Won't somebody think of the children?

[formant]

why not - why should people be allowed to breed like rabbits and let everyone else pick up the tab?

I object to people having kids if they're maintained only by benefits and aren't working (although, it's not like we can stop them from 'breeding like rabbits' or breeding at all). I also, personally, don't agree with people in any circumstances reproducing unless they can afford to provide for their offspring. However, in order to maintain a decent-sized pool of future tax payers, we can't rely on only the middle and upper classes to pop out enough babies to keep our systems sustainable. So actually, we kind of need the lower earners to keep breeding (albeit ideally not 'like rabbits' )

So if both halves of a couple are working and still can't afford to have a (small, one-child) family there's something seriously wrong - with income levels, tax levels, or the affordability of living-costs (including childcare), etc.

[original PM]

I object to people having kids if they're maintained only by benefits and aren't working (although, it's not like we can stop them from 'breeding like rabbits' or breeding at all). I also, personally, don't agree with people in any circumstances reproducing unless they can afford to provide for their offspring. However, in order to maintain a decent-sized pool of future tax payers, we can't rely on only the middle and upper classes to pop out enough babies to keep our systems sustainable. So actually, we kind of need the lower earners to keep breeding (albeit ideally not 'like rabbits' )

So if both halves of a couple are working and still can't afford to have a (small, one-child) family there's something seriously wrong - with income levels, tax levels, or the affordability of living-costs (including childcare), etc.

well if they are both working but only on minimum wage for example then surely that probably means they did not put any effort in in school and as such we can expect their kids to be scrotes and so not the future generation of tax payers but actually the future generation of dolites/thieves/chavs.....

stupidity breeds stupidity

[The Spartan]

I think those people - in theory - are meant to have their care and pensions funded by the next generation of tax payers, so they would actually get something back eventually.

Of course it doesn't quite work out that smoothly in reality.

You've got that right seeing as people are now being auto enrolled into pension schemes (of course they opt out), but the funny thing is they're now paying in more yet again.

Funny how a person who works all their life and scrapes by will get the same as those who can't be bothered, when they retire.

[formant]

well if they are both working but only on minimum wage for example then surely that probably means they did not put any effort in in school and as such we can expect their kids to be scrotes and so not the future generation of tax payers but actually the future generation of dolites/thieves/chavs.....

stupidity breeds stupidity

It really isn't that simple.

I think you'll find there are a lot of (2.1 and higher, decent university) graduates in the 15/16k pay bracket. That's not minimum wage either (minimum wage based on a 37.5 working week is £12,070.50). So we're not necessarily talking about just "stupid" people. There simply is a shortage of 20+k jobs to go around, particularly for the educated entering the job market, forcing many of them to stay in the Customer Service, Retail and low-level admin roles they held whilst at university.

[formant]

You've got that right seeing as people are now being auto enrolled into pension schemes (of course they opt out), but the funny thing is they're now paying in more yet again.

Funny how a person who works all their life and scrapes by will get the same as those who can't be bothered, when they retire.

Yeah, though for those not working it's really just a matter of relabelling their JSA as 'pension', once old enough. :-/

[original PM]

It really isn't that simple.

I think you'll find there are a lot of (2.1 and higher, decent university) graduates in the 15/16k pay bracket. That's not minimum wage either (minimum wage based on a 37.5 working week is £12,070.50). So we're not necessarily talking about stupid people. There simply is a shortage of 20+k jobs to go around, particularly for the educated entering the job market, forcing many of them to stay in the Customer Service, Retail and low-level admin roles they held whilst at university.

ok yes maybe at the age of 20-25 yes i agree - however lets say - do not breed until you are 30 and in a stable relationship and have a stable career .... you will probably find that very few people who fit that bill have finance problems.

generally do not see dropping sprogs at 22 as either
1) A way to keep your partner
2) A way to spice up your relationship which has got a bit stale

enjoy life and have kids when you can afford the time and money to bring them up properly.

[formant]

ok yes maybe at the age of 20-25 yes i agree - however lets say - do not breed until you are 30 and in a stable relationship and have a stable career .... you will probably find that very few people who fit that bill have finance problems.

I think you'll probably find that even at 30+ many working couples won't have made it far above a £30k household income. Many never do. And the longer you stay in one pay bracket, the harder it'll be to move up later, so it's not just a game of waiting around till your 'career' unfolds.

With regards to my own choices - I very much agree with you. I think it's stupid and reckless to have children you can't afford (even though there's always the odd couple or single parent who can still turn it all around for them and their family eventually). I don't believe in having kids "at all costs" or because "it's what you do". But sensible, well-off people alone. tend to not produce as much offspring as we'll need over the next few decades, so we're bound to have to accept that there'll be people reproducing in less-than-ideal circumstances. And in those less-than-ideal circumstances, I'd much rather have that be the working families, rather than the unemployed benefit recipients, even if the former will still need subsidising.

[original PM]

i sort of agree with you but if you look at the third world - much of their problems stem from over population

e.g. people breeding with no means of supporting the offspring

this is in essence the same problem - but instead of dying of starvation they rely on the state - and the state cannot continue to support.

[The Spartan]

I'd rather we just did away with Public Sector pension liability, I wonder what proportion of the pensions paid for by tax this makes up?

[d000hg]

They should be sent to boarding schools

From what age?

and given a high quality of education

Agree

followed by a national service (social services or military)

Not sure that's a good idea, also WFT is national social service exactly?

They should have the opportunity to escape from their environments.

Agree 100%. It's very clearly the case that the majority of kids from deprived families are doomed to end up like their parents, whether because they are taught to be that way, or simply that they don't get a chance otherwise.
Forcing kids away from their parents to break the cycle though - that's a VERY extreme position to take. Do you take them at 5 before they are moulded too much, or at teenage years, or what?