Quote: Frankie Rage @ July 21 2010, 10:07 AM BSTThe fact that they have kids regardless of bank balance is not the point. The fact that they should be prepared to work and pay for their kids once they have had them is the point.
What people 'should' do is one thing, what actually happens is that people simply have kids. Simply telling them that they "shouldn't" isn't going to stop them having kids.
Quote: Nogget @ July 21 2010, 10:19 AM BSTWhat people 'should' do is one thing, what actually happens is that people simply have kids. Simply telling them that they "shouldn't" isn't going to stop them having kids.
I am not interested in telling them they "shouldn't".
I am interested in not paying them benefits to bring up their kids.
Quote: Frankie Rage @ July 21 2010, 10:20 AM BSTI am not interested in telling them they "shouldn't".
You said "if you don't want to pay, don't have kids ". You're not going to tell them they shouldn't have kids, so how is it to be achieved?
Quote: Nogget @ July 21 2010, 10:40 AM BSTYou said "if you don't want to pay, don't have kids ". You're not going to tell them they shouldn't have kids, so how is it to be achieved?
Simple. Stop child benefit for any new claimants. Certainly stop child benefit payments immediately to families on middle and high incomes. The message will become clear within a generation that having kids = personal responsibility. Telling people what to do doesn't work. Withdrawing privileges does.
We seem to be playing ping-pong here. Tell you what. You knock the ball back over and I'll pretend to miss it. How's that?
Quote: Frankie Rage @ July 21 2010, 10:49 AM BSTSimple. Stop child benefit for any new claimants. Certainly stop child benefit payments immediately to families on middle and high incomes. The message will become clear within a generation that having kids = personal responsibility. Telling people what to do doesn't work. Withdrawing privileges does.
Consider this, there are a billion children across the world living in poverty, which tends to suggest that people have kids regardless of their finances. Therefore I think your scheme would create more poverty, and all the money you saved in taxes, you'd have to spend on barbed wire fences and guard dogs to keep out the starving underclasses.
Quote: Nogget @ July 21 2010, 11:10 AM BSTConsider this, there are a billion children across the world living in poverty, which tends to suggest that people have kids regardless of their finances. Therefore I think your scheme would create more poverty, and all the money you saved in taxes, you'd have to spend on barbed wire fences and guard dogs to keep out the starving underclasses.
Your correct on that front in some ways. It has always been that the less money somene has the more children they have. Poorer families have always had bigger families. Look at your Grandparents for example. They were around during a war & had bigger families. My father is one of 7 & my mother 1 of 6. This could be down to the pill not being so available or abortions not open to them. Also back then women did tend to stay at home & not have careers. That to could be down to jobs not available to them.
The answer really is quite simple. It is all down to how well a child does at school. We need to spend more time with the ones that have a lower intelligence.
Richer people can automaticaly afford private schooling & some children at these schools are not bright. Yet they do well in the end.
I have a friend whose daughter was clever & son was not. She placed the boy in private school Worked 3 jobs to afford it)& the girl in state. Both are doing incredibly well. The Boy just scraped through his exams t get into uni & since graduating is earning a small fortune.
Quote: Oldrocker @ July 21 2010, 1:17 AM BSTDiscussing who was going to, voluntarily, maintain the roads, cycle paths, footpaths, schools, hospitals, police force, fire service, army, navy, air force, museums, National Parks, art galleries, swimming baths, athletic stadiums, National Trust properties/sites, ambulance services, courts, prisons, probation services et al
Yeah, because they're all paid, and paid well, as it is.
Quote: Frankie Rage @ July 21 2010, 10:20 AM BSTI am not interested in telling them they "shouldn't".
I am interested in not paying them benefits to bring up their kids.
To many people that £15 a week they get makes all the difference. For example a weaning baby costs around £14 a week extra in jars of baby food alone. Thats on top of the milk. The pressure on new mothers especialy in this day is astounding. They are told categoricaly that they must have this, must have that. This halves the risk of cot death, etc. Babies cost three times as much now as they did when mine were little.
I agree though that the middle & upper classes do not need this money & it should be centered around the working class & poor. Then they could get more.
I have been thinking. Dangerous I know. Maybe the only way everyone will be happy is if there is some sort of box ticking system whereby each person can choose where their taxes go. Obviously there needs to be a system. We can not all choose the emergency services for example.
Impossible I know but hey ho everyone in the world has to pay taxes. Your 0.000001p that goes on child benefit a month really isnt that big a deal is it. Why not look at it in a different light. If you see a child smile & think in some small tiny way I am helping this child.
Rather than means testing benefits is it not more efficient to make them universal and simply tax the well off proportionately more to pay for them? The end result is the same and that way everyone has a stake in the system.
Quote: Charley @ July 21 2010, 11:38 AM BSTWhy not look at it in a different light. If you see a child smile & think in some small tiny way I am helping this child.
But kids are grotty, disgusting little animals.
Quote: Aaron @ July 21 2010, 11:39 AM BSTBut kids are grotty, disgusting little animals.
Pretend they are little kittens then Azza.
Quote: Charley @ July 21 2010, 11:42 AM BST
Then they are also edible.
They'll enjoy the meaty, jelly-encased chunks.
Quote: Aaron @ July 21 2010, 11:44 AM BSTThey'll enjoy the meaty, jelly-encased chunks.
Your so mean. Something is better than nothing. I bet you go on to have 5 children.
Quote: Timbo @ July 21 2010, 11:38 AM BSTRather than means testing benefits is it not more efficient to make them universal and simply tax the well off proportionately more to pay for them? The end result is the same and that way everyone has a stake in the system.
Ohhhh you can't tax the rich anymore than you already do. They will all bugger off abroad & take their money with them. Just because they have done well for themselves or their parents/Grandparents have you can't go punishing them for it.
Get rid of the royal family for a start. They are pointless & cost a fortune & before you all go OOOOOOOOOOh they bring in tourism, so does Mickey Mouse for America. People will still come.
Quote: Gavin @ July 21 2010, 11:43 AM BSTThen they are also edible.
You would eat a wittle fluffy witten?
Quote: Charley @ July 21 2010, 11:50 AM BST
Probably not. Not meat on them. Fatten them up first.
Quote: Charley @ July 21 2010, 11:50 AM BST
Nightmarish vision of the future.