Deleted

bankhater_1965

Tiddlywinks wrote: »

Eh... 'have children regardless'? Even if those children follow in their parents' footsteps and never get a job? How will that help to pay for my state pension?

I'm not shifting the blame, I'm placing the blame - there's a difference... you see, some of us have made hard life choices based on real life so why shouldn't we get to point the finger at those that spend their lives failing to take responsibility for their own actions?

i myself have also made hard life choices and your point is ? thats your choice , but you cannot shoot down people who have not, and cannot get work through no fault of there own and cannot blame people for a comfy life on benifits if they want to !and i guess they can make that choice by having good benifit payments paid by a goverment YOU prob elected, i myself am not a polictal voter as i happen to see all ends to all the troubles, you must also accept that those people on benifits regardless of why never benifited from the boom years like yourself did and me, and these people never came to conversation, now goverments are trying to cut spending all of a sudden they are to partly blame and everyone is blaming them apart from themselves

Percy1983

This is quite simple we pay for 2 children, if they manage a budget and can have 3 so be it, but if they place cider and xbox games above the children and then can't feed the children due to it then its child abuse, so take one of said children off them and they will be able to feed the other 2 and keep there cider and xbox or they can give up a few things to feed the third child they decided to have.

Quasar

bankhater_1965 wrote: »

i myself have also made hard life choices and your point is ? thats your choice , but you cannot shoot down people who have not, and cannot get work through no fault of there own and cannot blame people for a comfy life on benifits if they want to !and i guess they can make that choice by having good benifit payments paid by a goverment YOU prob elected, i myself am not a polictal voter as i happen to see all ends to all the troubles, you must also accept that those people on benifits regardless of why never benifed from the boom years like yourself did and me, and these people never came to conversation, now goverments are trying to cut spending all of a sudden they are to partly blame and everyone is blaming them apart from themselves

Oh yes we can blame them, if they are on a "comfy life on benefits because they want to". We can blame them to the point that the electorate will choose a government that will insist people who are able to, will have to choose to contribute to society instead of expecting society to keep them.

Incidentally, nobody here is saying that those who genuinely cannot work should not be assisted. Why ignore this important fact? Not convenient, perhaps?

Percy1983

bankhater_1965 wrote: »

i myself have also made hard life choices and your point is ? thats your choice , but you cannot shoot down people who have not, and cannot get work through no fault of there own and cannot blame people for a comfy life on benifits if they want to !and i guess they can make that choice by having good benifit payments paid by a goverment YOU prob elected, i myself am not a polictal voter as i happen to see all ends to all the troubles, you must also accept that those people on benifits regardless of why never benifited from the boom years like yourself did and me, and these people never came to conversation, now goverments are trying to cut spending all of a sudden they are to partly blame and everyone is blaming them apart from themselves

Green = Fair enough
Red = how are they not to blame they decided not to work?

bankhater_1965

Percy1983 wrote: »

Green = Fair enough
Red = how are they not to blame they decided not to work?

because the goverment or goverments have made it an easy choice for them by paying generous pennies to them why else ?
why go out to work for less
the whole benifit system should of began on a meens tested application and why it has not is simply because its a vote loser to whoever inpliments it

Quasar

bankhater_1965 wrote: »

because the goverment or goverments have made it an easy choice for them by paying generous pennies to them why else ?
why go out to work for less
the whole benifit system should of began on a meens tested application and why it has not is simply because its a vote loser to whoever inpliments it

That is true. However it doesn't absolve people of responsibility when choosing not to work because it is easier.

MacMickster

bankhater_1965 wrote: »

because the goverment or goverments have made it an easy choice for them by paying generous pennies to them why else ?
why go out to work for less

Pride, responsibility and aspiration spring to mind!

Why do any of us go out to work? Why do you?

lostinrates

Masomnia wrote: »

We see eugenics as a Bad Thing because we associate it with Nazism and Americans (and British?) sterilizing disabled people. Not sure if anyone has brought this up because I've only skimmed the thread, but Keynes was a eugenicist, as was Beveridge of the famous Beveridge report that more or less established the welfare state. They believed in incentivizing the propagation of the educated, middle classes.

Beveridge knew full well that the Family Allowance would encourage the less well off to have more children than the middle classes, even then they had the same problem that the educated middle classes were not having as many children as the working class. He went as far as to advocate paying a higher Family Allowance to well off people to encourage them to breed more. The way things have turned out shows his fears to be correct, in my opinion.

I wouldn't advocate paying higher child benefit to well off people (imagine the outcry!), but I think it should be scrapped all together. We just don't need it now. We don't have a shortage of low skilled workers generally, and where we do we have no shortage of migrant workers who are willing to do those jobs. We're running out of money as it is, and the situation is only going to get worse as people live longer, need more paying out to them, whilst having paid less in.

Peopledo react very violently to anything that has echoes of eugenics.

I have declined all fertility treatment depsite wanting a child very much because imo someone with health problems and unable to conceive naturally should consider their health in their decision to have a child. If i were a dog or a cat to breed from me would be considered reprehensible, as a human it is felt i should have the right to have a child, but to have a child with the knowledge it might inherit the genes that have let me down so badly seems the antithesis of parental love to me. This is still seen as a slightly 'off the wall' opinion, which seems odd as we learn more and more about gentics, and about things that can impact on a child in utero.

While i feel not having children sharply at times it seems uncomfortable to me that we have nhs fertility help but a postcode lottery for cancer treatments, or a lack of roll out of more advanced treatments lr parkinsons, for example. Noone wants to say it, because the right to parenthood is seen as so 'natural' and healthy.

Edit: i feel the same way aout being provident in otherways for a child. I cannot provide a likelihood of health, so i don't have one, if i could not provide LIKELIHOOD of financial, or eucational, or safety in my providencial ability i would not either.

bankhater_1965

MacMickster wrote: »

Pride, responsibility and aspiration spring to mind!

Why do any of us go out to work? Why do you?

pride responsibility aspiration went out years ago didnt it , i go out to work because my generation was differant , society was differant and i own my own business which i worked hard to build up , thats my reasons prob like yourself , but unfortunatly times have changed for right or wrong , thats how it is

pqrdef

antrobus wrote: »

Both Keynes and Beveridge were members of the Eugenics Society, but they were both Liberals, and were so comparatively, well, liberal when it came to eugenics. On the other hand eugenics was also pretty big on the left in the first half of the 20th C and they weren't that liberal about it. As in Sidney Webb, who virtually wrote the Labour Party constitution, and believed that the poor should be rounded up, placed in corrective camps, and forcibly sterilised. Such views were fairly commonplace on the left at one time, but became distinctly less so once the practical consequences of such notions became self evident round about 1945.

But none of them understood either genetics or socioeconomics. The population will distribute itself between classes not as determined by ancestors but as required by the socioeconomic system. If society needs an underclass, it will create one, and if it doesn't like the people and wipes them out, it will create another one, which won't be any better.

You could round up all the long-term benefit claimants and eliminate them, but if long-term unemployment continues to be a feature of the economy, you'll have another crop soon enough, and their attitudes won't be any different, irrespective of who their parents were or how they were brought up. It's the situation and the prospects that breed the attitudes.

We won't make progress until we stop blaming the unemployed for unemployment.