MSE News: The hidden Budget benefits cut at £25,000

divastrop

sh1305 wrote: »

What are they then? No-one has forced you to have a child, have they?

That is a very offensive question, and I sincerely hope nobody who has been 'forced' is reading this thread.

I have been under the impression for most of my adult life, that it is morally acceptable for 2 adults to be intimate together if they both agree to it,and that such intimacy may result in the creation of new people, as there is no 100% reliable way to prevent that happening apart from not being intimate in the first place. I am assuming then that the 2.4 children brigade have only ever been intimate with another adult when CHOOSING to create a new person :A

Deepmistrust

sh1305
1. Why should only wealthy people with obsessions with diaries procreate?
2. Do you realise that humans, like any species, have an inherent desire, nah need for the survival of the human race, beyond their control, to procreate?
3. If the country was full of 2.4 children brigade, how would society function? Would they ship over the traditional low-paid workers from abroad, and keep them in workhouses?

Indie_Kid

Deepmistrust wrote: »

sh1305
1. Why should only wealthy people with obsessions with diaries procreate?

Where have I said that? I simply said that people shouldn't expect the state to pay for what is a lifestyle choice.

Deepmistrust

sh1305 wrote: »

Where have I ai that? I simply said that people shouldn't expect the state to pay for what is a lifestyle choice.

"Lifestyle choice" is about as meaningless a catchphrase, as them come.

Could you just address the questions please.

daska

viktory wrote: »

This attitude makes me so angry. Tax is not a great big pot that you pay into, before taking out your 'share'. It does not work like that.

I have no problem at all with people staying at home to raise their children - multiple children in some cases - but I don't want to have to pay for your lifestyle choice.

This attitude makes me so angry. Tax is not a great big pot that you pay into, before taking out your 'share'. It does not work like that.

I have no problem at all with people failing to procreate and educate their children to work and pay taxes to fund their parent's care in later life - but I don't want my children to have to pay for your lifestyle choice.

Percy1983

Having babies is a choice, there are many ways of noting having children.

1, no sex
2, protected sex

And with option 2 you can use more than 1 method at the same time and increase the odds on them working.

So far by the age of 26 I have used option 2 most of the time with some times of option 1, and guess what... I don't have children.

Yes there is a small number of times when it is out of the womens control to which I have every sympathy, but out of the total birth rate I am sure that it makes very little difference.

The problem is (being a member of the 2.4 kid brigade) that I plan 2 children, to which they will probably get the work ethic from me and my other half and live much like we have and keep the population stable.

Meanwhile the local chavs have 3-7 children, to which they won't be brought up in an environment which promotes working for living, and there may have be 2 generations by the time I have had children if not long after.

I am more than aware that we need a good mix of people at all levels but you must see how at this rate the chav culture is going to over take the 'working' culture.

Can you not see this as a problem?

A solution is not to limit the number of children people have but stop paying for them after the first 3, if you want more than 3 then you have to fund it.

pault123

Percy1983 wrote: »

Meanwhile the local chavs have 3-7 children, to which they won't be brought up in an environment which promotes working for living, and there may have be 2 generations by the time I have had children if not long after.

They will be brought up on Jeremy Kyle, a bottle of wine drunk by the parent everyday, and queuing up for benefits.

Their goal in life? To be up the duff by 14 and bring their kids up on the same ethos.

drrat

There seems to too may people contributing to this thread who have little idea of you a civilised society should work.

In fact quite a few seem to have no interest in any kind of society, civilised or not, and want to live in there little "ME ME ME" bubble.

Nobody likes benefit scroungers but worse than this are the arrogant, self obsessed idiots, who run their mouth off without thought attacking anybody who they think may have used a penny of their tax money on anything they can't get themselves.
The fact is we live in a free and civilised society. To acheive this we need good social protection, freedom to live your life as you see fit and a fair tax system to pay for the upkeep of our society.

What do you people want?

A limit of children?
Banning of the layabouts from breeding?
low tax, low protection society?

These traits exist in other countries, although they tend to be third world countries, or countries where the populace have no freedoms at all.
Most of the wealthy contries in the world have solid social protection and personal freedoms. (though I admit not all, and those countries i would not want to live in)

The UK is not perfect, our tax system is not fair and the benfits system is not right.

In my view the budget was pretty good but fell short of what could have been done

They attacked the right areas in regard benefits, the cuts are on the whole small, aimed where they would not be felt and attacked areas where there is a belief abuse takes place, such as the DLA. Where the budget went wrong in my eyes is taxation, here the coalition, failed to make the tax system fairer, my there fear of changing the direct tax system.

Oh and its not the existence of over generous benefits that cause people to sit on their !!!!!! and do nothing with their lives, thats a problem with our society and can realistically only be fixed through education. Cutting benefits will not work unless you strave them to work, but then a fair chunk of them will simple turn to crime instead anyway.

debrag

pault123 wrote: »

They will be brought up on Jeremy Kyle, a bottle of wine drunk by the parent everyday, and queuing up for benefits.

Their goal in life? To be up the duff by 14 and bring their kids up on the same ethos.

14 isn't that a bit old to have the first child

Percy1983

drrat wrote: »

but then a fair chunk of them will simple turn to crime instead anyway.

This is quite true, but if people where affraid of the law rather than knowing they will get a slap on the wrists maybe we could cut crime down.

All these 'entitlements' get me, how about we are all entitled to sports cars, right now I have to save up for one if I want one, why should I?

Yes an extreme example, but right now it seems you are entitled to a nice house and a 40" Tv + PS3 each for each person living there, surely they should have to work for such luxuries like the people who do work?