This is a hard one to
discuss because people get a bit silly as soon as children are mentioned. Let’s
ask a few questions though: why only 3 and 4 –year olds? Why 30 hours when
people typically work at least 40? A
related policy is to make childcare tax-free.
The manifesto gives no
further detail about this policy. It doesn’t look to be means-tested (except
where it also covers 2 year-olds). It’s a direct government subsidy for having
children.
I approve of getting
paid for my life choices as much as anyone else, but I don’t see why government
should actually give in to such demands. If you want to do something, you
should bear the costs, and if you can’t bear the costs then don’t do it. The
Conservatives talk a lot about the something for nothing culture, and about how
welfare payments actually encourage behaviour that increases welfare claims.
Here we are with a prime example of where they are doing exactly what they
complain about.
I see no reason to
help people who have children any more than people who have pets, stuffed toys,
electric blankets, computer games, friends… or anything at all. Having children
is mostly a choice. Where it’s not a choice, we can support raped women to have
abortions without offering child-subsidies.
It doesn’t matter how
life-affirming many people find children, nor how much their religion commands
them to be fruitful, nor how expensive raising children is. People’s level of
commitment to a life choice does not change the fact that it is a choice and
there is no good reason for the government to be rewarding people for it. If
there were some open reason for this subsidy, such as a deeply evangelical
Christian attitude to making babies, we could judge the Conservatives
accordingly, but without a reason, this is simply vote-buying with no good
justification. It’s not fiscally responsible government.
No comments:
Post a Comment