Failure and bitterness.

Marcheline

harryhound wrote: »

Hi Marcheline,

What level of procreation would you class as an abuse of the rights of every other living creature on the globe ?

Perhaps it depends on the life style of the parents?
Large families for car less, vegetarians living in a two room home with a wood burner and a hectare of allotments. Come to think of it that was the "poor law" standard of living when the previous Elizabeth was on the throne.

http://www.mdlp.co.uk/resources/general/poor_law.htm

Nothing new under the sun?
Harry:j

Hi Harryhound

Putting aside for the moment the issues of large families impacting on the rights of others to a decent living standard etc, I would be interested to know (in the context of this debate) how the current benefits system abuses the human rights of the ordinary taxpayer?

Regarding the issue of large families itself, I object to the fact that the only solution Neas seems to be able to come up with is to force abortion/sterilisation on people in order to stop them having more children. I know of many smaller families whose levels of consumption would far outweigh that of the 3 much larger families I know of.

I ask again, will all those who agree with Neas's p.o.v be first in the queue to get sterilised once they have one child (regardless of their ability to afford more) on the orders of the government?

neas

I dislike paying for someone else to have a shelter, food, multiple children... for indefinate periods of time so my point, albeit extreme would solve that :P.

While a system as we have at the moment should stay to help support people for short->medium periods of time.. I believe supporting people to have families, lives, food for long periods is taking the mick of me and every other taxpayer in the country.

Two solutions:

To claim benefit, person A has to maintain 15-20 hours of volunteering per week so as to 'pay' for their money... by doing this they will be guarnteed to get money and payment. In return soceity will get bad areas cleaned up, streets tidied, fundraising for charities.. all sorts of good things would come from this. 'Why?' you say we should force them to volunteer as its not volunteering? Because quite frankly so few people volunteer... in proportion to claimants its disgusting.

2nd Solution:

Extreme.... Assess a persons indivudal income to see if they can have children... Inject Coils into women who do not have the abilitiy to provide for their offspring. Im not talking about permanent sterilisatin... i'm talking about temporarily stoping them having children till they can afford to take care of it.

I'm sorry but back when we lived in caves... the man typically went on hunts killed things and brought food back for his family... he found a cave for his partner to live in... he provided for them shelter and support... there was no benefit.. no roof over your head for free, no free food, nothing at all.

Its been done before.. im sure people can survive on their own without having handouts from everyone. Because at the moment we are encouraging a sub-class of humans who do very little and live a reasonably ok life... warm, house, food, tv, bit of beer and fags money every now and again...plenty of free time to socialise...

Cleaver

The_White_Horse wrote: »

you are the exception to the rule. you should feel proud.

Exception to the rule? Or is she the first person that's actually 'justified' themselves to you?

I'm sure she'll be pleased that she's got your approval.

Marcheline

Neas, I do not disagree with your first idea. I think volunteering would be very helpful to long-term unemployed (if they are assessed as being suitable for this) as it would give people a sense of greater wellbeing and would offer them transferable skills which they could then use in the workplace. This system would not be sraightforward either though (who decides which charity gets the volunteers etc) but it does have its merits.

However, your second 'solution' is totally ludicrous: who is to say how much money is needed to raise a family? My parents raised us just fine on my dad's below average income. Would you let someone decide that YOUR income was inadequate to raise a family?

neas

your right..

a simpler way would be to just cut benefits totally..

Do away with the entire system.

Start a new 'pension like' benefits system where people pay into a 'pot' and if they get made redudant will receive the 'pension' to help them get by. Or better still just have one fund you pay into...

The 'rainy day fund'... if you dont use it throughout your life, you have a bigger pension if you need to use it after 2 years it will allow you a bit of float for a few months..... at leas then its linked to your earnings.

Without no benefits, no housing... people might think a bit before having children they can't afford... or at the very least just stick together in larger family units. It will force people to pay their own way in life.

The advantage of removing these benefits, and housing would again be a massive reduction in taxes... meaning we can all pay for our 'insurance pot'. If benefits were based on what you've put into the 'pot' then it would immediately stop people claiming when they paid little if nothing into it.

Agree with you there :P

chewmylegoff

neas wrote: »

To claim benefit, person A has to maintain 15-20 hours of volunteering per week so as to 'pay' for their money... by doing this they will be guarnteed to get money and payment. In return soceity will get bad areas cleaned up, streets tidied, fundraising for charities.. all sorts of good things would come from this. 'Why?' you say we should force them to volunteer as its not volunteering? Because quite frankly so few people volunteer... in proportion to claimants its disgusting.

i totally agree with this, there are enough things that they could do - if you had all of the 5 million people of working age who do not work just doing a little bit for the good of the country every week in return for the money they get, then things would be so much better. there are very few people who couldn't contribute something in return for what they get. obviously if you've got a severe brain injury and need 24 hour care, then you're not going to be able to go out and clear up litter, but just because you've got a bad back doesn't mean you can't do something to help.

you could just structure it so that if you do nothing you get some food stamps, if you pitch in then you get paid. essentially all you would be doing is redistrubuting the benefits payments to local councils in order to create a load more part time jobs. what's the harm in that.

in the end i don't see how much more it could cost - the administration costs are already silly, due to the overarching complexity of the system. at at least we would get some value back for the payments.

neas

its like system where prisoners used to be forced to do road works in america.

Same thing, seem reasoning... working to repay society as a whole. Picking up transferable skills etc

Moon_Boi

islandannie wrote: »

And your qualifications for diagnosing how debilitating a bad back or depression are exactly what?

Most of these people are thieving scum http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1042141/60-long-term-benefits-claimants-work-admits-minister.html

Conrad

Those that belittle depression sufferers are a bit thick I'm afraid, sorry for my strong tone.

They understand livers can fail, hearts can flutter and fingers can rot, but somehow they manage to come to the conclusion a brain never malfunctions!

The brain contains trillions of connections. If a Ford Cortinas, 4 input distributor can suffer from bad connections, do they not think a brain with trillions of joins and connections can sometimes get a fault?

Conrad

I agree on the bad back thing. I admire those such as Douglas Bader that flew battle planes. My best freinds wife has severe cerebral paulsey, yet works full time even though she's in agony with spasms.