XXTickerXX Posted November 19, 2011 Share Posted November 19, 2011 Should be more like Logans Run.Damn i would have expired. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted November 19, 2011 Share Posted November 19, 2011 Thats a different issue,this is about paying money to them in the form of child benefit,NOT limiting people to how many kids they can have,they can have 10 as long as they dont get child benefit for more than 4. But the issues can blur. One day you're in employment next day you aren't. One day you are a stay at home mum and that morning hubby gets run over. What you are doing is lumping these situations (which aren't that far out are they ?) with professional dole-ites. Child benefit should be, and I believe will be means tested. ie if a family earns 50k a year they don't need any. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XXTickerXX Posted November 19, 2011 Share Posted November 19, 2011 So ban people having 4 or mote kids then, regardless of their employment status. How would you feel paying for this guys family. http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/02/22/oukoe-uk-india-family-idUKTRE71L1IE20110222 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted November 19, 2011 Share Posted November 19, 2011 I can't be bothered to read it (sorry !) but I can guess. Got about 8 kids, him and the missus don't and never have worked, and we, the payer are giving him circa 60k a year and a 5 bed house. Is that about right ? It infuriates me. The brass necks of these people drive me spare. I work damn hard to pay for these parasites. However, to stop him and others like him alot if genuine people will suffer, and let's be honest, there aren't thousands and thousands of his sort. But it still annoys me. Answers ? A two teir benefit system ie one for those that have worked and one for those that haven't maybe. Kids would still suffer though. Forced adoption ? Sounds s bit nazi- ish. Forced sterilisation? Still a bit nazi-ish but I bet it's something that might happen in the next 50 years. How about for abuses of the system like mr 8 kids in the article get a swift kick in the cobblers once a week from a tax payer. That one, I'd vote for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leah-Lacie Posted November 19, 2011 Share Posted November 19, 2011 I can't be bothered to read it (sorry !) but I can guess. Got about 8 kids, him and the missus don't and never have worked, and we, the payer are giving him circa 60k a year and a 5 bed house. "Indian man has 39 wives, nearly 100 children" But he does live in a remote area of India, so it isn't really relevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinz Posted November 19, 2011 Share Posted November 19, 2011 It's hardly going to be a policy to upset normal working people whose taxes support feckless young mothers and families in their excessive breeding. Is that mothers or virgin Mary's? I'd like to agree, but unfortunately punishing the kids doesn't benefit anyone unfortunately. Well said that man:thumbsup:....erm, hold on:suspect: should start putting those implants in girls from 14, then there wouldn't be any 'accidents' if you are desperate for a child you can get it removed. Now look what you gone and done. Why don't we just castrate males at birth..or in the womb even? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vague_Boy Posted November 19, 2011 Share Posted November 19, 2011 4 is too generous. I'd set the limit at two. I know several examples where girls in their early 20s have 4 kids (different fathers naturally), all being paid for by the state. It's highly unlikely that any of them will grow up to be anything other than a drain on the public purse, yet we subsidize their profligate breeding whilst simultaneously storing up problems for tomorrow. OK, fair enough, the country is awash with money so we can easily afford it. Oh, wait...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fake Posted November 19, 2011 Share Posted November 19, 2011 but why 4? why not 3 or 5 or 2? Because the minister proposing it has 3 of her own. And why are people obsessed with the idea that those receiving benefits should be paid in vouchers. How would that cut the costs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted November 19, 2011 Share Posted November 19, 2011 Have to agree with her,if you are on benefits and want big families don't expect the taxpayer to pay for it. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15790806 If you think you're better than everyone else and continue to put other people down, don't expect any friends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conrod Posted November 19, 2011 Share Posted November 19, 2011 If you think you're better than everyone else and continue to put other people down, don't expect any friends.Why does saying "if you are on benefits and want big families don't expect the taxpayer to pay for it." put other people down? It makes total sense - working families often limit their offspring because they can't afford the time/money to have bigger families. Why do we reward people on benefits with more money for having more kids that are probably, in most cases, destined for a life of idleness themselves? I'd take it a step further - people do not earn their own way in life should have no right to a family. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.