Very cool, if true

I concur.

(and I'm avoiding thinking about the child benefit reforms that are in the pipeline for fear that I may throw one of my colleagues out of the window in a fit of Hulkesque rage).

It does highlight one of the difficulties of a collective response to social problems (not that I think people having lots of children when they are not well off is a problem per se, the problem is how collectively we ensure that said children don't starve and get a decent run up at their life).

However...

Where there are opportunities to game the system or perceptions that the system can be gamed I think people become wary of a collective response.

Where the connection between those whose surplus is contributing and those whose deficit is being met collectively I think people become wary of a collective response.

And tax breaks for marriage are IMHO as open to gaming the system as child benefit is. How do I know that the marriage isn't a sham? That the couple are really planning to have children in a safe, secure, loving environment and not to squander my hard earned tax pounds on a second home in the Lakes or a ski-ing holiday in the Alps?