Tory scum increase pension age - again!!

Moby

ermine wrote: »

You're obviously struggling to follow the line of thought, so let me spell it out to you real slow. You said:
So for these who have kids before they can afford them, somebody has to pay for their benefits

Talk about me being slow....I repeat there are all sorts of reasons why people have children...you can't just say someone is more deserving than another to receive benefit....so yes I say the rest of us should pay for their benefits.

Where do you think the money comes from for the government to pay benefits? Clue - the government does not have any money of their own. They take it from other people, with the threat of violence - you get sent to jail if you don't pay your taxes.

Many of the rich are able to employ accountants to enable them to avoid paying tax...they suffer no consequences!

Now that's acceptable in some ways, but encouraging people to have children they can't afford means the government must take money by force from other people to pay these so-called 'parents' their benefits. I wouldn't so much mind the taking of money by force if the children were then at least not raised in the environment that fails to pass on some basic values, so we end up with clusters of endemic anti-social behaviour, which includes having children you can't afford. Obviously over the 20-years following the birth of a child things may go worng for you economically and I'm all for helping people with that, but knowingly having children you can't support should be discouraged greatly.

So you give them the money if they are raised in a proper environment.....but therein lies the rub.....you see Ermine you've gone full circle. The environment governs their life opportunities.

It's perfectly possible for poor people to be able to bring up children to have good values. My parents weren't particularly well-off, but they paid their way and didn't rely on the State for more than parents generally get from the state, like schools, healthcare etc. And it really does hack me off to see people excuse f eckless parenting by blaming 'poverty' and 'society' for all their ills.

Patronising and intolerant I'm afraid

We live in a rich Western society. The 'poverty' you're using as an excuse for these parents' lack of values would be riches only a hundred years ago. Relative poverty is not an excuse for failing to pass on values to your children or having them when you can't affrod them. What has gone wrong in Britain is that people are no longer encouraged to take responsibility for their actions. Problems are always someone or something else's fault, and until enough of us in Britain learn to stop doing that we will never sort ourselves out!

Ermine there are two definitions of poverty 'relative' and 'absolute'. Both are present in today's UK and your moral reasoning here is simplistic and judgemental.....'taking a stand' ....'what has gone wrong in Britain' 'having them when you can't afford them' etc....have a word with yourself my friend:o

jamespir

the reason for this is the majority of the tory party are over 60 and want to be mp until net election

Paul_Herring

Moby wrote: »

Talk about me being slow....I repeat there are all sorts of reasons why people have children...you can't just say someone is more deserving than another to receive benefit....so yes I say the rest of us should pay for their benefits.

Except the argument is that no-one should be relying on benefits to have children, let alone benefits being the sole reason to have kids - people should wait until they can afford kids until they have them.

Witness the anecdotal evidence of teenage girls trying to get pregnant so they can get a council house for example (up until a few years ago at least - not so sure it's a guaranteed way to get a house these days any more,) or the more salacious stories in the red-tops of single mothers (or less occasionally married couples) popping out a sprog every 10 months or so, and either boasting about the amount of money they get from the tax-payer, or complaining that it isn't enough to keep them in Sky subscriptions and X-box games.

The_Angry_Jock

Paul_Herring wrote: »

Except the argument is that no-one should be relying on benefits to have children, let alone benefits being the sole reason to have kids - people should wait until they can afford kids until they have them.

I don't fully agree with this because of my own situation. Me and my OH are 31/27, we've both worked full time since 16, we've 3 degrees between us, but we're both on below national average salary and struggling with high mortgage costs (5 year fixed just before the crash) and debts accrued when we were on much smaller salaries.

We have a 4 month old now.

Strictly speaking we can't afford kids yet but I don't want to be looking after babies when I'm in my 40's, low life expectancy in my family is also another factor.

This just seems like yet another thing that the baby boomer generation has robbed their kids of...you can't buy a house because you can't afford it, you can't have kids because you don't have a house. If you have a house then you can't afford them anyway, then you can't start a pension because you're paying for houses and kids...who want's to be an old parent to young kids? It's crazy

Kids should not be had as a means of income though, we're basically relying on family.

Zelazny

The_Angry_Jock wrote: »

I don't fully agree with this because of my own situation. Me and my OH are 31/27, we've both worked full time since 16, we've 3 degrees between us, but we're both on below national average salary and struggling with high mortgage costs (5 year fixed just before the crash) and debts accrued when we were on much smaller salaries.

We have a 4 month old now.

Strictly speaking we can't afford kids yet but I don't want to be looking after babies when I'm in my 40's, low life expectancy in my family is also another factor.

This just seems like yet another thing that the baby boomer generation has robbed their kids of...you can't buy a house because you can't afford it, you can't have kids because you don't have a house. If you have a house then you can't afford them anyway, then you can't start a pension because you're paying for houses and kids...who want's to be an old parent to young kids? It's crazy

Kids should not be had as a means of income though, we're basically relying on family.

How much do you actually get in benefits though? If even one of you is working, you really don't get a lot. If you were both out of work completely, your lifestyle may actually increase - and that's where people have the problem.

Just think - if the government weren't taking so much of your money to pay for the people who have never worked, you might be able to afford to have kids yourself.

My wife and I are nowhere near being able to afford kids. That's just the way it is. We don't have any excess money to save, and in the last year we've had exactly one holiday (and that was a cheapo one to Scotland, because it's all we could afford).

My wife's niece is 21 and has twins. The dad is in and out of jail, has kids by several other girls as well and doesn't really seem to contribute anything. My wife's niece has never worked apart from a short stint as a part timer in retail, where she apparently (according to one of the people who worked there) stole a lot of stock and didn't do any work. She gets enough money that her house is paid for (and when she recently decided she wanted to move, she was given her choice of three different places in the area that she wanted to move to), her bills are taken care of, she can afford to smoke and go out drinking/clubbing (and all her babysitting is provided by the family for free) and she has managed to save thousands of pounds since having the twins (literally, as in at least £2000).

So when you look at it, what exactly are we working are backsides off for? 40+ hours a week gets us what?

atush

I agree that NO ONE should have kids if they can't afford to keep them.

Angry Jock may think they can't afford it but obv they just about can.

And quit with the older mother thing. I didn't start having mine til I was over 30 as we couldn't afford to before. And when I had twins at nearly 35 it was (and is still) a financial disaster. But we made do, and now we can fford them- but affording Uni will be tight. Guess we oldies will keep working til we drop lol. Well, maybe that long lol, but OH was supposed to retire at 60 but he won't be able to now.

The_Angry_Jock

Zelazny wrote: »

How much do you actually get in benefits though? If even one of you is working, you really don't get a lot. If you were both out of work completely, your lifestyle may actually increase - and that's where people have the problem.

We get the £20/week family allowance plus £10 family credit ... all of it goes to 1 day/week child minding which we have to supplement. The OH is back working fulltime aswell now so we need to find more money for another day come January as I'm taking 1 day/week holiday to look after sprog.

atush wrote: »

Angry Jock may think they can't afford it but obv they just about can.

Just about isn't can though is it

EDIT: Why drop the older mother thing? It's personal opinion and it was more about me being too old rather than OH I'm not sure I'd want my 20/30-something kids worrying about looking after demented old dad when they should be thinking about having kids themselves.

atush

We plan on looking after ourselves- we didn't have kids for them to look after us lol.

Mind you, if one turns out to be a Richard Branson then I'm all for letting him pay my way ;-) After all, we are paying for uni and no1 is graduating next year with 0 debt. And has already been offered a job for after graduation at a SS over 24K. The other 2 will follow so will be better off than their contemporaries.

The_Angry_Jock

atush wrote: »

We plan on looking after ourselves- we didn't have kids for them to look after us lol.

This is how I feel too, however experience tells me that this might not be the case.

Should get back on topic now I suppose :rotfl:

Moby

Paul_Herring wrote: »

Except the argument is that no-one should be relying on benefits to have children, let alone benefits being the sole reason to have kids - people should wait until they can afford kids until they have them.

Witness the anecdotal evidence of teenage girls trying to get pregnant so they can get a council house for example (up until a few years ago at least - not so sure it's a guaranteed way to get a house these days any more,) or the more salacious stories in the red-tops of single mothers (or less occasionally married couples) popping out a sprog every 10 months or so, and either boasting about the amount of money they get from the tax-payer, or complaining that it isn't enough to keep them in Sky subscriptions and X-box games.

As you said the evidence is anecdotal spewed out by the red tops so avidly digested by some of our fellow posters. What happens is that everyone knows a 'sponger' and that becomes the focus of their energy...because it justifies their sense of 'unfairness' about how they see themselves being treated etc....we need to try and rise above this approach and look at the wider picture of poverty and social exclusion which is definitely present in the UK of 2011.