bobbie Posted January 9, 2011 Author Share Posted January 9, 2011 No, you have extrapolated the comments wrongly. We aren't supporting the indiscriminate churning out of children. What we are saying is that those children should not be penalised for their parents' fecklessness. It's a whole different thing. With an answer like that, we can never solve the problem. Kids are created as a result of unprotected sex. Look, the only thing I'm saying is that after 2 kids, then the man starts to pay for his offspring 40% of his net income/benefits for the 3rd 60% of his net income/benefits for the 4th etc....etc..... How can it not be a bad deal? if the man has got two different women pregnant, the two seperate women have got a 3 bedroom home each - and the man does not have to contribute a penny. Not one penny for the running of two homes. Yet on the 3rd, we ask him to start contributing. I bet there are many men out there who would love to own 3 seperate 3 bedroom homes - and only pay 40% of their salary to run these 3 homes. From the womens point of view, a 3 bed home is not bad. If she does have the 3rd child, then 2 of her kids have to share a room. 4 kids, and its 2 to a room. Its a good deal when you think about it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeX Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 feckless and irresponsible men from fathering children all over the place It takes two to tango you know. With feckless and irresponsible women. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbie Posted January 9, 2011 Author Share Posted January 9, 2011 With feckless and irresponsible women. Its about both men and women taking responsibility for what they do, and paying towards the cost of their actions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mickw Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Its about both men and women taking responsibility for what they do, and paying towards the cost of their actions hallelujah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steiner Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 I like this idea of stopping benefits for more than 2 children,if they want more they pick up the bill themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaisavteo Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 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? What's wrong with also insisting that they adequate life cover for such eventualities. Not really saying I agree or disagree but it's clear that new strategies need to be looked at with regards to the current benefit system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 I like this idea of stopping benefits for more than 2 children,if they want more they pick up the bill themselves. What happens when they cannot? Do you let the third child starve to death, while saying "it the parents' fault this child is dying because they should never have had it?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 What happens when they cannot? Do you let the third child starve to death, while saying "it the parents' fault this child is dying because they should never have had it?" Like I said, he hasn't thought it through... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbie Posted January 10, 2011 Author Share Posted January 10, 2011 Like I said, he hasn't thought it through... Its not that difficult a concept. On the 3rd child, the adults then have to start to pay towards the cost of their actions. Provided they only stick to two children, society will house them in a 3 bed home and give them money to live. Come on, you seriously do not think its reasonable to let the lowest paid in our society be taxed to death, in order to fund the feckless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conrod Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Come on, you seriously do not think its reasonable to let the lowest paid in our society be taxed to death, in order to fund the fecklessUnfortunately there seem to be plenty of people on here who think exactly that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.