BBC Thursday: The Future State of Welfare

ILW

What is wrong with the idea of "if you cannot afford to support children, do not have them"?

Ilya_Ilyich

so what if someone who's poor does have a child after all? do we just let the kid starve, understanding as we do that children with substandard nutrition grow up with substandard intelligence? do we punish the parents, knowing as we do that children with 1/2 fewer parents are less likely to succeed? do we adopt the children into common nurseries that teach our beliefs and values, in which case we're Marxists?

OptionARMAGEDDON

we dont do any of that. But the absolute thing the state shouldnt do is support reverse darwinism through the benefits system.

Ilya_Ilyich

can you clarify what you mean by that?

ILW

Just discourage those that cannot support children from breeding. The current system positively promotes it.

wotsthat

Ilya_Ilyich wrote: »

so what if someone who's poor does have a child after all? do we just let the kid starve, understanding as we do that children with substandard nutrition grow up with substandard intelligence? do we punish the parents, knowing as we do that children with 1/2 fewer parents are less likely to succeed? do we adopt the children into common nurseries that teach our beliefs and values, in which case we're Marxists?

It's pretty simple really. Gently, over a period of time, benefits that are 'earned' simply by virtue of giving birth to another human being are reduced. If you look at the reduction in child benefit for higher earners, surestart maternity grant (£500) being limited to first children, abandonment of the healthy start grant (£190) this process has already started.

The other thing to do is for government to discourage benefits culture and try and get society to follow. This doesn't have to be some sort of right wing blame campaign like we've seen in the past.

What about looking at a reverse means test for IVF i.e. make sure that any children born as a result of IVF are born to parents who can afford them? What about making IVF a private procedure not available on the NHS?

There are problems with the above but there's nothing about starving kids, imprisoning parents on benefits or setting up marxist indoctrination camps - that sort of thing is reserved for internet forums.

de1amo

just think-the kids of today will be the tax payers of tomorrow-paying our pensions!

Generali

de1amo wrote: »

just think-the kids of today will be the tax payers of tomorrow-paying our pensions!

Perhaps the kids of today will vote in a Government that refuses to pay your pension tomorrow.

TBH I suspect it's a nailed on certainty if you were born after WW2 and have significant assets that you'll be expected to run those down before you get anything from the taxpayer. Retiring well and decades before death will go back to being the preserve of the rich IMO.

gallygirl

de1amo wrote: »

just think-the kids of today will be the tax payers of tomorrow-paying our pensions!

Not if they don't pay any tax though!

Jimmy_31

Ilya_Ilyich wrote: »

so what if someone who's poor does have a child after all? do we just let the kid starve, understanding as we do that children with substandard nutrition grow up with substandard intelligence? do we punish the parents, knowing as we do that children with 1/2 fewer parents are less likely to succeed? do we adopt the children into common nurseries that teach our beliefs and values, in which case we're Marxists?

Take the kid off the person who knowingly had a child they could not afford to raise.

Give the kid to somebody who actually wants to bring up a child and can afford to do so.

Plenty of unwanted kids go hungry everyday in our country whilst their parents pi55 their benefits up the wall.