discodown Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 As for child tax credits and child benefit, I don't think they should exist. I don't see why some people's taxes should fund other people's lifestyle choice. If I'd rather spend my money on a sports car than a family, should I receive luxury toy tax credits instead of family tax credits?While i agree with you about tax credits - its ludicrous that the tax you pay then gets returned to you, it would be far better to just lower tax - and to an extent CB all your tax goes toward funding other peoples lifestyle choices one way or another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alien Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 Thats what I said in the origional post. THe women would be forced to choose the men more wisely And who are these wise men women are forced to chose? And would wise men want to get involved with women who had a record of (as you put) previous 'poor choice'? Would you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbie Posted January 8, 2011 Author Share Posted January 8, 2011 So how would this plan work? I accept it would be crueld to penalise exsiting kids/familys, so change the rules from January 2012. The new rules would be - with the maximum of 2 kids for society to pay for The womans point of view She gets pregnant the 1st time - She goes to social, explains she is pregnant, its the 1st time. Society, then pays for a 3 bed home for her and the baby. If she is unable to name the father as she was drunk or had 6 or 7 partners in a month, fair enough, we all make mistakes. She gets pregnant a 2nd time, if for the 2nd time she is unable to name the father, we say "ok - look, you need to be more careful in future as we cannot afford to house any more kids, a 3 bed home is all society can afford. She gets pregnant a 3rd time, 4th time, 5th time etc.... no more money. This could also be enforceable, because if she named the father of the baby, she would get an extra £30 each - for a maximum of 2 children (so £60 extra a week for naming the men). The mans point of view So he is named, and proven via DNA if needed that he has fathered his first baby and has spilt from the mother. Society says "fair enough, anyone can make a mistake - try to make sure it doesn't happen again, society will pick up the tab for your baby" The 2nd time. Ok, look young man, this is the 2nd time this has happened, this is the last child that society is going to pay for. In future, think about using contraception. The 3rd time. 40% is deducted at source from his benefits, or his net wages automatically, as he now has to make a contribution to the children he keeps fathering. The 4th time he leaves a woman pregnant. 60% is deducted at source from his benefits or his net salary to pay for his offspring The 5th time. 80% is deducted from his benefits or his net salary The 6th time he fathers a baby and leaves the woman. He loses everything. Obviously, this applys in cases whereby the woman has to be supported and housed finacially by society The benefit of this method is the after the 3rd baby, the man has less and less money to spend on beer which is often the cause of unplanned preganacys. Men are more likely to be forced to form a relationship with the woman, perhaps marry the woman and provide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
relost Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 A controvertial one perhaps, but perhaps a real solution to societys ills. We pay benefits for 2 children maximum, and any children above 2, then you pay for them yourself. Would this stop feckless and irresponsible men from fathering children all over the place, and then clearing off to repeat their actions again, and again. If men were compelled/forced to pay if they fathered more than 2 children, would this stop their irresponsible actions. The men would be forced to take action, to provide for their offspring. On another level, the women would be forced to pick their sexual partners far more carefully, and perhaps not put themselves into a position whereby an irresponsible man could take advantage ( a drunken night out). The women would be forced to pick a man who could finacially provide, should she find herself pregnant. The resulting children would be more likely to contact with their natural father who would then play a part in their lives a give the children a positive role model to emulate Do you think this is a good idea for society in general, or are we best simply paying people to have kids they cannot afford? my mums been saying this for years.. that if a couple of benefits choose to have more than 1 or 2 children, that the social should not be paid anymore benefits. Of course, the only people that complain about this idea are those with more than 2 kids on benefits who say "It isn't the childs fault". Nope that's right, it's your fault/ I agree. It might make people think twice about breeding just because they want a baby. I want a baby. i want nothing more than to start a family.. but I have to be at my job a little longer to qualify for maternity. I also want us to get a bigger place.. Thing is if I was on benefits, I could simply pop a child out and would get a bigger place. Something wrong with this country Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 It would mean she would have to think very carefully before having the 3rd, 4th or 5th. It wouldn't mean any such thing. It will still be just as easy to fall pregnant multiple times asit ever was. It would mean that she couldn't afford to provide for the later children, which would lead to them starving to death unless the state provided. Is that what you want to happen if an irresponsible mother continues to have children she cannot afford? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plain Talker Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 there's a few problems with this ill-thought out idea of yours, bobbie. Firstly:- Restricting benefits Yes, all well and good... Pay benefits for the children you have/ are pregnant with at the time of going onto benefits, as per the American way of handing out welfare. If you get pregnant after that, - get nothing. Problem:- if the child is not supported, how does it not, (eg) starve to death? The child didn't ask to be conceived, did it? Why should the child suffer for the fecklessness/ work-shy attitude of its parent(s)? secondly:- the ensuing crime wave, arising from from the restriction of benefits Who would pay for the detection of such crimes as will happen as a result? Who would pay for the prison-time needed? How would society as a whole deal with picking up the pieces of the fragmented society this idea would cause? thirdly:- naming the father. What about the scenario where the woman is fleeing a violent partner, and she doesn't want him to find her/ doesn't want him to know there is a means for him to have a hold over her (through the child)? What about if he's a child molester? What about if she's had multiple partners at the time of conception, and does not know which of them is the child's biological father? do we have a Jeremy Kyle/ Maury Povitch Show type scenario where we drag eight men onto the stage, and force them to undergo DNA testing? What would this do to the child's psyche to have his mother's morals (or lack thereof) paraded on national/ international television? *" haw haw, your mummy is a tart!" etc.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
epiphany Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 Would this stop feckless and irresponsible men from fathering children all over the place, and then clearing off to repeat their actions again, and again. If men were compelled/forced to pay if they fathered more than 2 children, would this stop their irresponsible actions. As previous posters have mentioned, what happens when the father simply can't afford to pay for 3, 4, 5 kids? The children, who didn't ask to be born into a poor family, inevitably suffer the consequences. What may appear to be a policy that encourages parents to take responsibility for their actions actually ends up punishing their children in the long term. So no, this is not a valid solution in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
discodown Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 do we have a Jeremy Kyle/ Maury Povitch Show type scenario where we drag eight men onto the stage, and force them to undergo DNA testing? What would this do to the child's psyche to have his mother's morals (or lack thereof) paraded on national/ international television? *" haw haw, your mummy is a tart!" etc.. No. You don't have to do any of that on TV Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppins Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 I've told my son and his wife they should move to England so they can have more than the one child, they both work but can only afford one, his wife would have to give up work if they had another, the more I read about the free handouts over there I can understand why people want to live there, to hell with the bad weather, it 's worth putting up with I work with quite a few Mexicans, Latinos, few from Poland, I keep telling them they'd be much better off living in the UK than working in the US, don't think they quite "get it" though or don't believe me . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greengeek Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 Whenever threads are posted which propose that the state don't pay benefits for more than a certain number of children or whatever this always brings up one question in my mind, and that is: Take a family who pay for themselves perfectly well, and who don't need any help from the state but who have 6 children because they want and can afford 6 children. What happens if the breadwinner of that family dies and leaves the other parent with 6 children, no income and no way to claim any benefits to look after those children? Do you, as the person claiming that we shouldn't be paying benefits, feel any responsibility for those children getting malnutrition because their remaining parent can no longer afford to feed them properly? I have no fabulous solution to not paying benefits to those considered to be feckless by having children that they cannot afford to pay for, but the answer surely has to include not actually making children, the future of our country and of human life in general, die of starvation or the complications of malnourishment just because we resent giving their parents money to look after them? You should be planning for any situation anyway, if you have 6 children, and one bread winner, you should have life insurance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.