chem1st Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 Where did I say that right should be removed? How do you plan on making it a privilege? Increase the cost of living to such a degree that people can't afford to breed without requiring a kickback from the state/state help? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 How do you plan on making it a privilege? Increase the cost of living to such a degree that people can't afford to breed without requiring a kickback from the state/state help? Isn't that what happens now with a lot of people? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stvoider Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 How do you plan on making it a privilege? Increase the cost of living to such a degree that people can't afford to breed without requiring a kickback from the state/state help? Did you even read the OP? You may have two with state support to replace yourselves. Any more and state subsidence will no longer be available for the additional children. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 Did you even read the OP? You may have two with state support to replace yourselves. Any more and state subsidence will no longer be available for the additional children. Yes I did, it is a stupid idea. The birth rate in this country is lower than replacement level. Breeding needs to be encouraged. Immigration has been encouraged because the birth rate over here is so low! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 If you would just read the posts before. When people are born there is no going back so they must be supported until death. What we are discussing is how to decrease the reliance on the state for having more than two children. In my earlier post I said that I agree with people working as long as they choose to beyond retirement age. I am interested in your beleifs as if they are as you have posted are diametrically opposed to mine, and I have never conversed with someone on such a basis. At the end of the day our economic problems are not due to the birth of too many children. Our economic problems are due to us not having enough children and the high cost of living due to the housing bubble and consumer debt bubble (problems caused by people whom are adults). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stvoider Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 At the end of the day our economic problems are not due to the birth of too many children. Our economic problems are due to us not having enough children and the high cost of living due to the housing bubble and consumer debt bubble (problems caused by people whom are adults). Therefore having more children is just deferring the problem. As Bill Hicks put it : Before having more kids we need to sort out this food-air deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 I do think you're full of it sometimes.. I would suspect the children of today have recieved more state benefit than the pensioners did when they were kids.. There was recently a a series of 4 programs on BBC radio 4, called 'poorer than their parents'. Episode 2 considered pensions; A young person born today will be expected to pay £68k into the state (via pension & healthcare) A young person born in the next decade will be expected to contribute £160k to the state. Meanwhile, many baby boomers will have received £220k from the state. Consider the national debt. Many people haven't paid for themselves or their children! The people expected to pay for themselves and for others, are the children. The children are our future, and it would appear also our debt funded PRESENT too. We need them ever so badly to pay off the debts of our elders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stvoider Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 There was recently a a series of 4 programs on BBC radio 4, called 'poorer than their parents'. Episode 2 considered pensions; Consider the national debt. Many people haven't paid for themselves or their children! The people expected to pay for themselves and for others, are the children. The children are our future, and it would appear also our debt funded PRESENT too. We need them ever so badly to pay off the debts of our elders. That's based solely on the devaluation of our currency. Money may change but the cost of living will not by such a margin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
esme Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 Mod Note Posts removed for masked swearing and quoting deleted posts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 Did you even read the OP? You may have two with state support to replace yourselves. Any more and state subsidence will no longer be available for the additional children. Nobody's looking at the elephant in the room, for some reason. If you bring this rule in, and someone who cannot afford more than two children has them anyway ... what happens to those children? Are they just left to starve? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.