Sure STart Grant cut off for consecutive children?????

Deepmistrust

DaisyFlower wrote: »

and maybe people should provide financially for any children they choose to have.

Most people do.

Fortunately we live in quite an advanced society, that also recognises that those on low incomes may also need financial assistance. In fact we're so advanced, we even give financial assistance to ANYONE with a child. Beats the poorhouse I guess.

Welcome to the modern world, please stop kicking and screaming now.

MrsE_2

sysky wrote: »

well thanks moomoo but you obviously dont realise that

a) there are not many jobs about even paying minimum wage even with a degree which eats away at earnings from a measly 15k and

b) if every family only has 2 children we would only replace ourselves to carry on living but not everyone can have babies for whatever reason so statistically some families would need to have a football team to make up for the many not able to conceive. to even try and stop the upside down pensioner pyramid from toppeling over that was created by the babyboomers.

Neither you nor the current government knows much about statistics and how they come to be and simple numbers like a median and mean being used and giving the complete wrong information which 2.4 children per family is! as well as an average national income as that mask the few high earners the many that would not even get near the 40k tax credit cut off.

maybe we should rather completely cut IVF as that cost more then the few maternity benefits available that can not even consider comparing with other European countries.

Its funny how high fertility seems connected to low IQ;)

Nice how you want to scrap IVF for tax payers so you can sit on benefits popping out kids.
Even if they do get free IVF, they are at least putting something back.

I think that is a particulary selfish post, but it doesn't surprise me.

Deepmistrust

MrsE wrote: »

Its funny how high fertility seems connected to low IQ;)

Nice how you want to scrap IVF for tax payers so you can sit on benefits popping out kids.
Even if they do get free IVF, they are at least putting something back.

I think that is a particulary selfish post, but it doesn't surprise me.

No one seems to get her point, that if people want to insist that "children are a choice" yada yada yada, then the same principle has to apply to IVF.

Which will not happen (thankfully).

People seem to take issue with this point she has raised though, perhaps it's because infertility affects the middleclasses, whereas the need for financial assistance at birth doesn't.

EDIT: Why does high birth rates affect IQ? Funny when a person attempts to defend a seemingly narrow minded viewpoint (removal of IVF), by offering another narrow minded (and ill-informed) viewpoint.

iamana1ias

sysky wrote: »

well its capitalismn in this country socialismn has never been on this island. and you are obviously a high earner as I could not afford to stay home till they start school which is exactly the point. and its no gravytrain, this country does not even get anywhere near other countries when it comes to maternity leave in time or pay or the fact that dad could take it in equal share there.
as I said im not thinking about a football team just another one, but its clearly a luxury and decent hard working people are punished for the lazy little slappers.

What about countries without healthcare, or education or other basic services that we take for granted?

I think a month in Africa seeing how people cope with no benefits, no healthcare and in many cases no contraception works would do wonders for your attitude. Many women have never left their villages, never mind bought expensive clothes or equipment for their babies.

You don't know how lucky you are to have the choices you do, and to not take responsibility for those choices is outrageous.

iamana1ias

sysky wrote: »

b) if every family only has 2 children we would only replace ourselves to carry on living but not everyone can have babies for whatever reason so statistically some families would need to have a football team to make up for the many not able to conceive. to even try and stop the upside down pensioner pyramid from toppeling over that was created by the babyboomers.

In this country, yes. But the global population is too big already. Do you ever think about the big picture?

Jowo_2

The OP should stop invoking the spectre of Fascism to argue why the state should continue to supply a bonus to new mothers and appreciate that the cuts have come about because the country is spending more on benefits that it gets in income tax receipts. It's the 'generosity' of Labour which led to a skewed system whereby quite insanely 9 out of 10 households qualified for tax credits, including workless ones.

The OP should work their way through this site to find money saving tips to improve their budget, one which focusses on cutting expenses as increasing income through benefits is going to get a lot tougher now the UK is broke. She should start with downloading the Budget Planner on the tools section.

Telfordstar

If you cant afford to have childen then dont have any!

mitchaa

I simply cannot believe what I am reading.

Basing to have a child or not on a £500 1 off grant is just utterly ridiculous.

moomoomama27

mitchaa wrote: »

I simply cannot believe what I am reading.

Basing to have a child or not on a £500 1 off grant is just utterly ridiculous.

Exactly, there really is no defense for the OP. I hope she seriously considers not having a child if 1k determines it's existance!

Unfortunatley the grant has become an incentive for alot of people. I agree it's assistance, but in alot of cases it is NOT viewed that way!!

Deepmistrust

iamana1ias wrote: »

In this country, yes. But the global population is too big already. Do you ever think about the big picture?

define "too big", then define how to reduce it?

Personally, I'd say start with the obvious - removing people out of poverty - by working towards a world with Human Rights at the core - reduces the number of babies born.

Not that this pattern is definite proof, but there are many assumptions that can be made from this evidence.

You can find the exact statistics on the internet, but the populations that are growing quicker are those that tend to have higher birth rates, which tend to be those living on or below the poverty line (defined by the World Bank).

Even in the UK, the number of babies born to foreign mothers i.e. those mothers who were not born here (high numbers of those from third world countries, or countries with low considerations to Human Rights laws) are higher than that of British women born here.

That is possibly because - to use the often abused word on here - western woman often choose not to procreate, because when you are wealthy you have much more control over the choices you make in life.

However, for poorer western women, with only perpaps elementary education, then choices such as whether to put a baby on hold over a good career often do not figure high in the equation. In this respect, they are not in far removed from the situation of those women you mention in Africa (I am talking about relative poverty, not abject poverty).

And in answer to the previous poster who equated high birth rates to low IQ, hence it is through circumstance that determines birth rates, not innate IQ ability.