Child-related benefits may be 'capped' at two children

PaulF81

Moby wrote: »

The point is it dosn't cost more in the short term but in the long term. You are storing up trouble for the future because you are socially excluding whole sections of society who turn into the next decades rioters and burglars. People willl not 'just stop having them'. Having a kid is the only power some young women have. Its a way of getting attention or recognition. Stopping the benefit will just increase the problem and the child, (who after all is the victim in this) will suffer.

The state needs to declare them insane and cut her tubes then. If the do turn into burglars, all the better with the latest disproportionate force ruling.

The child wold never see any benefit from cb anyway, so why waste the cash?

Hooloovoo

Moby wrote: »

The point is it dosn't cost more in the short term but in the long term. You are storing up trouble for the future because you are socially excluding whole sections of society who turn into the next decades rioters and burglars.

Fine. Hang 'em.

People willl not 'just stop having them'. Having a kid is the only power some young women have. Its a way of getting attention or recognition. Stopping the benefit will just increase the problem and the child, (who after all is the victim in this) will suffer.

So long as there is a perceived benefit from having a child, a benefit that improves your quality of life, you are quite correct they will not "just stop having them".

Which is why the kids need to be taken away, so that the adult involved gets no benefit from having the child whatsoever. And I mean taken away the day of the birth, then they can be reminded of the address of the job centre and sent back home.

PaulF81

KevinRoberts wrote: »

I know it depends on what you define as poverty. Some say as long as your not starving to death and you have a bed to sleep in then you are not in poverty. On the other hand others say if you are earning less than minimum wage (as many self employed are) then you are in poverty.

I do not know the correct definition but I think you are wrong to say there is no poverty in the UK.

There are a unknown number of illegal's that are not entitled to any benefits sometimes dozens sleeping on the floor in a tiny room with not much food to go round them all.

There certainly is poverty in the UK.

They shouldn't be here in the first place, and to the end, I don't really care.

PaulF81

KevinRoberts wrote: »

The point is there is poverty in the UK for those who are not entitled to benefits.

There would be mass poverty without all the benefits being paid out every week, and this is unsustainable.

Will there be more poverty in the UK down the road? Yes the benefits system paying out so much is unsustainable and it therefor will not be sustained.

You could sort the deficit out by reducing their life expectancy. Either that or they could you know, keep their legs closed and get a job like the Rest of the civilised world do. They could even emigrate to find work abroad, or, failing that try some Low paid service sector work instead to leaving it to the poor immigrants to do.

GeorgeHowell

I hate to say it but eugenics may be the only answer. We are heading into reverse Darwinian evolution. Give it a few billion years and we'll revert to protoplasm.

grizzly1911

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

I hate to say it but eugenics may be the only answer. We are heading into reverse Darwinian evolution. Give it a few billion years and we'll revert to protoplasm.

The trouble is there would be eugenics for the poor and none for the rich.

Economic cleansing.

All well and good but the rich created the problem but don't lik the result..

Loughton_Monkey

grizzly1911 wrote: »

The trouble is there would be eugenics for the poor and none for the rich..

Wrong! Only the rich could afford it. The poor will just have to grin and bear life.

dori2o

PaulF81 wrote: »

You could sort the deficit out by reducing their life expectancy. Either that or they could you know, keep their legs closed and get a job like the Rest of the civilised world do. They could even emigrate to find work abroad, or, failing that try some Low paid service sector work instead to leaving it to the poor immigrants to do.

You could also sort the deficit out by closing the many tax loopholes and forcing those with the means to avoid tax, as well as those who evade tax, to pay their fair share.

N1AK

Moby wrote: »

People willl not 'just stop having them'. Having a kid is the only power some young women have. Its a way of getting attention or recognition. Stopping the benefit will just increase the problem and the child, (who after all is the victim in this) will suffer.

I think that is a sweeping statement to make given that you likely have no evidence or expertise to back it up. I think we will see a noticeable decrease in 3+ children families on benefits if this goes ahead; I doubt it will stop everyone and I don't think arbitrarily limiting benefits in this way is a good idea but I don't see the point in pretending it won't have any affect.

exarmydreamer

Someone might want to speak to the Catholic church and the pro life movement about the question of 'producing more or unwanted children'.

Most large families, I knew of were Catholic or pro life and used that as their stance.