Failure and bitterness.

mizzbiz

lynzpower wrote: »

Out if interest, what volunteering do you do?

I imagine he 'donates' a proportion of his income to pay for people who can't or won't provide for themselves. Holding down a full time job to support these people is charity enough, but some go further and do work for charity on top.

itsallagame_2

StevieJ wrote: »

What about the ones over 60 that get winter fuel allowance :rotfl:

And those over 75 who get a free TV licence

StevieJ

itsallagame wrote: »

And those over 75 who get a free TV licence

[FONT=&quot]My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from [/FONT][FONT=&quot]too much government.

More like it convinced you that phrase was never out of Das Kapital
[/FONT]

neas

lynzpower wrote: »

Out if interest, what volunteering do you do?

I volunteer at a local school teaching maths 1 hour a week... i get paid time off to do it though... so its pretty cool.

Wife volunteers at a counselling charity place as an admin worker to improve her cv etc.

Plenty of volunteer jobs going even in a recession

harrup

geoffky wrote: »

Does anyone on here consider someone who is a millionaire and claims child benefit a scrounger..or is it ok because they are entitled to it..

Actually....that's a really interesting point.

I thought about this and related issues many a time and I'm not sure I've reached a satisfactory conclusion.

On the one hand.....a millionaire doesn't need the money which undeniably could be better allocated.

On the other hand.....It's only fair for someone who contributes much to society via taxes to get something from it.

Still, it's govermental folly. As are many of my my other pet hates e.g. WHY has my husband a medical exeption certificate? Due to a thyroid problem he doesn't have to pay for medication even though it would be no hardship for us to pay for it. And what really flummoxes me: why does this exemption to pay extend to ALL medications, even those totally unrelated to his thyroid condition? Baffling.

Why does my exceptionally affluent MIL get a heating allowance? Why is it justificable that she - taking 17 pills a day - has nver once paid a single penny for any of her medication in 30 years due to also having a medical exemption certificate. Don't get me wrong - I love my hubby, I love her....but how is this just?

Why do all students get a free laptop when starting our local uni....even though they already have one at home?

Why do kids now get paid by the goverment to do their A levels? Not just exceptionally bright kids from modest backgrounds...all of them?

Money, or rather "prudent resource management" is clearly no object of interest for the government.

Are those people deplorable for not actively declining it?

Or the government remiss for permitting and promoting such unnecessary squandering of limited funds?

As I said....can't come to a satisfactory conclusion.

harrup

geoffky wrote: »

Does anyone on here consider someone who is a millionaire and claims child benefit a scrounger..or is it ok because they are entitled to it..

Actually....that's a really interesting point.

I thought about this and related issues many a time and I'm not sure I've reached a satisfactory conclusion.

On the one hand.....a millionaire doesn't need the money which undeniably could be better allocated.

On the other hand.....is it not merely fair for someone who contributes much to society via their taxes to also receive something from it? Necessary or otherwise.

Still, it's govermental folly. As are many of my my other pet hates e.g. WHY has my husband a medical exeption certificate? Due to a thyroid problem he doesn't have to pay for medication even though it would be no hardship for us to pay for it. And what really flummoxes me: why does this exemption to pay extend to ALL medications, even those totally unrelated to his thyroid condition? Baffling.

Why does my exceptionally affluent MIL get a heating allowance? Why is it justificable that she - taking 17 pills a day - has nver once paid a single penny for any of her medication in 30 years due to also having a medical exemption certificate. Don't get me wrong - I love my hubby, I love her....but how is this just?

Why do all students get a free laptop when starting our local uni....even though they already have one at home?

Why do kids now get paid by the goverment to do their A levels? Not just exceptionally bright kids from modest backgrounds...all of them?

Money, or rather "prudent resource management" is clearly no object of interest for the government.

Are those people deplorable for not actively declining it?

Or the government remiss for permitting and promoting such unnecessary squandering of limited funds?

As I said....can't come to a satisfactory conclusion. All the same: all the above examples should be subject to means testing. JMO.

harryhound

Marcheline wrote: »

I see what you're getting at, but I disagree with you. I personally believe that governments are hyping up overpopulation for their own ends (i.e. to gain state control of fertility etc) I also take note of your comment that "we need quality, not quantity" and I am interested to hear exactly WHO you think should be measuring the 'quality' and what exactly you think is the correct response for reducing 'quantity'?

Hi Marcheline,

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this.
We are probably both products of our environment, upbringing & life experiences..
We like to think that the human animal has that unique property of free will BUT taken en masse we are just the same old mix of "survival of the fittest": fighting to get through to the next generation.
A mixture of psychology and economics tells us what people en masse will do next and often it is not nice.
Nearly every revolution delivers dictatorship, not Shangri-La.

Anyway back to the facts, you and I live in a world with a population growing at well over 200,000 per day.
If you can think of a sensible, sustainable way of giving these people food, shelter and a life with meaning, let me know. The number of 85,000,000 per year overwhelms my limited intellect.
(The politicians love it, that represents "economic growth" to them and postpones the hard choices).

Turning from the macro to the micro.
Just because making hard decisions is difficult, that does not give us the right to enjoy the politicians candy of fudge and humbug. Technology has created new possibilities, but just because something is possible does not make it mandatory.

Here is a concrete example from my own experience.
My local "university" hospital has at least two areas that the general public do not enter. One is a run down place of cracked wired glass, damaged decorations and cypher locks. The potentially dangerous insane are "treated" here.
The other is a basement where babies are kept in fish tanks under grow lights.
Both my kids started off here - fortunately they had a disability that they have largely overcome. However there were a number of similar little mites who had self evidently been abandoned; in particular my son's neighbour, who we nick named "The Mekon". His notes showed he had been there for weeks and nobody visited him.
Somewhere in the world's third largest employer there was an accountant deciding on the lifetime future and cost of that child.
So personally I would put a limit on how premature a birth can be to qualify for surgical intervention.

It must be realised that every use of the world's resources carries an "opportunity cost" - Every decision to do something automatically means a decision NOT to do several other alternatives.
Fudge and humbug is so much easier and more comfortable.

http://science.jrank.org/pages/5408/Population-Growth-Control-Human.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/cultures/shangri_la_01.shtml
http://www.worldmapper.org/display.php?selected=2
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/a-portrait-of-britain-in-2031-395231.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mekon
http://www.virginmedia.com/jobs/features/what-britain-earns.php?ssid=2

Hey Ho, why worry, pass the ciggies, crack open a case of lager and lets watch big brother.

Harry.

neas

alot of countries alreadt suffer overpopulation and cannot provide reasonable lifestlyes for their citizens.

Would it be fairer to limit everyone to 1 child and those born would have a nice life, with food, shelter and a bit of home comfort?

Or.... allow peopel to breed indefinately... increasing an already too large population.. increasing poverty, pollution, and epidemics?

The Earth is only so big... then amount of resources produced to 'feed' cloth us etc is finite.... at some point (and im no expert here) we wont have enough to provide for us all. The UK is fortunate that it was a aworld power, has a reasonably fertile terrain (alright it rains.. but its not a desert is it?) and has the infastrutre already... but places like china and countries in africa are not so fortunate.

harryhound

StevieJ wrote: »

What about the ones over 60 that get winter fuel allowance :rotfl:

I've got a few years to go yet before getting the free TV licence:rolleyes:

The pensioner's bus pass is really useful and is probably almost self funding as it keeps the roads freer for Mr Business man to drive about at 80 MPH in his new gas guzzler.
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/...25#post9914325
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=854009

Only once have I had to stand and obviously I don't travel in the rush hours, if I can avoid it. (Receptionists: please reserve first and last appointments for those who think their time is very valuable and who can afford full prices).

The winter fuel allowance may be self funding because pensioners turn off their heating, NOT because they are poor but because they do not know how long they will live! This winter will be extra bad as the "credit crunch" has taken at least 50% off pensioners' interest on their savings and devalued the currency 30%; increasing their fear of the future.
However sitting about, verging on hypothermia, means that thickening blood and lack of muscle stimulation, creates heart attacks and strokes.
These "victims" then get rushed to hospital and patched up. The relatives get asked the magic question "is she self funding" (4 times out of 5 it is a "she") and the now impaired human being is discharged onto the the community or into the care of their relatives (who are often already pensioners).
If 300 GBP stops that then it is money well spent. Unfortunately it may well be "saved".
I would rather see it spent on hands-on insulation of ALL this country's inadequate housing up to Scandinavian standards (That should take a couple of months off the heating season here in warm wet & damp UK.)

Harry.

Marcheline

Hi again Harry,

I think you're right, we will have to agree to disagree! One last point, I would recommend Stephen Mosher's book 'Population Control - Real Costs, Illusory Benefits' to you, so that you can see the other side of the debate. Also (and again I understand your reasoning, but disagree) a severely premature child has as much right to life as anyone else.

Hi Neas,

Although I am skeptical about 'overpopulation', for argument's sake: you will find that with increasing academic education comes a decrease in the birth rate; far better in my opinion to spend the money currently going on population control measures on increasing academic eduction. World governments won't do this, because they need an underclass. Also, Western nations do not want developing nations to usurp them in the future, so population control, funded by the West, in populous countries is self-serving.

You will know that in the West the declining birth rate is going to be an increasing problem in the folowing years. In order for this to be rectified (according to your train of thought) you would then be advocating a programme of euthanasia for the elderly, combined with your proposed one child policy. This again throws up a multitude of ethical issues.

With regard to your belief that China and Africa cannot provide for their people because of lack of natural resources, this is, in part, fallacy. Many African countries are rich in natural resources, but corruption has led to the people of these nations being oppressed and money being siphoned off for the 'elite' few. Again, far better in my opinion, for the West to concentrate on tackling corruption, rather than population control. Western govenments won't rush to tackle corruption though, because it benefits their own interests.

Although fictional, if you have not already read it, I would recommend Aldous Huxley's 'Brave New World' (it's a bloody good book for a start and secondly it's food for thought when considering issues of population, governments, assisted reproduction etc)