Problem families

[escapeUK]

The simple problem has a simple solution - no additional benefits for you Nth child. As a society we have to decide what N is.

Unfortunately natural selection won't sort this out as it relates to species - ie. it doesn't differentiate chavs as a separate subspecies which is an off shoot of humanity,

If you bring in maximum supported family size it will take 20 years for it to have a major effect on society, but it will stop the yearly increase in budget required, eventually it will level out and start to shrink.

Is it a vote winner? Dunno, are working tax payers the majority these days? Sometimes I'm not sure!

You make some great points, but, given we already have far too many people I wouldnt give benefits to anyone to have children. If you cant afford to have them, then dont. Its no ones right to have children paid for by someone else. If you have them and cant afford them, then there are lots of people who are crying out to adopt; people who are intelligent and hard working, and left it late in life to try.

Democracy was never intended to be for the idle to vote themselves things earned for by the hard working. Im sure there's a famous quote saying that.

If your doctor worked proper hours and did his fair share, the queues would be lower, if all immigrants were kicked out of the country, the queues would be even lower, if fat people were made to jog instead of go to the doctors, even lower still. You see where this is going? Enforced Darwinism is perilously close to the 'final solution' if you take it to it's ultimate conclusion.

You dont have to enforce anything. Just stop the socialist meddling and make everyone pay for what they use, rather than pay for what they dont want or for other to use. The system would sort itself out. How many immigrants would come here if we didnt give them free everything? None. Why would they?

[bless 'em all]

Its no ones right to have children paid for by someone else. If you have them and cant afford them.

Exactly. No benefits to be given to teenage girls who 'fall pregnant', certainly no housing provision.

Democracy was never intended to be for the idle to vote themselves things earned for by the hard working.

The trouble is, as someone already noted, they're breeding faster than the middle classes and have the vote. Whoever maintains the flow of benefits gets their vote. Unless the vote is removed from those not working or having criminal convictions the status quo will be maintained.

[tractor]

...

You make some great points, but, given we already have far too many people I wouldnt give benefits to anyone to have children. If you cant afford to have them, then dont. Its no ones right to have children paid for by someone else. If you have them and cant afford them, then there are lots of people who are crying out to adopt; people who are intelligent and hard working, and left it late in life to try.

Democracy was never intended to be for the idle to vote themselves things earned for by the hard working. Im sure there's a famous quote saying that.



You dont have to enforce anything. Just stop the socialist meddling and make everyone pay for what they use, rather than pay for what they dont want or for other to use. The system would sort itself out. How many immigrants would come here if we didnt give them free everything? None. Why would they?

Absolutely. This is the nub of the problem, social engineering which typically has only one aim, to get more votes. Politicians avoid pissing off the masses like the plague because they know that it will result in the boot and their gravy train will be delayed. Since time immemorial, there have been more votes at the lower to middle of any class or perceived class structure which is why both major parties strive to appeal to the middle earners. Trouble is, those people are the ones that always pay the most for whatever an imcumbent government does - good or bad.

However, Labour changed the goalposts irrevocably during their last 3 terms, by increasing their voting base manifold using various methods not least unfettered immigration, which the Tories will never get to grips with.

Trouble is, there is no end to this. It would be nice if governments looked at our countries need and shaped policy accordingly. World aid imv should be entirely voluntary. Leave it to the individual's conscience or lack of. Bob 'giveusyer****inmoney' Geldof showed that charity is not lacking in the average person. Needy countries would not lose out if we stopped our government giving handouts to the latest favourite dictator. We could then spend that money on educating and rehabilitating the fat, addicted, and irresponsible parenthood.

Another nail in the coffin for any policy striving to end this problem is the intruduction of NMW which whilst being a good thing on the face of it, once it had been through Murphy's law, it rapidly became what it is now - National MAXIMUM Wage - it's all many can ever aspire to earning - and that will never, in a million years allow such people to buy a house! It's like politicians never heard of the law of unintended consequence. Or more likely, they don't give a toss!

[SueEllen]

It's like politicians never heard of the law of unintended consequence. Or more likely, they don't give a toss!

The politicians who set up the NHS and social security system were aware of how it could go wrong, however they relied on the effect of social pressure to stop people behaving badly.

Unfortunately when you ensure, by allowing the unions to get too powerful and then ripping industries apart to halt their power, that communities don't exist the social pressure to behave in a certain way goes.

It is also not helped by loads of politicians today being career politicians and only caring about what is in the media.

As turkeys aren't going to vote for Christmas - so limiting benefit payments to children that are already born isn't going to be implemented as a policy particularly in a time of high unemployment. When the Torys tried to cut child benefit where one parent was a higher rate tax payer the outcry was massive.

[escapeUK]

Absolutely. This is the nub of the problem, social engineering which typically has only one aim, to get more votes. Politicians avoid pissing off the masses like the plague because they know that it will result in the boot and their gravy train will be delayed. Since time immemorial, there have been more votes at the lower to middle of any class or perceived class structure which is why both major parties strive to appeal to the middle earners. Trouble is, those people are the ones that always pay the most for whatever an imcumbent government does - good or bad.

But there is a dangerous level, where those that actually pay for "society" realise they get nothing from it (and its not worth paying people not to steal), and then what will happen? Its probably all in, around 50% of a lot of peoples income stolen in tax now. Would people pay 60%? 70%? More people will realise there is no point working when you get just as good a life from not bothering (if not better as there is no getting up early, fighting through traffic etc) and this will just hasten the increase in the rate others have to pay.

Or, it might not even be a percentage of tax. It might be the ratio of givers to takers. If 100% of peoples income isnt enough to pay for those who dont work's food, benefits, accommodation, health etc. What then? We are already borrowing money to give people free stuff as the tax take is not enogh, so its likely this will continue.

My view is that there will either be an engineered war, (though now days that will be more difficult, as a large proportion of people dont believe a word the government says. So it will be hard to inflame people like they used to during the previous WWs) or there will be an engineered virus. Maybe it will be a geno type virus targeting specific minorities or maybe it will be the sort that wipes pensioners out. I find it less likely that tptb will allow the whole system to collapse through inaction.

[petergriffin]

Wasn't this the government that would put family first? Now some (under)classes have not the right to have a family. One of my profs back at uni said; "If the state decided who can or can't have children, no one of us would be here".

Why is all this fascism coming out now in time of crisis? Why can't the Bullingdon boys come up with some serious economic policy? They can't, because they have always relied on calling their dads when money was short.

[tractor]

...

Wasn't this the government that would put family first? Now some (under)classes have not the right to have a family. One of my profs back at uni said; "If the state decided who can or can't have children, no one of us would be here".

Why is all this fascism coming out now in time of crisis? Why can't the Bullingdon boys come up with some serious economic policy? They can't, because they have always relied on calling their dads when money was short.

That's an extreme view similar to Blair's 24 hours to save the NHS scaremongering!This has nothing to do with Bullingdon.

The situation we find ourselves in today is the result of financial and political mismanagement over decades of both Tory and Labour. I would struggle to name what I would call a statesman in government over the last 30 years. They have all been to one degree or another, career politicians with very few of them having anything other than a uni education followed by several years in a think tank, poisoned by political dogma, then parachuted into safe seats until they develop a rep, then onto the front bench for the most photogenic of them. They all talk a good system but are equally poor at implementation.

Take the proposals on child benefit. How is it sane to profess that a family with a single earner, on the cusp of higher rate tax actually needs help from the taxpayer? Let alone two earners in the same family. It is not enough to say, well you cannot take that benefit away because I've always had it. Many have never actually needed it and it only came into being when it was transformed from Family Allowance. IIRC it was Barbara Castle in '75 that replaced FIS with Child Benefit and she insisted it was paid to the mother because the father would spend it at the pub!

Tories should have stuck to their guns over CB and said any household whether one or more earners earning more than the national average lost the benefit. Full stop. The problem with any benefit or taxation system is though that as soon as you introduce either a benefit or a tax, people will naturally want to alter their circumstances to qualify. Then the government change the regs then people react accordingly. Then you have a situation very similar to what we have with IR35. And it permeates through the whole of society. Another aspect is the wage subsidy that is tax credits. Why should taxpayers have to subsidise banks paying subsistence money to their staff?

Root and branch reform is the only way forward. Until that happens (and it's unlikely until there is another war or natural catastrophe as someone else said) we are stuck with the dodging and weaving from all sections of society.

[MadDawg]

You make some great points, but, given we already have far too many people I wouldnt give benefits to anyone to have children. If you cant afford to have them, then dont. Its no ones right to have children paid for by someone else. If you have them and cant afford them, then there are lots of people who are crying out to adopt; people who are intelligent and hard working, and left it late in life to try.

What about people who have kids before losing their jobs? Are you going to stick them up for adoption too?

[Gibbon]

Democracy was never intended to be for the idle to vote themselves things earned for by the hard working. Im sure there's a famous quote saying that.

Yep.

'There is no shame in poverty, the shame is doing nothing about it'

Pericles 'Funeral Speech' @430BCE as told by Thucydides in his
Peloponesian War.

[BrilloPad]

What about people who have kids before losing their jobs? Are you going to stick them up for adoption too?

Yes. I would stick the parents up for adoption.

HTH