Benefit cut to those who have more than 2 children

[Gimlet]

i was going to say something bout of our cousins of the commonwealths religion telling them to have eleven kid,s but i better not some might call me a racist.

 

Its a perfectly good point and there's nothing racist about it. In the end, most of the problems in the world come down to human over-population, and religion, as it does with so much else has much to answer for. Some Roman Catholic countries - The Philipines springs to mind - face horrendous population problems as a direct result of religious dogma. In Britain we don't need religion to stoke the problem when we've got a system of government that pays people with their own money to produce children in a tiny country with a shrinking economy and declining world influence. And worse still, pays most to those who contribute least to that economy. And just in case that policy doesn't do enough damage it waves in plane after planeload of immigrants who make maximum use of free public services, particularly it seems maternity care, while taking the money they earn out of the country.

Still, when we run out of jobs, food, houses, space, and the money to pay for it all, we can always borrow. That'll help.

[henry d]

Just to throw something else into the mix - Spoke to a young lad a while ago and several more in similar circumstances since, he had to look after a younger brother when his mum goes out to work (work is intermittent), therefore he doesn`t get a full education and will probably end up having to rely on benefit later in life. If his mum, who is doing her best to make ends meet, stops working and looks after the youngest then the lad gets to school but she has to get more benefit.

 

Not many things are as clear cut as young girls being slags when they get pregnant (no mention of the slag of a lad who didn`t use any precautions) and everyone being work-shy.

[Gimlet]

Just to throw something else into the mix - Spoke to a young lad a while ago and several more in similar circumstances since, he had to look after a younger brother when his mum goes out to work (work is intermittent), therefore he doesn`t get a full education and will probably end up having to rely on benefit later in life. If his mum, who is doing her best to make ends meet, stops working and looks after the youngest then the lad gets to school but she has to get more benefit.

 

Not many things are as clear cut as young girls being slags when they get pregnant (no mention of the slag of a lad who didn`t use any precautions) and everyone being work-shy.

 

Personally, I don't blame the people caught up in the system. I despise some of them but even the worst offenders are products of the real villain of the piece which is the system itself. We have deluded ourselves into believing that we can create a safety net that can protect us all from the worst of misfortune and hardship, and we can't. It doesn't work. It doesn't eliminate problems, it defers them and creates new ones. Welfare is not a magic machine that you can shovel money into at one end and expect automatic solutions at the other. It doesn't work and we can't afford it. We have to accept that **** happens.

[pegasus bridge]

The tax and benefit system should not be linked at all. If you pay tax and earn a good income which you do not squander yet cannot afford to raise your children, either you have too many children, too little income, or you pay too much tax. These are cold facts but they cannot be contemplated: the first is too Orwellian, the second too materialistic and the third is political heresy. So instead you are taxed more heavily than ever to fund your own benefits which are given to you as a bribe to produce more children for whom there will be ever fewer jobs in an over-populated economy driven into decline by welfare dependency and rising taxation...........Kafka couldn't have thought that one up. You are being led up the garden path.

.

 

I can / do afford my children, we have self limited the number to ensure this happens (as i work for a living, like lots of others this was a routine discussion), in terms of taxation, yes i might grumble about it but its tolerable, but what i find intolerable as a tax payer is that the system has created an anomaly allowing the least productive in society to procreate supported by the state.

 

IMHO The tax and benefit system should be linked to provide adequate incentive to ensure that the most responsible, productive (ie those who work and raise children properly) are encouraged to do so. i know its a fine balance though between doing this and providing a 'lifestyle' choice for some - all i know, is the current balance tilted towards doing this, and it needs to change.

[flynny]

you pay more in child care than i earn a month so you are saying Thats kids are only for the well off/good jobs etc

 

Don't be silly mate, did I say that errrrr no, end of ,I ain't even going to argue with you. BYE BYE

 

Atb flynny

[flynny]

Just to throw something else into the mix - Spoke to a young lad a while ago and several more in similar circumstances since, he had to look after a younger brother when his mum goes out to work (work is intermittent), therefore he doesn`t get a full education and will probably end up having to rely on benefit later in life. If his mum, who is doing her best to make ends meet, stops working and looks after the youngest then the lad gets to school but she has to get more benefit.

 

Not many things are as clear cut as young girls being slags when they get pregnant (no mention of the slag of a lad who didn`t use any precautions) and everyone being work-shy.

 

That's who it should be for , not the toe rags that work the system

 

Atb. Flynny

[Gimlet]

you pay more in child care than i earn a month so you are saying Thats kids are only for the well off/good jobs etc

 

I'll say it.

Children are not accessories. Accidents happen but no one should deliberately produce children when they know they haven't the means to raise them. It is a derreliction of duty to rest of society and to the child.

No one has an automatic right to parenthood. It is a privilege that is earned.

[flynny]

 

 

I'll say it.

Children are not accessories. Accidents happen but no one should deliberately produce children when they know they haven't the means to raise them. It is a derreliction of duty to rest of society and to the child.

No one has an automatic right to parenthood. It is a privilege that is earned.

 

Here, here . Bang on mate,

 

Atb flynny

[keg]

Agree 100% Gimlet,

[Diceman]

Gimlet I think we might have to make you Prime Minister.

Can I be Home Sec?

[Paddy Galore!]

is it time to apply the final solution yet?

[Gimlet]

Gimlet I think we might have to make you Prime Minister.

Can I be Home Sec?

 

You are all too kind. To be honest I quite like the Home Sec we have now. If only she had the necessary support from the rest of government I think she could be hugely capable. I shall abolish a number of ministries but create one new one. I shall need a Secretary of State for Immigration, or repatriation as I like to think of it. Any takers?

[henry d]

I'll say it.

Children are not accessories. Accidents happen but no one should deliberately produce children when they know they haven't the means to raise them. It is a derreliction of duty to rest of society and to the child.

No one has an automatic right to parenthood. It is a privilege that is earned.

 

Earned by what? Ability to earn? Where one is born? Ability to stay affluent?

 

How far down the line before we get to; "I have so much money I can do as I like!" a model community.

[Gimlet]

Earned by what? Ability to earn? Where one is born? Ability to stay affluent?

 

How far down the line before we get to; "I have so much money I can do as I like!" a model community.

 

Earned through acquiring the necessary means and moral responsibility to provide for a childs needs, material and parental. It has nothing to do with wealth or class nor is it a privilege that can or should be bestowed by any agency, particularly the state. Nevertheless there is no heavier or more extensive a responsibility than that of bringing another person into the world. It is not a right of passage. Those who cannot or will not bring to the task what is needed to do it well ought not to do it at all.

Any fool can produce a child, and a great many do, raising one is another matter. You earn the moral right to do it, in my opinion, by understanding the difference.

[Vince Green]

Its simple Darwinism really or it should be. The best members of the species should do the breeding but in the case of humans that is skewed. The most capable and intellegent people usually have few, or often no, children while those with DNA not worth passing on are breeding like rats.

[Reece]

Its simple Darwinism really or it should be. The best members of the species should do the breeding but in the case of humans that is skewed. The most capable and intellegent people usually have few, or often no, children while those with DNA not worth passing on are breeding like rats.

 

Yep. Reproduction isn't exactly rocket science.

[henry d]

Earned through acquiring the necessary means and moral responsibility to provide for a childs needs, material and parental. It has nothing to do with wealth or class nor is it a privilege that can or should be bestowed by any agency, particularly the state. Nevertheless there is no heavier or more extensive a responsibility than that of bringing another person into the world. It is not a right of passage. Those who cannot or will not bring to the task what is needed to do it well ought not to do it at all.

Any fool can produce a child, and a great many do, raising one is another matter. You earn the moral right to do it, in my opinion, by understanding the difference.

Its simple Darwinism really or it should be. The best members of the species should do the breeding but in the case of humans that is skewed. The most capable and intellegent people usually have few, or often no, children while those with DNA not worth passing on are breeding like rats.

Sounds like a step away from Aryanism to me.

[Gimlet]

Sounds like a step away from Aryanism to me.

 

Cobblers. It has nothing to do with racial supremacy (which is what Aryanism is) or social eugenics. If left to the laws of nature children from the least capable parents would not survive. They generally do survive because as a humane society we intervene to ensure they do and capable parents agree to contribute their own resourse to make that happen, resources which they might have better directed towards their own children. This fact, that others are holding a net for you, possibly to their own detriment, does not diminish the gravity of parental responsibility or make parenthood a club with automatic right of entry. It increases that responsibility. That is the bargain struck by living in a civilised society. There is nothing eugenicist about that.

[keg]

Having gone through several cycles of IVF before we were lucky enough to get our daughter, i agree with what Gimlet says.

 

It frustrated the hell out of me that as we walked in through the doors of the hospital, trying to start a family, there were at least 3 or 4 chain smoking pregnant teenagers. What hope did those babies have?. Before anybody says anything, i am being judgemental as i spent many hours observing them.

 

Henry, it's nothing to do with money or where you are born, that smacks of the good old class attack. The wealthiest parents can be the worst and the poorest can be the best. Love and care are free.

[henry d]

That is the bargain struck by living in a civilised society. There is nothing eugenicist about that.

 

So what are we doing as a civilised society to prevent this "bad parenting" ? By merely responding to the fallout we are not a civilised society.

[pegasus bridge]

we should be offering those who cannot reach a basic test-( about the potential or actual standard of parenting) a cash bonus / 46"tv / games console to be given 5 year contraceptive injections! would be a small investment compared to picking up the pieces if another poor child born into stupidity.

 

although i joke about this, 'surestart' schemes have had to resort to bribing teenage mothers with manicures to come along and attend some parenting classes

[subsonicnat]

The idea of giving people money off the state was to give really impoverished people a helping hand, it was NEVER Designed to KEEP you for the rest of your life; two couples get together, they have a tribe of kids and Part::,, They then get a house each, and lawyers spending our money sorting that out, it was MEANT for really hard up familys after the war, child benefit to make up for all the dead soldiers: Easy pickings for them that want to abiuse it now; if you haven`t worked for 3 years you lose the lot:... Not from the cradle to the grave, it wasn`t meant like that, as a 85 year old how bad things were not so many years ago: they had to cycle from Coventry Pits, to their familys once a fortnight to take the money home to Wales::

Today they cannot even get out of Bed::Grrrrrrrrrrrrr:.

[Reece]

The idea of giving people money off the state was to give really impoverished people a helping hand, it was NEVER Designed to KEEP you for the rest of your life; two couples get together, they have a tribe of kids and Part::,, They then get a house each, and lawyers spending our money sorting that out, it was MEANT for really hard up familys after the war, child benefit to make up for all the dead soldiers: Easy pickings for them that want to abiuse it now; if you haven`t worked for 3 years you lose the lot:... Not from the cradle to the grave, it wasn`t meant like that, as a 85 year old how bad things were not so many years ago: they had to cycle from Coventry Pits, to their familys once a fortnight to take the money home to Wales::

Today they cannot even get out of Bed::Grrrrrrrrrrrrr:.

 

Yep. It was supposed to be a safety net. Today it's more of a fishing net.

[gixer1]

It should be a pay in - pay out system, for every pound you put in you get a percentage accrued so if you ever fall on hard times you have a source of income banked - if you don't fall on hard times you get a percentage of the percentage as a dividend possibly, if you do fall on hard times you know you have an income but it is not endless - it runs out when your accrued amount is gone.

 

My concern is that a person who has contributed nada to the system over the years gets exactly the same for sitting on there backside as I would if I was made redundant and I have made contributions - why should my family suffer to the same level when we have made a greater contribution over the years.

 

Maybe it could be privatised like a pension where a percentage of your tax is banked in your "benefit account" and controlled by a governing body.

 

Regards,

Gixer

[lee-jon]

System is totally biased to those who know how to play the system. both me and mrs lost work but as we have a child under school age only one of us coukd claim. if you umemployed for MORE than six months your money goes UP! Should be other way round. same as back to work grant only get it if you unemployed for 6 months.

yet her sister gets everything thown at her and has never worked, she sinngle mum 3 kids, druggy. yet she can go out buy whatever her kids want ipads games consoles etc. she just bought a NEW car. makes me sick.