Deleted

LydiaJ

antrobus wrote: »

No, the teaching assistant that lives with a civil servant in Christchurch only have three kids - they're a different couple from the garage worker who lives with the business student in Southwark who have managed four so far.

Of course they're complaining! Don't you understand that adequate housing is a basic human right, and these people's rights are being grossly violated?

No, it's from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. Clearly the more children you have, the greater your needs, irrespective of your ability.

Come the revolution we shall all have free houses in Dorset! I'm sure it's in the manifesto somewhere.

michaels wrote: »

So there is a basic human right to something which over the world population as a whole probably can't be supported by the world's income (where adequate housing is at the level you appear to be suggesting). SO how does that work, every citizen of the world has a right to something the world collectively can not provide?

Does this mean that you voluntarily give up all your income beyond what you consider the minimum standard of living to the govt ensure as many other people as possible can exercise their right?

I read antrobus's post as sarcastic. S/he cannot literally mean that we shall all have free houses in Dorset come the revolution, so I doubt that s/he means the rest of it literally either.

pqrdef

ILW wrote: »

In general, professors will tend to spawn intelligent kids, whilst chavs will tend to spawn more chavs.

Not so long ago, many professors had working-class parents. When paths for social mobility have existed, there's rarely been a shortage of takers.

But if you send chav kids to sink schools, they're unlikely to overcome the disadvantage.

Which goes back to my earlier question, that went unanswered. Should only the well-off be allowed to breed? Otherwise, what do we do about the absurd fact that most people nowadays can't afford to raise their own children without State subsidy through education and the NHS? It's a relatively modern problem.

And how much smaller could the despised public sector be, if we had a more equitable distribution of gross income, instead of the absurd situation where we pay people far too much, and then have to take the money off them and redistribute it?

ILW

pqrdef wrote: »

Not so long ago, many professors had working-class parents. When paths for social mobility have existed, there's rarely been a shortage of takers.

But if you send chav kids to sink schools, they're unlikely to overcome the disadvantage.

Which goes back to my earlier question, that went unanswered. Should only the well-off be allowed to breed? Otherwise, what do we do about the absurd fact that most people nowadays can't afford to raise their own children without State subsidy through education and the NHS? It's a relatively modern problem.

And how much smaller could the despised public sector be, if we had a more equitable distribution of gross income, instead of the absurd situation where we pay people far too much, and then have to take the money off them and redistribute it?

The less well off should be "allowed" to breed. But those that obviously have no chance to support their offspring should not be actively encouraged to have large families for financial reward.

You also refer to working class, whereas the biggest breeders tend to be the lifetime benefits class.

LydiaJ

pqrdef wrote: »

Not so long ago, many professors had working-class parents. When paths for social mobility have existed, there's rarely been a shortage of takers.

But if you send chav kids to sink schools, they're unlikely to overcome the disadvantage.

Which goes back to my earlier question, that went unanswered. Should only the well-off be allowed to breed? Otherwise, what do we do about the absurd fact that most people nowadays can't afford to raise their own children without State subsidy through education and the NHS? It's a relatively modern problem.

And how much smaller could the despised public sector be, if we had a more equitable distribution of gross income, instead of the absurd situation where we pay people far too much, and then have to take the money off them and redistribute it?

I think lots of people are quite happy to pay taxes to fund other people's healthcare (and their own when they need it) and other people's children's education (because having all children educated is good for the nation as a whole). A lot fewer people are happy to pay taxes to fund other people's housing (especially in central London) and other people's general living expenses (other than in the short term when people have fallen on hard times and are doing what they can to sort things out, or people like SingleSue in exceptional circumstances).

michaels

I am uncomfortable saying this but if my parents both have dark hair then I am mor elikely to have dark hair and I would suspect there is something similar with intelligence (note I am not saying that it is a direct causal relationship, just as with hair colour it is just about likelihoods not certainties. Nor am I saying that one individual can be indentified as being more worthwhile than another. However I am sure in a strictly enomic sense some people are more of benefit to the economy than others and that it is not impossible that parental income might be a statistically significant predictor of this.

Currently the system would give the appearance of allowing thos eon the highest income to have as many children as they wanted, similarly for those on the lowest income but for those above the benfits line but not wealthy the system applies harsh financial disincentives to having children, and maybe many in this category would like to have more children but chose not to because of the financil cost. I am not sure that is fair.

pqrdef wrote: »

Not so long ago, many professors had working-class parents. When paths for social mobility have existed, there's rarely been a shortage of takers.

But if you send chav kids to sink schools, they're unlikely to overcome the disadvantage.

Which goes back to my earlier question, that went unanswered. Should only the well-off be allowed to breed? Otherwise, what do we do about the absurd fact that most people nowadays can't afford to raise their own children without State subsidy through education and the NHS? It's a relatively modern problem.

And how much smaller could the despised public sector be, if we had a more equitable distribution of gross income, instead of the absurd situation where we pay people far too much, and then have to take the money off them and redistribute it?

MacMickster

LydiaJ wrote: »

I think lots of people are quite happy to pay taxes to fund other people's healthcare (and their own when they need it) and other people's children's education (because having all children educated is good for the nation as a whole). A lot fewer people are happy to pay taxes to fund other people's housing (especially in central London) and other people's general living expenses (other than in the short term when people have fallen on hard times and are doing what they can to sort things out, or people like SingleSue in exceptional circumstances).

Taxation is the price of a civilised society, and all but a few right wing nutters believe that society should use their taxes to support those who are UNABLE to support themselves.

All but a few left wing nutters believe that this should not be extended to those who simply can't be a!sed to support themselves, nor to keep people in a lifestyle which those paying taxes can't afford themselves.

Somewhere along the line the entitlement culture perverted the welfare state, and this is what most people object to.

pqrdef

LydiaJ wrote: »

I think lots of people are quite happy to pay taxes to fund other people's healthcare (and their own when they need it) and other people's children's education (because having all children educated is good for the nation as a whole). A lot fewer people are happy to pay taxes to fund other people's housing (especially in central London) and other people's general living expenses

I don't see the logic. Why should I be concerned whether somebody's kid is schooled if I don't care whether she's fed and clothed and housed?

When State education started, it was expected that parents would look after their own kids, but that's because they could. It was never the idea that education should take priority over basic welfare.

Percy1983

As a few of us keep saying we are not saying stop poorer people having children, we are just stop rewarding them for having more children.

Yes I agree now child should live in poverty, but if you didn't get more money or a bigger how many would have less children... therefore leading to less children living in poverty.

To put it simply all benefit based around children should be stopped after 2 children, you wan more you pay for them, quite simple.

macaque_2

Idiophreak wrote: »

I find it quite interesting...when I think of having children, I think of two things:

1) What kind of life could I give them? Do I have the money to give them the type of home they need, will we have stability for them, am I smart enough and know enough about the world to teach them everything they need to know?

2) Am I really awesome enough that the world needs more of me?

Quite seriously, those are my top two considerations...but they seem to be things that a lot of parents don't even give a second thought to...I just don't understand it.

Good post. So why don't people give thought to their responsibilities? In my view there are three problems:

Hampstead socialists - They have become an extremely powerful lobby group through their media connections. They are the defenders of the fec!less and campaign vigourously against all rational policies to get people to stand on their own two feet and run their own lives.

Governments and particularly the recent Labour government - The have aquired a fetish for controlling people's lives and when they do that people stop making decisions for themselves. As their ill considered social experiments go wrong, they have tried to buy their way out of trouble with social provisions which simply create new moral hazards.

Theresa May - For generations, the UK polical process has been an equilibrium where Labour played Lady Bountiful for a few years followed by the conservatives would repair the damage. Theresa May did untold damage with her stupid comment about the "nasty party". This idea caught hold and the Conservatives have now become 'Labour Lite". We no longer have a political party with the backbone to correct severe structural problems in the UK.

LydiaJ

pqrdef wrote: »

I don't see the logic. Why should I be concerned whether somebody's kid is schooled if I don't care whether she's fed and clothed and housed?

When State education started, it was expected that parents would look after their own kids, but that's because they could. It was never the idea that education should take priority over basic welfare.

I'm not saying that poor children should be educated but sleep in the gutter and starve in rags. I'm saying that we should be aiming for a society in which poor families generally pay for their own food, clothing and rent (even if that means not living in central London), although nobody expects them to be able to afford private healthcare or school fees. Welfare for food and housing should be a safety net, not a lifestyle choice. But human nature is what it is, and if you provide a safety net, there will always be some who will treat it as a hammock.

MacMickster has already expressed what I think (and lots of other people think too) with admirable clarity:

MacMickster wrote: »

Taxation is the price of a civilised society, and all but a few right wing nutters believe that society should use their taxes to support those who are UNABLE to support themselves.

All but a few left wing nutters believe that this should not be extended to those who simply can't be a!sed to support themselves, nor to keep people in a lifestyle which those paying taxes can't afford themselves.

Somewhere along the line the entitlement culture perverted the welfare state, and this is what most people object to.