HeadingNorth Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Its not that difficult a concept. On the 3rd child, the adults then have to start to pay towards the cost of their actions. The question I asked was, what happens if they cannot? You haven't offered an answer yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
espadrille Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 The question I asked was, what happens if they cannot? You haven't offered an answer yet. Can you answer a question first? Give an example why a parent would not or could not support his or her child. I will then attempt to answer your question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conrod Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 The question I asked was, what happens if they cannot? You haven't offered an answer yet.Take the child off them and put it in care. In the short term it would cost the state more, but when the message gets through to the breeders that they aren't going to be allowed to fill their council houses with state-fed urchins, they'll produce less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Take the child off them and put it in care. In the short term it would cost the state more, but when the message gets through to the breeders that they aren't going to be allowed to fill their council houses with state-fed urchins, they'll produce less. Why would they need to change their lifestyles if they aren't even going to have to raise the children at all? I fear your faith in the responsible nature of these people you call irresponsible, is probably misplaced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Can you answer a question first? Give an example why a parent would not or could not support his or her child. The one we've been talking about for four pages would seem a fairly obvious example; no source of income except benefits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
espadrille Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 The one we've been talking about for four pages would seem a fairly obvious example; no source of income except benefits. so you are saying that if you are on benefits then you cannot support your child? Sorry but I can see that can be used as an excuse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steiner Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 If China can do it so can we. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conrod Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Why would they need to change their lifestyles if they aren't even going to have to raise the children at all? I fear your faith in the responsible nature of these people you call irresponsible, is probably misplaced.Irresponsible people like that can be helped by the state - by being sterilised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbie Posted January 10, 2011 Author Share Posted January 10, 2011 The question I asked was, what happens if they cannot? You haven't offered an answer yet. They won't have a choice. On the 3rd child, the man automatically loses 40% of his net salary, or 40% of his benefits. Lets pretend the mans net salary (after tax) is £1000, he pays £400 a month). On the 4th its 60% of his net salary, or 60% of benefits. So if his net salary is £1000 a month, he is docked £600 a month as soon as he is paid. 5th - 80% 6th = 100% - if it got to this, I guess you would have men living in hostels with a diet of bread and soup There is simply no way out of this - the money is deducted automatically. There would be no choice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Sidney Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Its just a knee jerk reaction. In my opinion the people who make such suggestions are generally unhappy with their lot, so they look to make sure others are even more miserable than themselves! I'd agree with Medusa that in theory it just wouldn't work. What would happen to the kids if the parents had more than 2? Its hardly their fault and they'd be the ones to suffer the most. The feckess parents would still have the fags and booze, wouldn't they? If the kids were removed by Social Services this would cost more than the scheme is supposed to save. I don't have the figures but I would bet a pound to a dog biscuit that the amount of money a scheme like this would save is minute in comparision to the amount of tax fiddles big business has going on. MP's make me laugh when they go on about the injustice of the benefits system after all their fiddles have been brought to life. We should concentrate our efforts on putting right the real ills in society and leave the feckless to feckle on..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.