Monday, October 29, 2012

Two child limit policy

The government has proposed a two-child limit on child payments for the UK. This may surprise some but I'm in favour of this; some aren't so I'm going to look at arguments I'm seen against.

1. This is just like China's one-child limit. We don't want to be like China do we? Beyond the (well-deserved) attack on China's governance this doesn't equate. Does our government propose fining parents that have more than two children? No. Does out government propose sending them to prison or sterilising parents who have more than two children? No. Our government isn't going to punish parents who have more than two children they're simply not going to reward them.

2. How dare the government get involved in this; setting arbitrary limits on natural processes. Except as soon as a decision was made to provide parents with funds when they have children the government did get involved. Complaining about them setting limits is like complaining about them setting the pensionable age or the voting age.

3. But what if someone has triplets? Seriously I've seen this as an argument and while it is indeed something that needs to be dealt with it's hardly a deal-breaker. Triplets and more don't occur that often and should it happen to someone (except by artificially induced methods) parents should receive funds for all three (or more) children. They just won't receive any more should they have any more children.

So what are the arguments in favour?

1. Population reduction. Our population are living longer and this is putting a strain on various services. A slow, managed reduction will result in a better quality of life for most.

2. The welfare managers. Okay it's very Dale Mailey; but people who constantly have children and aren't working (because they have children) are being supported solely by the government and morally I personally think this is wrong.

3. This doesn't stop people having more than two children it just places the burden of responsibility back on to them and not onto the government. In this instance I think this is morally right.

Your thoughts, arguments?