Huguenot

I once had a pair of fetching day-glo orange terry-towelling socks that I wore beneath my over-short drainpipe jeans and above my oversized white trainers. That was before trainers were cool. You have me to thank for that.

And more remarkably still, about 10 posts beneath there's an Alan Dale comment that hasn't been deleted. Who would have thunk it?

No chance. A minivan with a trailer full of steel rocket sleds and gel filled bum pleasure.* *I imagined that's how bicycle fans may possibly describe a bicycle.

I may well be a naif, but I just don't see conspiracy in these situations. I see a housing market that went crayzee because demand outstripped supply. This happened because of modern social issues - the demise of the family unit, an increase in individual wealth and empowerment. It meant existing stock was being used less efficiently, and new stock wasn't able to keep up. I see a financial services industry that delivered the products their customers demanded. I bought those products, because I had no investment, and I'd have voted for anyone that could give them to me. I see an FSA and a government that failed to regulate appropriately because they'd never encountered a situation like it and advice was conflicting - the default situation was 'do nothing', as it has been for documented history. And in all of that I see essential human frailty, our self aggrandisement, our ambition, our hubris.

Zeban, we probably agree with each other. I'm not against the welfare system per se. DJKQs summary of the impetus for delivering child benefit in the 40s may well be spot on, that it was created in a world that needed to come to terms with the empowerment of women and families. However, if this was the case once, what is it now? Clearly rogue husbands down the pub spending the housekeeping would not wash for the creation of a new benefit allowance in the modern era. If there are millions in poverty who need support then give it to them. Just don't call it child benefit, and don't give it to people for whom the biggest family challenge this year will be Tuscany or the Dordogne.

I think she might mean she contributes to this insightful tome. Or not.

There's a fairly obvious conflict between these two assertions: "Goalposts changed to keep ready supply of buyers" "The housing market needs regulating before we all end up on HB or homeless" This is why it doesn't seem like a logical argument, and if it's not a logical argument then... well what is it?

What shall we call them? The Upper Classes? The New World Order? The Jews? The Bilderberg Group? End Time, Freemasonry, Illuminati, Protocols of the Elders of Zion, Round Table?

"Housing being an artificially inflated market managed and massaged by who again?" I'm staggered by the depth of this conspiracy.

Oh God. *despair* The point was that you cannot be sure that a child is an investment with a post dated return on taxable income. Hence you can't use it as a robust justification for child benefit. It's not a 'loaded' context. The only people who 'loaded' it were the ones who made completely fabricated claims about what I'd said in order to vilify my position, the ones who tried to turn it into a war of compassion for the starving and downtrodden.

There's a fantastic bike route in Bali from the top of Mount Agung. It's downhill for about 40 miles. :)) Incidentally, when I were a yoof I used to stare goggle eyed into Thomson's travel agents at the idyllic jungle paradise and smiling 'natives' that Bali apparently delivered with abundance. It doesn't, it's the Ozzie equivalent of Playa de las Americas. If they don't have a Linekers, they should have.

No worries, I'm just getting quietly pissed on a Saturday evening here in sweltering Singers. Bumbalina's over with you lot at the moment, so there's no-one to tell me what a loser I am ;-) Desalination exactly. It is massively energy intensive, but I'm proposing that decentralised renewable energy generation would negate this howling shortcoming. When I'm talking about decentralised renewable energy I'm kinda dreaming about cold fusion compact power plants, so we'd really be swimming in amps.

;-) I'll leave the others to decide who was being rude to whom.

I'd like to see the decentralisation of renewable power generation. I reckon that would solve the world's ills single handedly - having a domino effect on water supply and hydroponic farming, the greening of the deserts. In turn this dissipates the energy in international turmoil and leads to the demise of the nation state, a rise in self-sustaining economic tribes and a golden age for independent enterprise. *turns down rising crescendo of power chords*

That's simply a statement of fact zeban. There are 3 million UK adults on long term unemployment benefits. They were children once. It's not safe to assume that a child automatically develops into a tax-paying asset. Now, please don't do anything terminally stupid like claim I was having a go at scroungers or anything. I'm spectacularly unimpressed by this encounter with an 'insider', but I should be humbled if you don't need to make anything else up to demonstrate your lofty surveil.

I think that's a very fair point Quids. We really didn't get a recession out here, as growth just dropped from 11% to 9%. No-one noticed.

The link is to be found in underperforming secondary schools in areas of high unemployment.

I'm saying that because your belief is that 85%* of the people in this country are so poor that they need payments from taxpayers. This just doesn't work. Taxation is there to pay for social services - education, health, security. If you're saying that 85% of people can't afford this then the nation simply doesn't work. You cannot expect to tax the top 15% to the extent that they pay for everyone else. *Calculated from here: "taking away a payment from 15% of families is going to do little to change anything for the better"

There's plenty of compassion, DJKQ, plenty of desire for support etc. However, you're letting your desire to show 'compassion' overwhelm your attitude to child benefit. There's no compassion in child benefit, it's simply calculated against how many children you have. Since there's no compassion in the system, you can't argue to retain child benefit on the grounds of compassion.

DJKQ, I've simply never talked about an exception have I? It's not and never has been a part of my argument. You're doing the same thing as zeban here, putting words in my mouth, Likewise with your empassioned plea for social renewal. I don't deny that people need help and support, I don't deny that the government could do a better job. You're responding to an argument I haven't made on this 'child bearing' thread. All I've said is that I can't see a reason why suuport should be offered on the grounds that you've had a kid. Quids, if your argument is that child benefit is an incentive payment on a long term social investment then to be honest, I'd like you to make the case, rather than have me attempt to refute an argument I've never heard.

I can't find the reference to 'some people' zeban, so I can't clarify what I could have meant. If you can tell me where I said it then I'll do my best. I also can't find where I stereotyped people, so if you could highlight that, I shall also attempt to make amends. To be honest, I think you're just making stuff up. You've probably rehearsed this complaint in your head a hundred times and now you're just sticking it down online regardless of its relevance. You're inventing what I 'could' have said in order to justify your position. Clearly the humour of my putting absentee fathers in jail or burning them at the stake was lost on you. That is a considerable tragedy for someone as clear minded as yourself. As for wishing that something should never happen to me, I think we both know that what you really meant was that you hoped something would happen to me, so I should be 'taught a lesson'. I suspect that shows a repressed aggression that you should try and address. I think you'll struggle to deliver your ambitions with your children unless they understand there isn't a clenched fist behind it. Look zeban, whatever bonkers wierdness is going on inside your head, I'm not suggesting people don't need help or deserve help, I'm just suggesting that having kids doesn't entitle you to charge other people for them. If people need help, the anonymous tax payer should be the last possible resort, not a be treated as just another source of income as a reward for getting yourself up the duff.

Very romantic zeban, a dream indeed. However, just because you've had a father-figure crisis, it doesn't mean the tax payer should pay you for it. No amount of 20 quids a week is going to free you from your torment. DJKQ, I don't think that kids should be taken away, that was hyperbole to demonstrate a point. I think that if you get unemployed you should explore every other avenue first before you turn to state aid. That means immediate family members, friends, neighbours, even to the point of giving up your house and moving back in with mum and dad. I think if the 'social unit' paid the price, rather than strangers you've never met (the taxpayer), we'd have a whole new concept of responsibility. I don't know whether anyone else will 'get' that. The UK in general has an 'entitlements' problem because they don't realise whose money it is.

Sorry IV, I didn't mean to focus on your personal experiences and it must have sounded hurtful. I apologize, I was having a bit of fun with the argument, that's all. I don't think the notion of child benefit as social investment stands up under scrutiny, but I also know I've argued from the other side on other threads. You've clearly got great kids, but other people will have kids who are a net drain on society. Besides most of their tax investment will go on providing services for themselves. Besides, it's clear to me that 99.99% of the benefits dervied from kids are derived by other family members, but if estimates of the cost of bringing up a chid being 200k are correct, then other people (the taxpayer) carry 15% of that cost through child benefit. That's the worst investment in the world. On the divorce thing, I don't think your ex hubbie gets to walk away from his financial burden because he gets divorced. I appreciate that the 'family' unit is supporting two households, but that's not the primary investment, the kids are. If he doesn't carry his fair share then he should go to jail, or be burned at the stake or something. There's absolutely no validity in an argument that runs 'I got divorced, my costs have gone up so everyone else has to pay'. (That's taking the mickey out of him, not you).

So long as someone else pays for them ;-)

Which bit Ravenelli?