Families unable to afford more children should not be asked to fund those who can’t, was the hard-edged logic behind a narrow Yes victory. Yet the chamber’s most-respected Yes arguments reached beyond fiscal restraint into claims about immigration and demographic change.
The leading Yes voices framed the policy as a transfer from taxpayers to larger families. One called it “to redirect wealth from the indiginous to the idol invaders”; another said, “Two per family is fine. Six per family is replacement theory.” Those claims sat alongside a more conventional argument, also highly respected, that “working families have to make a decision on how many children they can afford.”
No voters argued that a cap would punish children for circumstances they did not choose. The floor’s most-respected No case urged limits based on citizenship; another voter described the choice as difficult, weighing “an extra burden on tax payers” against “reduces affordability to have children.” A parent who said they had lived through a period of unemployment put the human cost more directly: “we would not have coped.”
The two sides often spoke past one another: Yes voices stressed fairness between taxpayers and benefit claimants, while No voices returned to children’s needs and the unpredictability of family life. Some No voters also wanted restrictions on who qualified, but opposed limiting support by family size.
That leaves a close result with a sharper edge in the debate: the case for reinstatement drew its strongest respect not only from arguments about affordability, but from suspicion about who the policy was said to benefit.
45 Opinions
We all know why this was removed and it was to redirect wealth from the indiginous to the idol invaders to print culturally incompatible replacements that vote labour, well until they've demographically dominated us and then it'll be muslim clerics that persecute us as a hated minority in our homeland.
Labour got rid of it for the islamist votes. That was the only reason it was removed. It was put on place because of certain types pushing out 6 children in 6yrs and the government funding them.
Working families have to make a decision on how many children they can afford, whereas those on benefits are effectively encouraged to have more children without the cap. I would be in favour of tax breaks to encourage working families to have more children than encourage benefits claimants to have more.
We have too many foreigners with 3 or more children
Two per family is fine. Six per family is replacement theory.
Why should we fund every child in the country? If you want to have a large family be prepared to pay for it.
But entitlement should be limited to British born citizens, like all benefits.
Yes definitely yes.
No -- the birthrate is already a timebomb. Someone needs to be paying the pensions...
Scrap it altogether, just make the tax system simpler.