Should the long term unemployed be capped on government funding for more children?
19 February 2013, 12:32 PM
#1
Former Sponsor
Thread Starter
Should the long term unemployed be capped on government funding for more children?
What I mean is why is the tax payer expected to fund planned children in families where no one works?
I know of families never worked a day in their lives but think it a good idea to get pregnant again and again!!
Surely common sense must apply and someone somewhere must say hang about this child will be born into poverty the mother/breader not being able to fund herself let alone more children!
Will a line ever be drawn? why do we allow this?
I know of families never worked a day in their lives but think it a good idea to get pregnant again and again!!
Surely common sense must apply and someone somewhere must say hang about this child will be born into poverty the mother/breader not being able to fund herself let alone more children!
Will a line ever be drawn? why do we allow this?
19 February 2013, 12:50 PM
#3
Scooby Regular
How do you stop it?
And in a manner we can all stomach. Forced sterilisation is not going to happen. Capping benefits won't stop them as they'll just go to the press so rather than the masses getting uptight about them getting big houses the masses get uptight because the government isn't providing for these children in poverty. And who says these children won't make something of themselves? Who gets to decide who receives benefit and who doesn't?
I think by and large the status quo is about right. You get the odd blip like this but there really is no alternative that I can see.
And in a manner we can all stomach. Forced sterilisation is not going to happen. Capping benefits won't stop them as they'll just go to the press so rather than the masses getting uptight about them getting big houses the masses get uptight because the government isn't providing for these children in poverty. And who says these children won't make something of themselves? Who gets to decide who receives benefit and who doesn't?
I think by and large the status quo is about right. You get the odd blip like this but there really is no alternative that I can see.
19 February 2013, 12:58 PM
#6
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Selby, North Yorkshire
Posts: 572
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To stop people having children because they 'can't afford them' is all a little bit fascist for me.
Maybe everyone should be sterilised at birth and then apply for a license to have a child. Then, if they earn enough money the government could reverse the sterilisation and allow you to have children.
Maybe everyone should be sterilised at birth and then apply for a license to have a child. Then, if they earn enough money the government could reverse the sterilisation and allow you to have children.
Trending Topics
19 February 2013, 01:06 PM
#8
Scooby Regular
To stop people having children because they 'can't afford them' is all a little bit fascist for me.
Maybe everyone should be sterilised at birth and then apply for a license to have a child. Then, if they earn enough money the government could reverse the sterilisation and allow you to have children.
Maybe everyone should be sterilised at birth and then apply for a license to have a child. Then, if they earn enough money the government could reverse the sterilisation and allow you to have children.
limiting payout will stop it, why should i fund someone elses whim to have children?
19 February 2013, 01:11 PM
#9
Former Sponsor
Thread Starter
So you'd have children if you couldn't afford them?
it's basic maths if you do not earn you cannot afford children, why expect the state to pay?
Last edited by specialx; 19 February 2013 at 01:13 PM.
19 February 2013, 01:13 PM
#10
Scooby Regular
How do you stop it?
And in a manner we can all stomach. Forced sterilisation is not going to happen. Capping benefits won't stop them as they'll just go to the press so rather than the masses getting uptight about them getting big houses the masses get uptight because the government isn't providing for these children in poverty. And who says these children won't make something of themselves? Who gets to decide who receives benefit and who doesn't?
I think by and large the status quo is about right. You get the odd blip like this but there really is no alternative that I can see.
And in a manner we can all stomach. Forced sterilisation is not going to happen. Capping benefits won't stop them as they'll just go to the press so rather than the masses getting uptight about them getting big houses the masses get uptight because the government isn't providing for these children in poverty. And who says these children won't make something of themselves? Who gets to decide who receives benefit and who doesn't?
I think by and large the status quo is about right. You get the odd blip like this but there really is no alternative that I can see.
19 February 2013, 01:23 PM
#13
Scooby Regular
Who's funding children is a minor issue in the grand scheme of things IMO, the bigger question is when will the human race wake up and smell the coffee that we can't go on reproducing as we are and expect the planet to support us. I've got two kids and think it would be immoral to have any more.
Problem is even if a politician had the ***** to raise the issue and start proposing that people can’t have more than two kids, it wouldn’t make any difference as you need buy in from the whole world and that’s going to be one tough nut to crack.
Problem is even if a politician had the ***** to raise the issue and start proposing that people can’t have more than two kids, it wouldn’t make any difference as you need buy in from the whole world and that’s going to be one tough nut to crack.
19 February 2013, 01:23 PM
#14
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Somewhere in Kent, sniffing some V-Power
Posts: 15,029
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
19 February 2013, 01:31 PM
#15
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Pot Belly HQ
Posts: 16,694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
19 February 2013, 01:34 PM
#16
Former Sponsor
Thread Starter
19 February 2013, 01:35 PM
#17
Former Sponsor
Thread Starter
19 February 2013, 01:56 PM
#18
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Worthing..
Posts: 7,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So the proposed solution to a relatively minor problem, (in that it is a small percentage of the welfare budget) is to reduce, or cut benefits after the second child, and therefore punish all the children in that family if the parents have another child and are unemployed.
Not for me thanks. It's not the childs fault. Can't support a willfull move on the part of the state to put a child in poverty.
And let's not even go down the road of enforced sterilisation/abortion/adoption
Like Ed said, it's not a huge issue and a very difficult one to come up with any sort of sensible alternative to the status quo.
Not for me thanks. It's not the childs fault. Can't support a willfull move on the part of the state to put a child in poverty.
And let's not even go down the road of enforced sterilisation/abortion/adoption
Like Ed said, it's not a huge issue and a very difficult one to come up with any sort of sensible alternative to the status quo.
19 February 2013, 02:03 PM
#20
Former Sponsor
Thread Starter
Obviously you can see the frustration for the hard working tax paying parent, work hard get nothing, apposed to do nothing make but ignorant decisions and get paid for it.
19 February 2013, 02:05 PM
#21
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: My turbo blows, air lots of it!!
Posts: 9,073
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To stop people having children because they 'can't afford them' is all a little bit fascist for me.
Maybe everyone should be sterilised at birth and then apply for a license to have a child. Then, if they earn enough money the government could reverse the sterilisation and allow you to have children.
Maybe everyone should be sterilised at birth and then apply for a license to have a child. Then, if they earn enough money the government could reverse the sterilisation and allow you to have children.
Seriously
19 February 2013, 02:32 PM
#23
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I presume people are encouraged to have more children in order to increase their allowances. I have to admit that I don't know what the allowance regulations are as far as further children in a family are concerned.
Just like my parents did and we did too, we only had the number of children that we could afford to bring up properly and in a way that they would not lack for their normal requirements out of life.
The allowances situation certainly should not be such that people are encouraged to have more children than they can afford to bring up in their financial situation.
Les
Just like my parents did and we did too, we only had the number of children that we could afford to bring up properly and in a way that they would not lack for their normal requirements out of life.
The allowances situation certainly should not be such that people are encouraged to have more children than they can afford to bring up in their financial situation.
Les
19 February 2013, 03:06 PM
#24
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Weston Super Mare, Somerset.
Posts: 14,102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What about a sliding scale whereby the first two, or maybe three, kids qualify for full benefit but it then reduces per child and reaches zero by say the 5th child?
And whilst it is easy to label all unemployed as layabout scum there really are people out there who would die for a job. Life is miserable for them and I wouldn't like to make it a lot worse.
dl
And whilst it is easy to label all unemployed as layabout scum there really are people out there who would die for a job. Life is miserable for them and I wouldn't like to make it a lot worse.
dl
19 February 2013, 03:19 PM
#25
Councils should only provide houses with a maximum of 3 bedrooms for those that require housing. Don't expect to move into a bigger house should you have too many kids. If their council house has become too small for their brood of kids, tough, the responsibility should be shouldered by the people churning these kids out and not to the council to hand out bigger houses. Perhaps increaslingly cramped living conditions may quell their desire to pop more kids out rather than have mansions built for them with taxpayers money.
19 February 2013, 03:27 PM
#26
Former Sponsor
Thread Starter
Councils should only provide houses with a maximum of 3 bedrooms for those that require housing. Don't expect to move into a bigger house should you have too many kids. If their council house has become too small for their brood of kids, tough, the responsibility should be shouldered by the people churning these kids out and not to the council to hand out bigger houses. Perhaps increaslingly cramped living conditions may quell their desire to pop more kids out rather than have mansions built for them with taxpayers money.
As above when do the parents stop and think hang on we can't afford this so lets not!
19 February 2013, 03:45 PM
#27
Either that or have a fixed amount for child benefit based on a 3 kids to live comfortably, ie the same amount of benefit whether you have 1 child or 6 children. You either choose to make the most of your benefit by having 3 or less children, otherwise you stretch the benefit if you decide to have 3 or more kids.
19 February 2013, 03:59 PM
#29
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Worthing..
Posts: 7,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Councils should only provide houses with a maximum of 3 bedrooms for those that require housing. Don't expect to move into a bigger house should you have too many kids. If their council house has become too small for their brood of kids, tough, the responsibility should be shouldered by the people churning these kids out and not to the council to hand out bigger houses. Perhaps increaslingly cramped living conditions may quell their desire to pop more kids out rather than have mansions built for them with taxpayers money.
