Reply to: Problem families

[NotAllThere]

The simple problem has a simple solution - no additional benefits for you Nth child. ... I'm sure the lefties will say it's not fair on the children, as it's their parents who are unedcuated who bring them into the world and they will suffer from poverty etc. ...

Some right wingers might also say that it's not a good solution, as starving children on the streets of Britain isn't good for business.

How about no benefit with regards to children conceived while either parent is signing on? And if you can't afford to look after your children, then they'll be placed in care/adopted by richer families.

This latter part was policy in Switzerland in the 60s and 70s. It wasn't a good thing. It's also state intervention on a scale abhorrent to those of us with more conservative leanings.

[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

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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!

[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.

[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?

[IR35FanClub]

The simple problem has a simple solution - no additional benefits for you Nth child. As a society we have to decide what N is. I'd say it should be political interference free, so it should be set based on the average family size of tax paying families. Though that means you can define what exactly an average tax paying family is. Obviously this couldn't be retrospectively applied, but all children born after D-date. I'm sure the lefties will say it's not fair on the children, as it's their parents who are unedcuated who bring them into the world and they will suffer from poverty etc. My answer - look at china, it's become part of their culture. Even now the 1 child 1 family has been dropped, couples still don't want more than 1 child.

The other problem I've spotted - "chavs" for want of a better description are breeding faster than the middle classes. I.e they are on 14-18year generation cycles. Whilst those with careers are about 25-35 year cycles as getting a job and a stable career comes before starting a family. If the state is paying why wait?.

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!

[tractor]

...

Id pay more tax to get the problem eradicated. But for me the problem isnt about the tax, its about the roads being packed, going to the doctors to find their being 40 people waiting. Life would be better with less people, the fact im forced to pay for them is just the final insult.

Like I said, I agree with the sentiment, you will get no argument from me here but it does lead to some searching questions. Really, the argument isn't about doctors and congestion (of the road type lol); it's about fair share of work as well as tax, fair share of opportunity etc etc, but the human condition does not care about fair except when it is looking to garner votes for politicians. The human condition is all about me when push comes to shove.

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.

[escapeUK]

Whilst I agree with the sentiments on this thread, does any of you think you will pay less tax if this phenomenon were to be eradicated?

Your tax would simply be diverted into the pockets of the hoarders aka politicians/financiers who would not recycle it nor would they invest it in your business.

Id pay more tax to get the problem eradicated. But for me the problem isnt about the tax, its about the roads being packed, going to the doctors to find their being 40 people waiting. Life would be better with less people, the fact im forced to pay for them is just the final insult.

[tractor]

....

Whilst I agree with the sentiments on this thread, does any of you think you will pay less tax if this phenomenon were to be eradicated?

Your tax would simply be diverted into the pockets of the hoarders aka politicians/financiers who would not recycle it nor would they invest it in your business.