How would you help George Osborne distribute the cuts in spending?

A._Badger

amcluesent wrote: »

I'd propose some very simple measures -

1) No one under 22 gets any housing related benefits, they can stay @ home
2) No benefits for third and subsequent kids, having babies on benefits can't be a lifestyle choice
3) Total annual benefits limited to 66% of minimum wage income to make work pay

I'm still not sure why anyone should get any money simply for breeding. If people want children, as people always will, let them pay for the pleasure, as they do most other things in life.

chucky

A._Badger wrote: »

I'm still not sure why anyone should get any money simply for breeding. If people want children, as people always will, let them pay for the pleasure, as they do most other things in life.

don't be so stupid.

and how about those unfortunate people that can't have children - give them tax refunds?

A._Badger

chucky wrote: »

don't be so stupid.

and how about those unfortunate people that can't have children - give them tax refunds?

Your usual straw man style, chucky. Why not address the question instead?

amcluesent

Payment for breeding may have made sense as it was clear the Boomer generation needed the young'uns to work like dogs to keep the Ponzi welfare system going.

I think we now need to look at separation of rewards for breeding and licenses to have children. I'd say within 15 years (well past peak oil and peak food) it'll be accepted that permission is needed from the State as part of national population management plan.

chucky

A._Badger wrote: »

Your usual straw man style, chucky. Why not address the question instead?

straw man?? i think my post was quite clear.

not sure why anyone should get any money simply for breeding

If people want children, as people always will, let them pay for the pleasure, as they do most other things in life.

i still think it's a stupid idea

chucky

amcluesent wrote: »

I think we now need to look at separation of rewards for breeding and licenses to have children.

and yet another one... what do you think about people that can't have children - should we give them tax refunds?

A._Badger

chucky wrote: »

straw man?? i think my post was quite clear.

i still think it's a stupid idea

Brilliantly reasoned! Well up to your usual standard!

A._Badger

amcluesent wrote: »

Payment for breeding may have made sense as it was clear the Boomer generation needed the young'uns to work like dogs to keep the Ponzi welfare system going.

I think we now need to look at separation of rewards for breeding and licenses to have children. I'd say within 10 years (well past peak oil and peak food) it'll be accepted that permission is needed from the State as part of national population management plan.

Generally speaking, I don't buy the Erlich stuff (is there a subject he's ever been right about?) but I still fail to see why subsiding the act of procreation is a good idea.

chucky

A._Badger wrote: »

Brilliantly reasoned! Well up to your usual standard!

so let me get this right - you think people should be charged for breeding but think that people that can't or won't have children won't have any benefit from being in this situation...

how's that for a straw-man that you don't have an answer for :T

A._Badger

chucky wrote: »

so let me get this right - you think people should be charged for breeding but think that people that can't or won't have children won't have any benefit from being in this situation...

how's that for a straw-man that you don't have an answer for :T

I said (and I'll type this nice and slowly for you) that I don't see any reason to pay for people to have children. I did not say they should be charged for having them.

Do try to keep up.