Budget

yorknomore said:
But that's your choice and a choice you have made, you are making the mistake of assuming everyone can think like you even to the extent of an hormonal woman with a thundering biological clock driven to have children whatever the price can be advised that she can't afford to have children , that just doesn't work and it never will. I am not disagreeing with you in your circumstances but your circumstances aren't the circumstances of everybody.
Click to expand...
But society will pay for the first two.

I'm not sure the selfish hormonal urge to have the third, fourth or fifth is something society should pay for though.

I'd much rather have an extra few billion invested into scientific grants.
 
yorknomore said:
That is still in effect saying that if you are fortunate to have the money then you can have more children, in my opinion it's wrong. Being priced out of a basic instinct like children by people who can afford to have as many as they want isn't democracy it's horrific ~runs around the room clutching at pearls and screaming "Think of the children !".
Click to expand...

I think a roof over ones head is a basic right - I wouldn't expect the state to fund me to live in a five bed detached house in some leafy suburb. If i want that I get my head down and study, work hard, save up - ACT FUCKING RESPONSIBLY - and get that 5 bed detached house I wanted. The state will provide me with the means to obtain basic shelter, but if i want anything else i will need to pull my finger out.

Having children is a basic right - doesn't mean the government should fund me to have as many children as I want. We'll support you and yours to have 2 children, after that you're on your own mate - you want more money to have more kids? Well then, I suggest you get your head down and study, work hard, save up - ACT FUCKING RESPONSIBLY - and have as many kids as you want.
 
JoeMercer'sWay said:
Compared to me, SWP's Back gets a bedroom workout comparable to a never-ending Bill DeMott Tough Enough training session.
Click to expand...

Yeah but compared to you Mother Teresa got a bedroom workout comparable to a never-ending Bill DeMott Tough Enough training session
 
SWP's back said:
But society will pay for the first two.

I'm not sure the selfish hormonal urge to have the third, fourth or fifth is something society should pay for though.

I'd much rather have an extra few billion invested into scientific grants.
Click to expand...

Respect your opinion and your decision for you but I can't agree with it. The weird thing about society today is one half of the country want uncontrolled immigration to pay for our pensions and the other half want the incumbent population to stop breeding if they are poor. We are living in a divided society and I don't want to see it further divided by affordability birthing.
 
yorknomore said:
But that's your choice and a choice you have made, you are making the mistake of assuming everyone can think like you even to the extent of an hormonal woman with a thundering biological clock driven to have children whatever the price can be advised that she can't afford to have children , that just doesn't work and it never will. I am not disagreeing with you in your circumstances but your circumstances aren't the circumstances of everybody.
Click to expand...

That's the issue I have. As a society we can't let children suffer so we have to support them when their parents simply can't afford to do so themselves. However that doesn't mean the actions of the parents in having the children in the first place aren't selfish and ill advised. Having kids you can't afford simply because you know society is going to bail you out and assist in supporting them isn't really an acceptable decision for anyone to make. People have the right to have as many kids as they want, it's their own free will, I wouldn't want to prevent that. However what they DON'T (or rather shouldn't) have the right to do is to force other people to work hard, and pay their taxes, to support the many, many kids they decide to have because they want them. People take advantage of the fact they live in a western society, a relatively caring society, where we try not to leave anyone behind (whilst realising we do, sometimes, fail). I'll tell you something, if there was literally no support for parents from the government, no hand outs or subsidies, you'd be amazed how many of these kids people "just had to have" were never actually created in the first place. People have the ability to control themselves when it comes to procreation, they just chose not to when they live in a society with our moral position.
 
The Northern Baptist said:
I think a roof over ones head is a basic right - I wouldn't expect the state to fund me to live in a five bed detached house in some leafy suburb. If i want that I get my head down and study, work hard, save up - ACT FUCKING RESPONSIBLY - and get that 5 bed detached house I wanted. The state will provide me with the means to obtain basic shelter, but if i want anything else i will need to pull my finger out.

Having children is a basic right - doesn't mean the government should fund me to have as many children as I want. We'll support you and yours to have 2 children, after that you're on your own mate - you want more money to have more kids? Well then, I suggest you get your head down and study, work hard, save up - ACT FUCKING RESPONSIBLY - and have as many kids as you want.
Click to expand...

Not everyone who is on welfare are having tons of children you're talking about a very small number. More people are on some kind of welfare in this country than are not would you suggest they stop having children? Let's be honest this opinion is just aimed at the poor isn't it? Which is shameful.
 
Matty said:
That's the issue I have. As a society we can't let children suffer so we have to support them when their parents simply can't afford to do so themselves. However that doesn't mean the actions of the parents in having the children in the first place aren't selfish and ill advised. Having kids you can't afford simply because you know society is going to bail you out and assist in supporting them isn't really an acceptable decision for anyone to make. People have the right to have as many kids as they want, it's their own free will, I wouldn't want to prevent that. However what they DON'T (or rather shouldn't) have the right to do is to force other people to work hard, and pay their taxes, to support the many, many kids they decide to have because they want them. People take advantage of the fact they live in a western society, a relatively caring society, where we try not to leave anyone behind (whilst realising we do, sometimes, fail). I'll tell you something, if there was literally no support for parents from the government, no hand outs or subsidies, you'd be amazed how many of these kids people "just had to have" were never actually created in the first place. People have the ability to control themselves when it comes to procreation, they just chose not to when they live in a society with our moral position.
Click to expand...

My stance isn't really about population because we have too many people on this earth never mind the country. My issue is the affordability considering so many people are connected to the teat of welfare,since the cap of child benefit the middle earners now have an axe to grind and they are definitely grinding it.
 
yorknomore said:
Not everyone who is on welfare are having tons of children you're talking about a very small number. More people are on some kind of welfare in this country than are not would you suggest they stop having children? Let's be honest this opinion is just aimed at the poor isn't it? Which is shameful.
Click to expand...

Not really,its aimed at people who are in desperate positions and are having more and more children with no way of paying for it apart from going cap in hand to the state. My whole point is around making people be more responsible.

My problem is with people who do this.

This isn't even up for debate anymore, the chancellor has acted and this is happening. end of story.
 
yorknomore said:
Respect your opinion and your decision for you but I can't agree with it. The weird thing about society today is one half of the country want uncontrolled immigration to pay for our pensions and the other half want the incumbent population to stop breeding if they are poor. We are living in a divided society and I don't want to see it further divided by affordability birthing.
Click to expand...
I actually live in a country where I'd get fuck all. If I couldn't support them then it's my problem and if I lose my job I get deported.

I guess that just makes me act responsibly.
 
The Northern Baptist said:
Not really,its aimed at people who are in desperate positions and are having more and more children with no way of paying for it apart from going cap in hand to the state. My whole point is around making people be more responsible.

My problem is with people who do this.

This isn't even up for debate anymore, the chancellor has acted and this is happening. end of story.
Click to expand...

It isn't the end of story at all it's just the beginning just like the Fox hunting bill is having another looksie. Once the child poverty lobbyists get stuck into them it'll revert back in a few years.
 
SWP's back said:
I actually live in a country where I'd get fuck all. If I couldn't support them then it's my problem and if I lose my job I get deported.

I guess that just makes me act responsibly.
Click to expand...

If everyone acted responsibly the birthrate would plummet and we'd have to do what every country with a small birthrate has to do which is import more and more people...hold on I haven't thought this through have I?
 
Rascal said:
What happens if you are a devout Catholic and dont believe in contraception
Click to expand...

There is an alternative method of contraception that would not anger God. Besides, why should I pay for somebody else's sprogs because they believe in some made-up sky fairy?
 
The woman with 5 kids (and others like
her ), had them when the state was paying for them. What happens when she is only given the means to look after 2 of them? Will 3 be taken from her.? Will they all end up neglected and malnourished? Will she have to get a job that covers enough to live and pay for childcare for 5 kids?
It's as unworkable as Ian Duncan Smith's plan from a few years ago to not give pregnant young women a flat. The frothing masses applauded him for it. That was until some people pointed out that some of those girls were having a shit time at home and saw getting pregnant as the only escape route. So what would he do? Tell them they had to like it or lump it? Let them have the child and take it from them?
Even he and his mates aren't that fucking dickensian.
It's just soundbites and clichés to satisfy people who are fortunate enough not to rely on help from the state.
 
2sheikhs said:
The woman with 5 kids (and others like
her ), had them when the state was paying for them. What happens when she is only given the means to look after 2 of them? Will 3 be taken from her.? Will they all end up neglected and malnourished? Will she have to get a job that covers enough to live and pay for childcare for 5 kids?
It's as unworkable as Ian Duncan Smith's plan from a few years ago to not give pregnant young women a flat. The frothing masses applauded him for it. That was until some people pointed out that some of those girls were having a shit time at home and saw getting pregnant as the only escape route. So what would he do? Tell them they had to like it or lump it? Let them have the child and take it from them?
Even he and his mates aren't that fucking dickensian.
It's just soundbites and clichés to satisfy people who are fortunate enough not to rely on help from the state.
Click to expand...

That's about the long and the short of it, as Jeff Goldblum would say.

tumblr_lwd1z4cfne1qmaa05o1_500.jpg



And as for the budget how can this even be possible?

Recipients of the Victoria Cross and George Cross will see annual pension annuities rise from £2,129 to £10,000, paid for by bank fines. Government to fund memorial to victims of terrorism overseas
Click to expand...

How much do the govt fine banks? It's in the millions maybe hundreds of millions and they are going to fund this incentive by using fines levied from banks? A piss in the ocean.
 
2sheikhs said:
The woman with 5 kids (and others like
her ), had them when the state was paying for them. What happens when she is only given the means to look after 2 of them? Will 3 be taken from her.? Will they all end up neglected and malnourished? Will she have to get a job that covers enough to live and pay for childcare for 5 kids?
It's as unworkable as Ian Duncan Smith's plan from a few years ago to not give pregnant young women a flat. The frothing masses applauded him for it. That was until some people pointed out that some of those girls were having a shit time at home and saw getting pregnant as the only escape route. So what would he do? Tell them they had to like it or lump it? Let them have the child and take it from them?
Even he and his mates aren't that fucking dickensian.
It's just soundbites and clichés to satisfy people who are fortunate enough not to rely on help from the state.
Click to expand...

That's why it only applies to those born after April 2017.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33440315
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top