BBC Thursday: The Future State of Welfare

lostinrates

Jimmy_31 wrote: »

It depends if you breed your dog as a one off or if you treat it as a business and produce lots of litters per year from lots of dogs.

''Hobby breeding'' can be mulitple litters. I know breeders who easily fall in the remit of hobby breeder in that it makes them little or no money when shows etc are considered but they do it as a hobby/passion and hope litters will break even or a little better. I think its very likely even under your ''interesting''plan most people would be able to continue having babies on a hobby basis.

StevieJ

wotsthat wrote: »

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.

TFFT can you imagine some of the characters on here pullling the strings :eek:

StevieJ

StevieJ wrote: »

TFFT can you imagine some of the characters on here pullling the strings :eek:

Actually, maybe the people who 'pull the strings' are here and venting their spleen on what they would really like to do if they didn't want re-election Maybe Gen is really Boy George, nahh Gen seems to know what he is talking about
OMG I am conversing with myself :eek:

lostinrates

wotsthat wrote: »

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.

This post has a lot of merit IMO. I am always amazed that when I developed health problems my fertility was considered of primary concern...the abilty to have a child genetically mine. The thing is....this genetic configuration hasn't stood me very well...so why use it to create another life who might suffer similarly? Infertility is very sad, a personal tragedy IMO, but IMO taking care of the people already in the world should take priority. I'm not unfeeling towards those who want their own children.....I do, but I also want a euro lottery win and a new working body. Neither of the latter are going to happen either. If I wanted fertility help it should have been a priority in our family saving plan not something offered while there exists a post code lottery for cancer drugs and help not given to people who have worked hard all there lives and suffer from diseases for which their is other uneconmical treatment not offered.

zagfles

As pointed out in the programme, the support for children in the benefits system has risen massively over the last 10 years. Children didn't tend to starve 10 years ago. So what could be done is limit the number of children the benefits system will support in future - perhaps just for people on benefits now, or perhaps for everyone. Even if you have 4 children they won't starve if you only get benefits for 2, at today's very high support levels for children. This would allow everyone to have a family but won't excessively reward those who have loads of kids and expect taxpayer support for them.

lostinrates

zagfles wrote: »

Children didn't tend to starve 10 years ago. .

Its interesting to phrase it like this as it is NOW we see increasing incidence of things like ricketts, isn't it?

zagfles

lostinrates wrote: »

Its interesting to phrase it like this as it is NOW we see increasing incidence of things like ricketts, isn't it?

Which has nothing whatsoever to do with income - it seems to be down to excessive use of sunblock, staying indoors all the time and getting no sun etc.

lostinrates

zagfles wrote: »

Which has nothing whatsoever to do with income - it seems to be down to excessive use of sunblock, staying indoors all the time and getting no sun etc.

exactly. My point is, that while people need enough money to feed and cloth children, they also need to be doing what they can to minimise need for extra expence (I think I read this week that cereals are going to be supplemented). Even though I came from a ''comfortable'' family, breakfast cereal other than porridge or muesli type things was a treat for times of holiday or very busy times at work when a simpler breakfast was needed. Cheaper porridge and a play in the park for 3/4 of an hour in the day for people parenting on a budget and not in work would be free. For working parents, trying to find daylight hours....especially at this time of year, to play outside or supervise outside playing is much harder.

Ilya_Ilyich

Jimmy_31 wrote: »

If somebody who is on minimum wage for life and knows full well they will always be skint, then decides to have a kid that they cannot afford then that is a bit wrong dont you think.

Why should all the people who dont want kids have to work harder so somebody else can have something they cannot afford.

Do you think somebody who cannot afford to feed a dog should go out and buy a dog.

Why are you so desperate to compare poor people to dogs?

e: Can someone post some actual evidence that providing financial support for those with children on low incomes has had a significant effect on fertility rates? Because currently it's just being taken as a given and used to argue for something that could have pretty terrible consequences.

KnightSmile

How about the BILLIONS of pounds of government "benefits" or cash given to banks to bail them out which allows the bankers to "justify" their huge bonuses; You have housing benefits ensuring high property prices and maintains a lifestyle for some claimants which others can only dream of. It seems the working/lower/middle classes are getting the pi55 taking out of them from all sides.

It becomes more and more apparent that to become materialistically successful you just need to maintain a perception of access to cash and convince others that you have money but not have any particular talent or skill to create wealth. Look at the recent "Euro bailout" they are literally pulling money from thin air based on flaky projections and "promises".

We need to take a long look at the tax/benefit system and review whether it is fit for purpose, the trouble is that there are so many competing vested interests and any changes which may be for the greater good normally involve short-term pain which is why politicians have no incentive to be radical.

crazy world.

A lot of what people discuss essentially is a debate about fairness of varying degrees.