We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Coalition crack on to cutting benefits to Baby Factories
Comments
-
mvengemvenge wrote: »Problem is, in my experience, governments talk tough, but when it's come to the crunch in the past, they haven't cut money off dead when there are kids involved. Will be interested to see if they actually do it this time round. I can see Human Rights stuff being dragged out.
Funny, doesn't sound like they are too concerned about the "human rights" of the kids involved when they are middle class children with a parent earning the almighty sum of £44k per year. It's only the "vulnerable" kids whose parents get £26k per year in benefit for doing nothing that will need their human rights protecting doncha know.0 -
mvengemvenge wrote: »Problem is, in my experience, governments talk tough, but when it's come to the crunch in the past, they haven't cut money off dead when there are kids involved. Will be interested to see if they actually do it this time round. I can see Human Rights stuff being dragged out.
So you will be interested in watching kids starve?'Just think for a moment what a prospect that is. A single market without barriers visible or invisible giving you direct and unhindered access to the purchasing power of over 300 million of the worlds wealthiest and most prosperous people' Margaret Thatcher0 -
-
mvengemvenge wrote: »No, just to see whether they are the first government to be as tough as they say they are...
And if the goverment is as tough as they say they are, will you be happy to watch children starve .0 -
And if the goverment is as tough as they say they are, will you be happy to watch children starve .
I think you mistake me for a right-wing Tory. I was simply making the observation that no government yet has ever been as tough as they 'talked' on stopping benefits.
My only interest is to see whether this one is.Fokking Fokk!0 -
Children wont starve you idiots! So oversensionalising the situation.
We have enough UK based charity to ensure that thing will never get that bad. Soup kitchens, food parcels... The kids may have to go without designer clothes, the latest games console or their selfish parents may have to cut back on their addiction to cigarettes and alcohol. It will give them a resilient spirit and if anything, selfish single parents popping out babies for child support will hopefully be a thing of the past.
Before crying tears of sorrow, I suggest you have a good look round a couple of third world nations to see exactly how good the "empoverished" UK citizens actually have it.0 -
Back in the day our parents only had children as and when they were in a stable relationship and they could afford them.
I am stuck between two points here. I take the view Child benefit should remain a universal benefit as those that are better off should have a stake in the welfare system (and after all they are not going to be able to claim anything else) but that is should be paid FOR THE FIRST TWO children only.
The average family was always 2 children if anyone wants to be anything other than average then let them fund it themselves.
No they didnt.
Back in the day poor working class people were constantly popping out kids left right and centre. Some died, some didnt, they lived in squalid cramped conditions, went out to work when they were 7, roamed the streets of Stepney in pick pocketing gangs and were basically human pension providers for their parents.
This pattern is repeated in every single country on the face of the planet that doesnt have an adequate welfare system, apart from China where they shoot you if youre a burden.
How many children do poor rural Indians have? How many children can poor rural Indians afford?
The only people who take a blind bit of notice as to how many children they can afford are the middle classes.
Go back a few tens of thousands of years earlier. Lucky for you you're cavemen grandparents didnt think:
"Oh frick. I just dont think we can afford anymore children Ugmina, there just arent enough bones lying around to feed them."
You lot would have singlesue on the streets.
For shame!
The problem is chavs having children. But chavs doing anything is a problem. If the tories just came out with and said "we're going to be really tough on chavs" I would support it 100%.0 -
No they didn't because there was no legalised form of birth control for women to take.Back in the day our parents only had children as and when they were in a stable relationship and they could afford them.
There have been studies around the world that show if you want a woman to have less children then educate her.
Unfortunately while we have free education in this country we also have a group of young women with no aspirations apart from having children.
No it wasn't. The stereotypical family seen in 50s media was 2 children though lots of pictures/adverts had 3. Now without legalised birth control for women how did they maintain such small families?The average family was always 2 children if anyone wants to be anything other than average then let them fund it themselves.I'm not cynical I'm realistic
(If a link I give opens pop ups I won't know I don't use windows)0 -
Two other points - related...
As Peter Hain just said on Newsnight, what about when a working family with, say, 5 kids, split up? Not the mother's fault she ends-up on benefits.
On the other hand, this is where the CSA will also have to be given real teeth.Fokking Fokk!0 -
ruggedtoast wrote: »No they didnt.
Back in the day poor working class people were constantly popping out kids left right and centre. Some died, some didnt, they lived in squalid cramped conditions, went out to work when they were 7, roamed the streets of Stepney in pick pocketing gangs and were basically human pension providers for their parents.
This pattern is repeated in every single country on the face of the planet that doesnt have an adequate welfare system, apart from China where they shoot you if youre a burden.
How many children do poor rural Indians have? How many children can poor rural Indians afford?
The only people who take a blind bit of notice as to how many children they can afford are the middle classes.
Go back a few tens of thousands of years earlier. Lucky for you you're cavemen grandparents didnt think:
"Oh frick. I just dont think we can afford anymore children Ugmina, there just arent enough bones lying around to feed them."
You lot would have singlesue on the streets.
For shame!
The problem is chavs having children. But chavs doing anything is a problem. If the tories just came out with and said "we're going to be really tough on chavs" I would support it 100%.
christ how old are you0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards