Barry Sanchez Posted 30 October, 2013 Share Posted 30 October, 2013 Is there a case for the state now with issues of overpopulation on this Island that after the 2nd child that you pay for the 3rd and so on? Obviously there would be exceptions such as the first two the same sex etc etc but is it a viable option or even humane to do so in a democracy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Badger Posted 30 October, 2013 Share Posted 30 October, 2013 Yes - been advocating something like this for years. Child benefits cease after two. Third = no benefit, and benefits reduce thereafter. How we have got into a situation where sponging pond life(s) have multiple offspring and see it as the states responsibility to fund them is beyond me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Bateman Posted 30 October, 2013 Share Posted 30 October, 2013 Yes, agreed. Benefit should stop after the 2nd child. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 30 October, 2013 Share Posted 30 October, 2013 And if the second child (and third) is a twin? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wurzel Posted 30 October, 2013 Share Posted 30 October, 2013 Twins not a problem. Just pay a maximum 2 children. Doesn't really matter how/when born. One of Barry's better posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 30 October, 2013 Share Posted 30 October, 2013 This small island is unquestionably crowded enough already so I have some sympathy with the OP on this issue. However people will continue having children regardless of the prevailing tax/befit policy so the effect of this idea may well be to impoverish future generations of our children - lets face it we're talking about working class children here in the main who are already quite disadvantaged enough in life many would say. Do we really want to see again hungry and shoeless kids running about the streets of this nation as if we were back in Victorian times? For that matter do we want to see a huge rise in the number of abortions? On a personal note, had this policy been put in place back in 1963 I myself might not be here to debate the subject with you all - and I think we can all agree that would be a very bad thing indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 30 October, 2013 Share Posted 30 October, 2013 Twins not a problem. Just pay a maximum 2 children. Doesn't really matter how/when born. One of Barry's better posts. But if twins were unplanned? I'll tell you a quick story. I know of a family who had a little boy. When he was 3 they decided to have a second child and that would be it. They waited until he was 3 so that by the time the second child was 1, their son would be in school (no more nursery fees for him) but they could afford to pay nursery fees for that second child and both parents could carry on working full time. But, to their great surprise, their second 'child' turned out to be two children. Once the twins were 1, they couldn't afford for both of them to work full or even part time because they couldn't afford two lots of nursery fees (at £80 a day each). They didn't PLAN to have two MORE children; they would have been able to afford nursery fees and, therefore, both work full time had they had only had the one. What would be their solution if your measures were to be in place? Abort one of the unborn twins? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alain Perrin Posted 30 October, 2013 Share Posted 30 October, 2013 I'd favour some way of limiting what you can spend child benefit on (eg. Children's clothes / essentials). I do think people take the **** with it - it shouldn't be for Sky for example. I'm a leftie at heart but one of the better things this government has done is to restrict child benefit for higher earners. They should do the same for other benefits such as winter fuel, bus pass etc. Sent from my RM-821_eu_euro1_276 using Board Express Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tractor_Saint Posted 30 October, 2013 Share Posted 30 October, 2013 Initially read this and thought of a Chinese state but the more I think about it the more I agree. There always needs to be an 'exception' list but that list needs to be those who have had twins+ as their second child naturally or on IVF which should be accepted but after that no benefits for additional children. I've got a feeling though the majority of our tax payments assigned to child benefits are those with 1 or 2 children who have no interest whatsoever in working and regardless whether it's 1 or 10 children they would never do a days work in their life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 30 October, 2013 Share Posted 30 October, 2013 We need our cereal packet families to more than replicate themselves or there won't be enough working people in years to come to pay for our state pensions and other benefits such as the NHS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tractor_Saint Posted 30 October, 2013 Share Posted 30 October, 2013 (edited) We need our cereal packet families to more than replicate themselves or there won't be enough working people in years to come to pay for our state pensions and other benefits such as the NHS And there in lies the issue. How will we get them to pay for us in years to come when we give their parent(s) all they want for sitting on their arse(s) and doing nothing day in and day out. We need to instil that state benefits are not a given. Edited 30 October, 2013 by Tractor_Saint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 30 October, 2013 Share Posted 30 October, 2013 And there in lies the issue. How will we get them to pay for us in years to come when we give their parent(s) all they want for sitting on their arse(s) and doing nothing day in and day out. My (married and full time working) daughters get child benefit for their children. I'm sure they've forgotten where their arses are as they never have time to sit on them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tractor_Saint Posted 30 October, 2013 Share Posted 30 October, 2013 My (married and full time working) daughters get child benefit for their children. I'm sure they've forgotten where their arses are as they never have time to sit on them. You're taking this out of context. I was talking about those unemployed folks who claim child benefit and continue to replicate with no expectation of going to work because the benefit system pays them more than they can get if they worked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colinjb Posted 30 October, 2013 Share Posted 30 October, 2013 You're taking this out of context. I was talking about those unemployed folks who claim child benefit and continue to replicate with no expectation of going to work because the benefit system pays them more than they can get if they worked. Yes, the loophole that provides those with no intention of working money for reproduction needs to be shut. As with other benefits it's ensuring that those who genuinely are trying to pull their weight are not disadvantaged as a result. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horley CTFC Saint Posted 30 October, 2013 Share Posted 30 October, 2013 Why not give any after the first two to the Romas to ship out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smirking_Saint Posted 30 October, 2013 Share Posted 30 October, 2013 Is there a case for the state now with issues of overpopulation on this Island that after the 2nd child that you pay for the 3rd and so on? Obviously there would be exceptions such as the first two the same sex etc etc but is it a viable option or even humane to do so in a democracy? I agree completely Having a third should IMO be a financial opinion for the family. Plenty of free contraception and education on the subject Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smirking_Saint Posted 30 October, 2013 Share Posted 30 October, 2013 And if the second child (and third) is a twin? Then you get the cheapest free ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcjwills Posted 31 October, 2013 Share Posted 31 October, 2013 I agree completely Having a third should IMO be a financial opinion for the family. Plenty of free contraception and education on the subject unless your a devout catholic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pugwash Posted 31 October, 2013 Share Posted 31 October, 2013 unless your a devout catholic Are you saying that devout Catholics can't be educated? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wurzel Posted 31 October, 2013 Share Posted 31 October, 2013 But if twins were unplanned? I'll tell you a quick story. I know of a family who had a little boy. When he was 3 they decided to have a second child and that would be it. They waited until he was 3 so that by the time the second child was 1, their son would be in school (no more nursery fees for him) but they could afford to pay nursery fees for that second child and both parents could carry on working full time. But, to their great surprise, their second 'child' turned out to be two children. Once the twins were 1, they couldn't afford for both of them to work full or even part time because they couldn't afford two lots of nursery fees (at £80 a day each). They didn't PLAN to have two MORE children; they would have been able to afford nursery fees and, therefore, both work full time had they had only had the one. What would be their solution if your measures were to be in place? Abort one of the unborn twins? The solution would be for them to decide what gives the best outcome for them and their family. I accept that their situation was unfortunate, and would be even more so if a max 2 qualifying children was implemented. BUT doesn't matter what situations are implemented in any walk of life there will always be some who lose out. It's unfortunate to lose a job, be born with a disability, be 11th in line for an emergency operation when the hospital can only handle 10 a day, the list is endless. We will NEVER live in a world where someone somewhere isn't disadvantaged by something. On the whole only paying CB for max 2 children sounds a fair system, (provided it is only amended for future births, not existing children) until there comes a time that our population needs to expand (unlikely, barring major war or uncontrollable disease) and then it could be increased to encourage extra births. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anothersaintinsouthsea Posted 31 October, 2013 Share Posted 31 October, 2013 Interesting topic. Not seen anyone so far link this to immigration. If it wasn't for immigration over the last decade or so then policy makers would actually be looking at trying to increase the birth-rate to offset the impact of an ageing population - the opposite of the consensus in the thread. It may sometimes seem like a squeeze in the UK but we must avoid at all costs what is happening in Japan where the birth rate is something like 1.3 and tax payers are becoming an increasingly small section of society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 31 October, 2013 Share Posted 31 October, 2013 Interesting topic. Not seen anyone so far link this to immigration. If it wasn't for immigration over the last decade or so then policy makers would actually be looking at trying to increase the birth-rate to offset the impact of an ageing population - the opposite of the consensus in the thread. It may sometimes seem like a squeeze in the UK but we must avoid at all costs what is happening in Japan where the birth rate is something like 1.3 and tax payers are becoming an increasingly small section of society. Indeed. The Chinese tried the one child per family on a grand scale. It's really biting them now, especially as culturally, the young have looked after the old. They simply don't have the familial numbers to support their elderly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dellboypete Posted 31 October, 2013 Share Posted 31 October, 2013 Interesting topic. Not seen anyone so far link this to immigration. If it wasn't for immigration over the last decade or so then policy makers would actually be looking at trying to increase the birth-rate to offset the impact of an ageing population - the opposite of the consensus in the thread. It may sometimes seem like a squeeze in the UK but we must avoid at all costs what is happening in Japan where the birth rate is something like 1.3 and tax payers are becoming an increasingly small section of society. Did anyone see the programme last week "No sex please, we're Japanese?" addressed this very point (mentioned on another thread somewhere) - if the current drop in birth rate continues then the Japanese population is going to shrink rapidly - by 20 million in 40 years or so (can't remember exactly - or even near). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anothersaintinsouthsea Posted 31 October, 2013 Share Posted 31 October, 2013 Did anyone see the programme last week "No sex please, we're Japanese?" addressed this very point (mentioned on another thread somewhere) - if the current drop in birth rate continues then the Japanese population is going to shrink rapidly - by 20 million in 40 years or so (can't remember exactly - or even near). Yes fascinating insight into this particular problem and their culture in general. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatch Posted 31 October, 2013 Share Posted 31 October, 2013 long term unemployed should be neutered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grey Crab Posted 31 October, 2013 Share Posted 31 October, 2013 I think the answer to overpopulation is to humanely destroy a pointless adult whenever a new child is born. The authorities could do worse than to read posts on here to find some of the country's most pointless adults. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 31 October, 2013 Share Posted 31 October, 2013 I think the answer to overpopulation is to humanely destroy a pointless adult whenever a new child is born. The authorities could do worse than to read posts on here to find some of the country's most pointless adults. So angry Deppo; so angry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 31 October, 2013 Share Posted 31 October, 2013 But if twins were unplanned? I'll tell you a quick story. I know of a family who had a little boy. When he was 3 they decided to have a second child and that would be it. They waited until he was 3 so that by the time the second child was 1, their son would be in school (no more nursery fees for him) but they could afford to pay nursery fees for that second child and both parents could carry on working full time. But, to their great surprise, their second 'child' turned out to be two children. Once the twins were 1, they couldn't afford for both of them to work full or even part time because they couldn't afford two lots of nursery fees (at £80 a day each). They didn't PLAN to have two MORE children; they would have been able to afford nursery fees and, therefore, both work full time had they had only had the one. What would be their solution if your measures were to be in place? Abort one of the unborn twins? Do all your mates have a hard luck story? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 31 October, 2013 Share Posted 31 October, 2013 Do all your mates have a hard luck story? They're not mates - they're a family I know of. However, in common with most of us who do have mates (alien concept to you no doubt), a fair proportion of mine do have difficulties at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 31 October, 2013 Share Posted 31 October, 2013 They're not mates - they're a family I know of. However, in common with most of us who do have mates (alien concept to you no doubt), a fair proportion of mine do have difficulties at the moment. No need to be sarky, it was a genuine question. Every time anyone on here suggests people take a bit of responsibility for their actions or play with the hand they've been dealt you know someone who couldn't possibly do such a thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 31 October, 2013 Share Posted 31 October, 2013 No need to be sarky, it was a genuine question. Every time anyone on here suggests people take a bit of responsibility for their actions or play with the hand they've been dealt you know someone who couldn't possibly do such a thing. That simply isn't true. I tend to think outside the box and indulge in 'whatifery'. But, since I have a large circle of friends and acquaintances, the law of averages would dictate that some of those people would have some of the problems discussed on this forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearsy Posted 31 October, 2013 Share Posted 31 October, 2013 What happens if benefits people go ahead & have a third kid regardless? Do we let it starve? Is it confiscate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stug76 Posted 31 October, 2013 Share Posted 31 October, 2013 What happens if benefits people go ahead & have a third kid regardless? Do we let it starve? Is it confiscate? Food banks, Two birds, one stone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 31 October, 2013 Share Posted 31 October, 2013 That simply isn't true. I tend to think outside the box and indulge in 'whatifery'. But, since I have a large circle of friends and acquaintances, the law of averages would dictate that some of those people would have some of the problems discussed on this forum. Ahh okay I get it. Your mates hard luck stories are made up for a 'whatifery' scenario. On another note Does your large circle of friends know you are sharing their personal information with a group of anonymous strangers on an Internet forum? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 31 October, 2013 Share Posted 31 October, 2013 Ahh okay I get it. Your mates hard luck stories are made up for a 'whatifery' scenario. On another note Does your large circle of friends know you are sharing their personal information with a group of anonymous strangers on an Internet forum? Oh dear Turkish, you are grasping at straws to try to give some credence for your snipes at me, aren't you. I have given no personal information away and none of my friend's 'hard luck' stories are made up. In other instances I've used logic and common sense to try to understand how some draconian measures might affect some people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tractor_Saint Posted 31 October, 2013 Share Posted 31 October, 2013 What happens if benefits people go ahead & have a third kid regardless? Do we let it starve? Is it confiscate? Nope, someone has to go out to work and earn a living for their family rather than sitting there expecting the state to pay them for their children. We all make decisions every day and most of us accept the consequences. This is no different. You can have family benefit for 2 children but have a third and you're on your own. What's the problem there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 31 October, 2013 Share Posted 31 October, 2013 Oh dear Turkish, you are grasping at straws to try to give some credence for your snipes at me, aren't you. I have given no personal information away and none of my friend's 'hard luck' stories are made up. In other instances I've used logic and common sense to try to understand how some draconian measures might affect some people. If it were me and I was out of work and couldn't afford to get the bus to the job centre every day, I wouldn't be too chuffed if my so called mate was discussing it on an Internet forum with strangers in an attempt to point score and be seen as a lovely, caring person to people who she's never met or ever likely too. Just saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 31 October, 2013 Share Posted 31 October, 2013 Oh dear Turkish, you are grasping at straws to try to give some credence for your snipes at me, aren't you. I have given no personal information away and none of my friend's 'hard luck' stories are made up. In other instances I've used logic and common sense to try to understand how some draconian measures might affect some people. If it were me and I was out of work and couldn't afford to get the bus to the job centre every day, I wouldn't be too chuffed if my so called mate was discussing it on an Internet forum with strangers in an attempt to point score and be seen as a lovely, caring person to people who she's never met or ever likely too. Just saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearsy Posted 31 October, 2013 Share Posted 31 October, 2013 Nope, someone has to go out to work and earn a living for their family rather than sitting there expecting the state to pay them for their children. We all make decisions every day and most of us accept the consequences. This is no different. You can have family benefit for 2 children but have a third and you're on your own. What's the problem there? I was thinking I'd sooner read about sponging wasters than starving babies, but if you can definitely make them get job I will support ur policy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tractor_Saint Posted 31 October, 2013 Share Posted 31 October, 2013 I was thinking I'd sooner read about sponging wasters than starving babies, but if you can definitely make them get job I will support ur policy! Ahhhh you've got no kids then. Those who have morals will stretch to their limits if pushed. Those who have successfully sponged off the state will continue to do so unless something's done about it. That's all I'm saying. I could have 10 kids by now along with a lot of folks on the forum. I didn't because I couldn't afford it. I have standards and pay my way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearsy Posted 31 October, 2013 Share Posted 31 October, 2013 Yeah I get that, I was just wondering bout what happens from a practical point of view when feckless sponger - lets call her tokyos mum - gets pregnant for the third time. Here is the role play as I see it: Tokyos Mum: I'm pregnant, I'm gonna need more dollar State: Nu-uh you already got two kids, you better get rid Tokyos Mum: You can't make me abortion it's against my religion, or whatever! State: Well ok, but we're not giving you no dollar. Can't you get job? Tokyos Mum: What with 3 kids? No chance! State: How bout the dad? Tokyos Mum: I don't know who that is! It could be almost anyone! Can you hurry up? Baby is hungry. State: This is all ur problem Tokyos Mum: Ok can you send MP round to collect dead baby? Papers is here already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spudders Posted 31 October, 2013 Share Posted 31 October, 2013 That's all I'm saying. I could have 10 kids by now along with a lot of folks on the forum. Seems to me that guessing who the people on the forum that Tractor could have kids with, would make a good thread! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spudders Posted 31 October, 2013 Share Posted 31 October, 2013 (edited) what, I never said that twice (despite it being so good). Stoopid duplicate posts Edited 31 October, 2013 by Spudders duplicates Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spudders Posted 31 October, 2013 Share Posted 31 October, 2013 Tokyos Mum: Ok can you send MP round to collect dead baby? Papers is here already. Mauricio Pochettino has enough to do already without catering to Tokyos mum (again) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearsy Posted 31 October, 2013 Share Posted 31 October, 2013 good work Spudders! Treat urself to +5 reputations! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotty Posted 31 October, 2013 Share Posted 31 October, 2013 Yeah I get that, I was just wondering bout what happens from a practical point of view when feckless sponger - lets call her tokyos mum - gets pregnant for the third time. Here is the role play as I see it: Tokyos Mum: I'm pregnant, I'm gonna need more dollar State: Nu-uh you already got two kids, you better get rid Tokyos Mum: You can't make me abortion it's against my religion, or whatever! State: Well ok, but we're not giving you no dollar. Can't you get job? Tokyos Mum: What with 3 kids? No chance! State: How bout the dad? Tokyos Mum: I don't know who that is! It could be almost anyone! Can you hurry up? Baby is hungry. State: This is all ur problem Tokyos Mum: Ok can you send MP round to collect dead baby? Papers is here already. That's the point. Withholding benefits would be punishing the child for the perceived sins of the parents. I don't have kids myself, but I don't begrudge the money that goes towards those that do in order to help raise them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingsland Codger Posted 1 November, 2013 Share Posted 1 November, 2013 Is there a case for the state now with issues of overpopulation on this Island that after the 2nd child that you pay for the 3rd and so on? This Island?? And which Island would that be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 1 November, 2013 Share Posted 1 November, 2013 Yeah I get that, I was just wondering bout what happens from a practical point of view when feckless sponger - lets call her tokyos mum - gets pregnant for the third time. Here is the role play as I see it: Tokyos Mum: I'm pregnant, I'm gonna need more dollar State: Nu-uh you already got two kids, you better get rid Tokyos Mum: You can't make me abortion it's against my religion, or whatever! State: Well ok, but we're not giving you no dollar. Can't you get job? Tokyos Mum: What with 3 kids? No chance! State: How bout the dad? Tokyos Mum: I don't know who that is! It could be almost anyone! Can you hurry up? Baby is hungry. State: This is all ur problem Tokyos Mum: Ok can you send MP round to collect dead baby? Papers is here already. Hats off to the Bear here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry Sanchez Posted 1 November, 2013 Author Share Posted 1 November, 2013 I think the answer to overpopulation is to humanely destroy a pointless adult whenever a new child is born. The authorities could do worse than to read posts on here to find some of the country's most pointless adults. So pointless a Crab posts upon them, what a bellend crab that crab is, one can only wish his eggs dont work in the sea of life............................ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry Sanchez Posted 1 November, 2013 Author Share Posted 1 November, 2013 Hats off to the Bear here. So by emotional blackmail a proposal is stopped not because it is morally wrong but because of a religeous issue (possibly?). Crap and utter ********. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now