Stvoider Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 That's exactly my point. Nobody is suggesting anything! You did suggest starving. Look up what suggest means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 You're catching on! But then the money does not go towards the parents that contravene of the rule. In that case, what it amounts to is that you want to spend more money, on taking children away from their natural parents, than it would cost to leave them there and avoid the trauma of breaking up a home. I can entirely sympathise with the notion that people should not have children they cannot afford - but trying to enforce it is not a practical option. It causes bigger problems than the one we're trying to solve. I don't know why you're addressing me alone You're the only one who has bothered to answer my original question. Most people, when this idea is mooted, just flatly ignore it and pretend the problem won't exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jenand8285 Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 I agree with Suziface. The government should only pay benefit for the first two children. Contraception is free on the NHS so there really is no excuse for as many accidental pregnancies that there is. If the scroungers were aware of the fact they would not get any benefit for additional children I am sure alot of them would be more carefull. There are many people who just pop out kids without any thought of how they are going to finance them. IMO these people who you see in the media with 8 kids a 4 bed house, 4 HD TV's and never worked a day in there life are an absolute disgrace!! As they say if you can't feed them don't breed them! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stvoider Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 You're the only one who has bothered to answer my original question. Most people, when this idea is mooted, just flatly ignore it and pretend the problem won't exist. Truly appreciated In that case, what it amounts to is that you want to spend more money, on taking children away from their natural parents, than it would cost to leave them there and avoid the trauma of breaking up a home. I can entirely sympathise with the notion that people should not have children they cannot afford - but trying to enforce it is not a practical option. It causes bigger problems than the one we're trying to solve. Only removing them if they are in danger at home. I'm all for parents taking greater responsibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 Only removing them if they are in danger at home. I'm all for parents taking greater responsibility. But the only reason they're in danger, is because the government isn't helping to support them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stvoider Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 But the only reason they're in danger, is because the government isn't helping to support them. Yes. I think the dependence on the state has been exploited for too long. So much so that we are too reliant on it. For that matter..... who pays for it? Everyone else. I want my genes to be passed on but reliance on the state to do so isn't on my agenda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 Yes. I think the dependence on the state has been exploited for too long. I wouldn't argue with that - but the cure is worse than the disease. Removing children from families who can't afford to look after them, would cost far more money than just helping the families to begin with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jenand8285 Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 Yes. I think the dependence on the state has been exploited for too long. So much so that we are too reliant on it. For that matter..... who pays for it? Everyone else. I want my genes to be passed on but reliance on the state to do so isn't on my agenda. True! I think instead of parents being given X amount of money each week to spend on what ever they please vouchers should be brought in. Uniform should be mandatory in all schools, retailers should get on board to accept vouchers in return for uniform items and shoes & coats. When I was at school some children would get the said items from somewhere but it seemed they was all the same so other children spotted the kids with the 'eddy' coats and children can be cruel!! If a variety of retailers got involved parents could have a choice to get a better items and get the same as other kids. Also they should be given shopping vouchers and only be allowed to get 'proper' food with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stvoider Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 There are so many sharp edges to this point! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stvoider Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 I wouldn't argue with that - but the cure is worse than the disease. Removing children from families who can't afford to look after them, would cost far more money than just helping the families to begin with. Maybe, but then there is a lighter side. I've known adoptive families where they've had 30+ children under their care and yes, with state support but they've made a positive difference. I know my opinion is a difficult one but it only becomes a humanitarian issue once the life of a youngster is at risk which will not be the case in the vast majority. The vast majority of parents will do the utmost to keep a child they truly care for. It is those who don't care enough for their children which will be targeted by this thought experiment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.