Counting the kids

Wookster

If you can support your family, have as big a family as you want.

When you cannot support your family, then people have a right to interfere IMO.

pqrdef

Wookster wrote: »

If you can support your family, have as big a family as you want.

When you cannot support your family, then people have a right to interfere IMO.

"It's medical experiments for the lot of you."

LisaW123

pqrdef wrote: »

So what? People and their kids and their needs don't go away just because they're only a small percentage.

So does the State get back into the Victorian business of distinguishing the deserving poor from the undeserving poor?

Do we start looking at people's life histories to decide who's to blame for their circumstances?

It probably won't help. Your serial single mother typically thinks she's OK now because she's got a good bloke now, so why shouldn't she have another kid? Only the bloke doesn't hang around, just like the others didn't.

Clerk at Benefits Agency: "Oh well, that was never going to last, was it. Anybody could see that."
"He was knocking off my brother's wife!"
"Only after you slept with that Terry from the chip shop"
Perhaps Jeremy Kyle could adjudicate on benefits.

More than half of all kids are born to unmarried parents now. And a lot more are born to married parents who then divorce. Lifelong relationships are out of fashion. A lot of kids live with adults who aren't their real parents.

Do we hold the kids to blame for their situations now?

No, their parents are responsible for them.

Consequently, their parents should pay for their support, not the rest of us. Having a child is a choice these days. Unfortunately, the rest of us do not have much of a choice about funding these !!!!less individuals and their offspring.

Carl31

LisaW123 wrote: »

No, their parents are responsible for them.

Consequently, their parents should pay for their support, not the rest of us. Having a child is a choice these days. Unfortunately, the rest of us do not have much of a choice about funding these !!!!less individuals and their offspring.

public funds help support the population of the future. Yes, having children is a choice of the parent and therefore they are ultimately responsible for their upbringing, but also, these children are the doctors, engineers, accountants, politicians etc.. of the future, if they are not looked after, whos going to look out for us when we are retired? are you going to carry on working to support yourself? probably not, so someone needs to be around to provide your food and look after your environment, hence some benefits are an investment, by the government, into the future of the country.

if families were not supported, and everyone stopped having kids, there would be even bigger problems in this country than there are now

Carl31

Wookster wrote: »

If you can support your family, have as big a family as you want.

When you cannot support your family, then people have a right to interfere IMO.

does this apply to other areas, such as health?

for example, if i see a fat person in macdonlads stuffing their face, can i take their food away as i dont want to foot their NHS bill for their heart attack? or can i pull fags out of peoples mouths so i dont have to pay for their cancer treatment?

PaulF81

No, but you can refuse treatment, no different to refusing benefit when people have too many kids.

PaulF81

Carl31 wrote: »

public funds help support the population of the future. Yes, having children is a choice of the parent and therefore they are ultimately responsible for their upbringing, but also, these children are the doctors, engineers, accountants, politicians etc.. of the future, if they are not looked after, whos going to look out for us when we are retired? are you going to carry on working to support yourself? probably not, so someone needs to be around to provide your food and look after your environment, hence some benefits are an investment, by the government, into the future of the country.

if families were not supported, and everyone stopped having kids, there would be even bigger problems in this country than there are now

If you think the sort of family that pops out sprogs purely for cb is going to raise doctors, engineers and accountants, I suggest you need your head feeling. Most will struggle with getting out of bed in the afternoon.

LisaW123

Carl31 wrote: »

public funds help support the population of the future. Yes, having children is a choice of the parent and therefore they are ultimately responsible for their upbringing, but also, these children are the doctors, engineers, accountants, politicians etc.. of the future, if they are not looked after, whos going to look out for us when we are retired? are you going to carry on working to support yourself? probably not, so someone needs to be around to provide your food and look after your environment, hence some benefits are an investment, by the government, into the future of the country.

if families were not supported, and everyone stopped having kids, there would be even bigger problems in this country than there are now

I'm not suggesting everyone should stop having kids. I am suggesting that, in these days of choice, people should not have the option of having children who the state then has to support indefinitely.

I suspect that those who do choose to bring children into the world who have never worked a day in their life and have no intention of doing so are not raising the professionals of the future.

Conrad

pqrdef wrote: »

So does the State get back into the Victorian business of distinguishing the deserving poor from the undeserving poor?

Nah, let's just carry on as we are with having millions of kids growing up in households where no one ever works, and those kids as a result have thier latent aspirational nature squeezed out of them, that's a fantastic progressive society.......

And of course most on welfare are genuine aren't they.......... we really are 3 x more sick than Aussies et al:rotfl:, 5 x sicker than in 1970, yep that really must be the case


Fantastic progressive chav culture. Funny how you don't get such an endemic mass chav cuclture in other Eorpean nations. Next time your'e at a foreign airport, compare the British holiday queue to the others.

LisaW123

Carl31 wrote: »

does this apply to other areas, such as health?

for example, if i see a fat person in macdonlads stuffing their face, can i take their food away as i dont want to foot their NHS bill for their heart attack? or can i pull fags out of peoples mouths so i dont have to pay for their cancer treatment?

Lifestyle factors contribute to many illnesses. I believe some treatment is already rationed for smokers and the obese, who can be denied certain surgery if they don't give up smoking or lose weight.

Maybe the NI system should be structured in such a way that we pay for the risks we choose to take. In the same way, people can support their own offspring and pay NI and tax so they can take out of the pot in times of hardship or illness. I don't think hardship or illness includes the choice of a life of benefits, then choosing to have kids and claiming more benefits for them.

Another radical thought, we should only be allowed to take out if we have paid in.