Saturday 5 January 2013

Children - a Ponzi scheme?

The argument for child benefit - that we need to produce a future generation of tax payers - is bunk. Which I will proceed to de-bunk. Don't even attempt to introduce a counter view. I am 100% correct in this case and there is no room for argument. The country is so far up shit creek right now that the last thing we need are more mewling, puking, helpless dependents sucking up even more resources in an endless quest to pretend that life on earth is not a veil of tears.

You see, in an effort to make everybody happy and fluffy and lovely we have to invent ever greater controls to curb the undercurrent of unpleasant opportunism that lies at the very core of humanity. It's the drive that helped us survive and once upon a time the procreative part of that drive was necessary  as new members of a true community would balance the loss of experience at the top with vitality and vigour at the bottom. Also, high infant mortality rates meant that over-breeding was essential; but in-bred redundancy is a genetic imperative we can no longer afford.

Trouble is nowadays, not only do we not lose enough of the little fuckers early, we keep children dependent until their mid-twenties by extending their aimless education and kidding them they're all university material. Then they can't find jobs anyway, so they go back to sponge off the very parents we helped to incentivise in the first place. Then they get bored and end up, inevitably, becoming parents themselves and remove themselves, sometimes permanently, from the jobs market. Where's the point in that?

Child Benefit is a type of failed Ponzi Scheme that pretends to reward its investors from their own money or the money paid by subsequent investors, rather than from profit earned by the individual or organization running the operation. Or; invest in kids now and they'll repay that investment as taxpayers in the future. That model may have been viable in 1945, but it's nonsense now.

A Ponzi scheme entices new investors by offering higher returns than other activities, such as low-grade work. Perpetuation of the returns requires an ever-increasing flow of money from new investors to keep the scheme going. Or, the more sprogs you pop out the more we need to take from current taxpayers to continue to encourage the unworthy to squeeze out yet more sprogs.

People will breed anyway, whatever measures are taken to prevent it - I favour something in the water - but actually paying for the product is utterly ridiculous. Remove Child Benefit altogether. It won't stop the underclass from duffing-up, but it might slow them down a bit.

For fuck's sake STOP Sprogging up!

And as for the argument that we'll need those kids to run the country when we're too old and sick and stupid to do it ourselves, have you looked around lately? Who drives the buses, cleans the offices, works the fields and wipes the arses in hospital? Who makes up the bulk of doctors, dentists and opticians in most cities? The previous government showed that when you can't get your own kids to do menial work you can easily import that labour. Then their kids will go on to take the decent jobs as well.

So don't try to tell me there is any need to pay people to breed. As a Twitter playmate tweeted earlier - stop all child benefit... nine months from now. Have a nice weekend and wear a condom!


  1. I always thought Child benefit was an allowance given to mothers so they had some money to feed the kids when hubby took the wages down to the bookies and the pub. Agree there should be a review though.

    1. Yes. That was the plan... with the Family Allowances Act 1945, when most workers were paid weekly, in cash and most of it was pissed away by Sunday. It was meant to help repopulate the country after the losses in wartime. Now it simply helps to maintain a core of socialism-orientated, unthinking, pointless drones.