Comments by "Black Cat Dungeon Master\x27s Familiar" (@blackcatdungeonmastersfami5311) on "Labour will keep cruel Tory two-child benefit limit" video.

@jamiestone1809 It's the wrong way round. Benefits for children just means the lowest IQ, lowest earning segment of the population has the most children because they have the strongest incentive whereas richer people pay the highest marginal costs . Better would be lower taxes for more children rather than more benefits.
12
Totally. These kind of people have a financial incentive for more people whereas normal working people sacrifice a huge opportunity cost with lost earnings, nursery fees, food, larger house required etc.
4
@jamiestone1809 I completely agree with you about immigration. It has questionable short term economic benefits with vast costs longer term of all kinds. I do understand your point about lower taxes don't help out poorer people as much. Public policy is all about trade offs. Overall, poorer parents would be better off by 1) Completely stopping low skilled immigration so market forces push up low skilled pay 2) Rolling back the excessive regulation around child care which mean we have (from memory) the second most expensive child care in Europe (the continent, not the EU) after Slovakia and Switzerland (relative to earnings) I'm not arguing against all child benefits, I'm just highly sceptical of direct benefits. For example there used to be universal free milk in schools i.e. not means tested. Why can't we do that now (part from political correctness?). I'm also fine with some subsidies for child care. The problem with direct benefits, it creates perverse incentives. The poorest people have a strong financial incentive to have more children for the benefits. For higher earning people, the benefits are negligible relative to the opportunity costs. It's not PC to say this but differential fertility rates have seen the genetic component of intelligence fall drastically in Western countries over the past 150 years especially in Britain. Until say 20 years ago, this was masked by improving environment, eg. nutrition, health care etc. but it's really starting to become obvious now. Immigration is a huge problem too of course but we're rapidly becoming a third world country and the fact that less intelligent people have substantially more children on average is one of the two big reasons. Although I agree with you about immigration, differential fertility across let's say the capability spectrum is a really huge problem almost nobody is aware of. There's some very convincing mathematical and genetic evidence behind this long term trend.
2
@billkosses3808 I've got four children and it's damn expensive. But I'd much rather have lower taxes than more benefits which is basically making me jump through hoops to claw back some of my own money.
2
@billkosses3808 Yes for sure, Britain is an oligarchy to some extent, perhaps not quite as bad as the USA but unfortunately, democracy is only as good as the intelligence of the voters. As for benefits, if you're talking about direct benefits then yes I totally agree with that too. It's infuriating to pay heavy taxes and then jump through hoops to claw some back. So much fraud and bureaucracy. Subsiding child related things with though including child care - there's certainly strong arguments for that. Raising children is so expensive and society needs them. With the minimum of means testing - because that creates its own large bureaucracy and it's usually not as fair as intended.
1
@kev845 No children are starving in Britain unless their parents are totally smashed on drugs.
1
@@user-it4jz8jj1b The large majority of these migrants will cost far more than they ever contribute.
1