extra expenses over people who don't, etc etc and on and on.
BUT, my feeling is that no one HAS to have children, there are reliable birth control methods now, which there weren't years ago. Why should people who don't want or can't afford children subsidize others who do want them? Why should a couple who are responsible enough to know they cannot afford children subsidize someone who does? It is their choice and if they want them, that is fine, but they should pay for them. I would like a nice new Jaguar, or a Lexus or even a Porsche, but I can't afford one - so I don't get one. Using the logic of child benefits, because I can't afford a nice new expensive car, the State should tax everyone else and give me a Car Benefit so that I can get one! Or how about a World Cruise, that would be nice too, I can't afford one, no problem, lets institute a Vacation Benefit for those who can't afford a World Cruise.
What is the difference? Why should I pay for something you can't afford? Whether it be children, cars, cruises or a nicer house, why should I pay for you to have any of these things? I realized we couldn't afford a lot of children, we did want children, we did the responsible thing and had what we could afford, one. Even that was hard, we knew if we had any children we wanted to give them a nice life, good food, a nice place to live and a good education. We decided that we might just about manage that for one child. Why would I have 3 or 4 children, and then not be able to feed them properly, live in a hovel, not be able to take them places or give them a good education? That would be irresponsible. There are many irresponsible people out there, why should I subsidize that irresponsibility? Why should they not subsidize that new car I want, and the World Cruise and the Big House, all things I can't afford, just like they can't afford multiple children, but they think it is their right to have them and then have me pay for them.
I'd like to hear your views on that.