mexico1970
Well-Known Member
I like what this Labour government is doing so far.
The Labour Government
- Thread starter SkyBlueFlux
- Start date
Zuriblue
Well-Known Member
Same sense of whiny entitlement that we saw on RAWK and Rag Café after we started winning things again.
babyape
Well-Known Member
Blue Maverick
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 6 Aug 2010
- Messages
- 20,975
Not in certain sections of the community in Oldham it isn’t! How do people feel about the 2 kid benefit cap, I’m all for it, I saw some nonsense were a woman says it’s oppressing her, telling females how many kids they can reproduce, what absolute bollocks you can have as many kids as you want just don’t expect the state to pay for anymore above 2. It shouldn’t be retrospective obviously, but if you choose to have more then you need to pay for it.
BrianW
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 6 Mar 2006
- Messages
- 5,723
- Team supported
- There's Only One City
We are not replacing ourselves. Last I heard the replacement rate was 2.1 children per woman on average, and we are producing 1.6.
I'd bet £50 that the people most exercised about not giving 'handouts' to children are also the ones most exercised about immigration. But as a declining population creates numerous economic problems, immigration is inevitable unless we start replacing ourselves.
There are all sorts of reasons why fewer children are being born. Better contraception. Better education for women (shocking!) giving them alternative options. Poor economic times leading to a sense of insecurity. But a major reason is simply inadequate incomes. Contrary to what the Daily Mail thinks the majority of people are not irresponsible. They work to what they can afford.
These are hard times. Not only do I have to decant my own port these days, but the duty on a decent bottle is scandalous. But it's short-sighted to limit families at a time when we are not replacing ourselves. Of course, many don't give a fuck as they reckon they've only got 10-20 years. So they want lower taxes, for them, now, and who cares what happens in the medium or long term?
I'd bet £50 that the people most exercised about not giving 'handouts' to children are also the ones most exercised about immigration. But as a declining population creates numerous economic problems, immigration is inevitable unless we start replacing ourselves.
There are all sorts of reasons why fewer children are being born. Better contraception. Better education for women (shocking!) giving them alternative options. Poor economic times leading to a sense of insecurity. But a major reason is simply inadequate incomes. Contrary to what the Daily Mail thinks the majority of people are not irresponsible. They work to what they can afford.
These are hard times. Not only do I have to decant my own port these days, but the duty on a decent bottle is scandalous. But it's short-sighted to limit families at a time when we are not replacing ourselves. Of course, many don't give a fuck as they reckon they've only got 10-20 years. So they want lower taxes, for them, now, and who cares what happens in the medium or long term?
Last edited:
Mr Kobayashi
Well-Known Member
And what about people who have a change in circumstances after they have had more than two children?
E.g. father and main or solo earner commits suicide due to clinical depression he hid from his wife and life insurance doesn't pay out.
BobKowalski
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 17 May 2007
- Messages
- 20,218
The flaw in the economic argument is that it equally applies to the first and second child. Why are you having any children if you cant afford it? Why is the state paying to support your first born? A cap is arbitrary. You either have state support for children or you don’t.
If you do have state support then penalising a third child - and by extension the first two children because there is less to go around - make no sense. Why are you penalising children at all. The state has no business punishing children for the crime of existing.
As a country, our birth rate is slipping year by year. People moan about immigration and then cheer suppression of the birth rate which will lead to greater immigration. It is incoherent nonsense.
The two cap policy will eventually go. It is bad policy and dumb.
People's lives change, and not always in a positive way.
So, what if you have 3 or 4 kids in a loving family. The father was the main bread winner, and he dies. Or perhaps he just meets someone else and leaves you? Or he could lose his job and struggle to find a new one, or perhaps he has an accident, or gets cancer, and can't work? What if a family member gets ill and you have to care for them, and can't work as many hours? What if you had a good job, but the father leaves, dies or has an accident/illness, and you have to give you up your job to look after the kids?
Would you feel happy telling anyone in the situations above that, although there's a minimum amount that the government thinks they need to provide for their children, they won't get it? To me, it sounds like most of those situations are exactly where we should be stepping in and providing support.
And if you think that we instead have some rules to separate out the more undeserving parents, then you're on a very slippery slope, and you'll soon discover that people have very complex lives, and you'll struggle to define rules that could ever be objectively "fair".
hilts
Well-Known Member
Only in Wetherspoons, first round before everyone else has turned up, like fucking Usain Bolt out of the taxi.
I'll get em lads will give you the taxi money when I get change.
He never does, he never does.
TinFoilHat
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 26 Jan 2023
- Messages
- 23,326
- Team supported
- Manchester City
Surely that's a mark of his good character that he drinks with us plebs in such nefarious hostileries?