How it Works5 mins ago
Feckless women popping out kids willy nilly.
Great letter in The Sunday Times yesterday that suggested a measure to try and encourage ******** chav girls from popping out kids indiscriminately. Obviously applies to all families, but it is quite clear the intent is to try and discourage the chavs.
You receive 100% of Child Benefit for the first child, 60% for the second, 30% for the third and 0% for any more kids.
What do you think?
Pesonally I'd go 0% after the second child!
You receive 100% of Child Benefit for the first child, 60% for the second, 30% for the third and 0% for any more kids.
What do you think?
Pesonally I'd go 0% after the second child!
Answers
1 to 16 of 16
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by flip-flop. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
So, just to check, the plan is to penalize the children for their parent's actions by withholding the money meant to put shoes on their feet and food in their mouths..?
I'm sure that would lead to very well rounded individuals who would take a dispassionate and enlightened view of such public-spirited policies.
I'm sure that would lead to very well rounded individuals who would take a dispassionate and enlightened view of such public-spirited policies.
i personally think that a voucher scheme could be the way to take it. Prevent those familes that spend the benefits on cigs and booze from doing so. Those that spend their benefits on the childrens welfare (as it should be) wont mind being given vouchers for shoes / clothes and food for the children.
It may make those that see having kids as a means to an income think twice.
It may make those that see having kids as a means to an income think twice.
-- answer removed --
One of the problems we have in this country is a declining birthrate.
To cover for this we have allowed almost unrestricted immigration (both legal and illegal).
Now the immigrant population is having more babies than the indiginous poulation, so the number of Asians, blacks, chinese and so on are increasing as a percentage of the population.
While I am not happy about having a load of chav kids running riot, I personally wish they had encouraged the local population to have more babies over the last 30 years or so.
I we had done then we would not need to import so many people from around the world.
I dont like being a minority in the city in which I live.
To cover for this we have allowed almost unrestricted immigration (both legal and illegal).
Now the immigrant population is having more babies than the indiginous poulation, so the number of Asians, blacks, chinese and so on are increasing as a percentage of the population.
While I am not happy about having a load of chav kids running riot, I personally wish they had encouraged the local population to have more babies over the last 30 years or so.
I we had done then we would not need to import so many people from around the world.
I dont like being a minority in the city in which I live.
means testing wont help. Those that refuse to work will get more handouts wont they. Those that work hard and may instill some sort of hard working attitude in the future generations wont be able to afford children because of their contributions to those that arent working.
Yes vouchers can be sold but who would buy them if they can only be used in conjunction with ID or something.
As i said before those children who are in genuine need wont miss out then and those parents that use children as a means to raise money may think twice.
Yes vouchers can be sold but who would buy them if they can only be used in conjunction with ID or something.
As i said before those children who are in genuine need wont miss out then and those parents that use children as a means to raise money may think twice.
What's my answer? Well, not that one, certainly. Do you not agree it's a bit rough to deprive children to punish their parents?
The voucher idea isn't so bad, but I note that the at least some of the people supporting that idea are the same people who call out 'nanny state' whenever it's a government iniative that affects them...
I also don't believe that this is quite the major social problem that it is sometimes portrayed as. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but I think the scale is often magnified by sensationalist newspaper stories.
The voucher idea isn't so bad, but I note that the at least some of the people supporting that idea are the same people who call out 'nanny state' whenever it's a government iniative that affects them...
I also don't believe that this is quite the major social problem that it is sometimes portrayed as. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but I think the scale is often magnified by sensationalist newspaper stories.
There are a number of misconceptions (no pun intended!) among these answers:
A declining birth rate is not a problem. What is a problem is over population and Britain, especially the South East, suffers from it enormously. It makes no difference where they come from, whether home-grown or imported, there are simply too many people in the country.
As a result people should be encouraged to limit their breeding. No Child Benefit of any description should be paid to anybody and the taxation regime should penalise those who have excessively large families (i.e. more than one child). Benefits should not be adjusted as the size of a family increases. Unemployed people should, like people in employment, learn to live within their current means.
It is now being (finally) recognised by politicians that the ideal situation in which to bring up a child is within a stable two-parent relationship, one of each gender. This, of course, is a fact which most sensible people have always known. To encourage people to deliberately bear orphans by providing them with means of support is irresponsible in the extreme.
Yes it is punishing the children for the sins of their parents, and in many cases the children would be better off in care. But it is the parents who are providing the punishment by introducing children into the world whom they cannot support..
There - that�s set the cat among the pigeons! I won�t add any more to this thread as I know I have set myself up to have my head bitten off!
A declining birth rate is not a problem. What is a problem is over population and Britain, especially the South East, suffers from it enormously. It makes no difference where they come from, whether home-grown or imported, there are simply too many people in the country.
As a result people should be encouraged to limit their breeding. No Child Benefit of any description should be paid to anybody and the taxation regime should penalise those who have excessively large families (i.e. more than one child). Benefits should not be adjusted as the size of a family increases. Unemployed people should, like people in employment, learn to live within their current means.
It is now being (finally) recognised by politicians that the ideal situation in which to bring up a child is within a stable two-parent relationship, one of each gender. This, of course, is a fact which most sensible people have always known. To encourage people to deliberately bear orphans by providing them with means of support is irresponsible in the extreme.
Yes it is punishing the children for the sins of their parents, and in many cases the children would be better off in care. But it is the parents who are providing the punishment by introducing children into the world whom they cannot support..
There - that�s set the cat among the pigeons! I won�t add any more to this thread as I know I have set myself up to have my head bitten off!
"It is now being (finally) recognised by politicians that the ideal situation in which to bring up a child is within a stable two-parent relationship, one of each gender. This, of course, is a fact which most sensible people have always known."
Thing is, JudgeJ, not all two-parent families are stable- many are warring over divorce, in abusive relationships, neglectful of their children- and its mighty hard to tell which ones are. It's all very well preaching the conservative line but a one-parent family is not always the inferior option. I'd rather have spent my childhood being cared for by one loving parent than two who didn't care. Luckily that's a choice I never had to make.
The real problem with the welfare state is that it doesn't actually help the poor at all, it just throws money at them. What's needed is some way to improve skills and to help those in poverty climb out of poverty- something we talk about for Africa but never for our own country.
Thing is, JudgeJ, not all two-parent families are stable- many are warring over divorce, in abusive relationships, neglectful of their children- and its mighty hard to tell which ones are. It's all very well preaching the conservative line but a one-parent family is not always the inferior option. I'd rather have spent my childhood being cared for by one loving parent than two who didn't care. Luckily that's a choice I never had to make.
The real problem with the welfare state is that it doesn't actually help the poor at all, it just throws money at them. What's needed is some way to improve skills and to help those in poverty climb out of poverty- something we talk about for Africa but never for our own country.
1 to 16 of 16
Latest Posts
Labour Scraps Doctors' Apprenticeships
News11 mins ago
Good Morning Boxing Day Birds!
ChatterBank19 mins ago
How it Works38 mins ago
Road rules41 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.