Britain’s two child benefits should go to the cover

Unlock the editor’s digestion free

FT editor Roula Khalaf, chooses his favorite stories in this weekly newsletter.

The British government is not long for this world for many reasons for many reasons for two children’s thresholds (to adapt the benefits of bigger families).

One is policy-based children described as a poverty action group “The largest driver of children’s poverty in the UK today”. As a result, the government becomes less effective in everything else to reduce poverty. Children are ridiculed by the manifesto obligation to remove the poverty out of poverty.

The other is political: Most Labor MPs to feel very deeply The child will not tolerate a situation with a great deal of poverty and just a labor government, a situation with a great majority, and to endanger a situation with children than in poverty.

Both disputes have a dignity and there are a number of other good grounds to break the lid. But something important is indifferent: the interests of the state should usually not be under three children for the interruption of other people’s children, for material support. Why not? Because the “three children” is a number that many families have to produce the number of adults to replace population. (UK replacement is 2.1 Birth, but you cannot be in 0.1 for clear reasons.)

The lack of states to force people to have the work of people they do not want, liberals have a tendency to do with “this is not right to force” with the “state of” state. ”

The work of the states is absolutely if people have enough children to keep people replacement rate. To determine how many children people will have, use the use of their caregiver (number of adults who can take care of people at the beginning or end of life or at the end of life or at the end of life). It is part of the limitation on how high or how high the tax rates are.

Have political and philosophical questions will ask the state not to support children Above all. Given that we are all considering, we take into account that we should not be able to beat, or even children, and then we need to make an effort to make all children work together. Reasonable people may agree.

What forms of incentive situations have to try and what works are controversial. Liberal I am against compulsion and social engineering. The policy of the question “how much people to do to make another person is to do a question is not a question. However, there is an internal valuable situation in the British province, which has a share of children with children of the British state and has cut the material support after a family.

Children should not be punished for their mistakes or parents lose their work or work hours after the birth of his third child.

However, the government of the government is partially working in response to the signals sent by politicians: a government that has preserved larger families as a luxury is a signal that it is a low value for the well. This is the ‘What kind of housing of the government do you need to put?’ (Ideal, the type that people with median incomes can make at least three children comfortably) ‘What commitment do people have to follow the workplace?’ (not those who are impossible to raise three children).

Until England’s recent relatives, it has made it easier for the older to learn to look for the elderly and is an example of young people.

It is true to say that there are many countries – Hungary and FrenchThey spent a lot of money that encouraged people to have more children and still have birthday rates.

But at least positive, in fact, it is at least positive because they have children who have children and the collective social share of us all. There are some policy questions that respond to many possible. However, in this case, there is only one possible answer: The number of children in the UK is more than two.

Stephen.bush@ft.com