Wednesday, July 11, 2007

UK needs a 2 child limit


Families should restrict themselves to having a maximum of two children to stabilise the effect on the environment of
Britain's rapidly growing population, a thinktank warns today.

According to the Optimum Population Trust, Britain's rising birth rate, currently growing at the highest rate for nearly 30 years, should be considered an environmental liability.

I have been saying for a long time that we should be reducing our population numbers. I have also said that we should be limiting child benefit to the first two children and in overpopulated areas like the South East we should be limiting it to one child.

We should be making having more than the specified number of children too costly by revoking all benefits that people get including the child benefit that they get for the other children, housing benefit, unemployment benefit and tax credits.

Once people realise that the costs outweigh the benefits of having a large family they will stop and then we will be able to finally reduce the population to more manageable levels.

5 comments:

Stan said...

The birth rate is only increasing because we have more immigrants who have more children. From the indigenous population the birth rate is running well below that of replacement level - not catastropically low as in Italy or Ireland - but low enough to see a net population decline without immigration.

Personally, Id retain child benefit - but for British subjects only. Immigrants should not qualify for it.

I don't think the state should regulate the number of children family should have, but what they should do is reserve the benefits only for British children in married British families.

youdontknowme said...

From the indigenous population the birth rate is running well below that of replacement level

Which is not a bad thing. The sustainable population for this country is 30 million. We should be slowly reducing our population so it hits this level around next century if that is viable.


I don't think the state should regulate the number of children family should have

If the state is paying for those children why not? If people want to have more children thats ok but they should be the ones that have to pay for it.

Stan said...

A declining population is a bad thing if you have millions of pensioners and not enough people working to afford to fund their pensions.

The crucial thing is the welfare state. It is not affordable with a declining population - which is why the government need to bring in more and more immigrants. The Tories do it for cheap labour and labour do it to fund benefits. A declining population is fine if you can afford it, it's massively damaging if you have billions of pounds of welfare commitments to fund.

And the state shouldn't/isn't paying for those children, wayne - the parents should/do.

Child benefit should be paid through tax relief on a married person's income, not as a "benefit" for all.

The whole point is that it should encourage the parenting of children in stable married relationships and enable one parent to stay home and care for the children while penalising those who have children out of wedlock and without the ability to afford to care for them.

Stan said...

Forgot to say that encouraging parents to look after their own kids and remain in stable relationships through preferential treatment for married parents and tax relief for the wage earner saves the state a shedload more money than it costs in child benefit.

youdontknowme said...

A declining population is a bad thing if you have millions of pensioners and not enough people working to afford to fund their pensions.

I don't believe that. Read this article to find out why:

http://www.sovereignty.org.uk/features/articles/demog2.html