Rich Posted November 19, 2011 Share Posted November 19, 2011 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. Ugh! So because I will probably be on on disability till I reach pension age, I should be forced to have "the snip" so I never get any kids? This has got to the THE stupidest post I've read on this forum in a LONG time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted November 19, 2011 Share Posted November 19, 2011 Ugh! So because I will probably be on on disability till I reach pension age, I should be forced to have "the snip" so I never get any kids? This has got to the THE stupidest post I've read on this forum in a LONG time. I don’t think Conrod is saying you shouldn’t have kids, just that the tax payer should have to support enough to make a football team. I work and the amount of children I could have was determined by how many I could afford to feed and clothe, it should be no different for someone on benefits, just like my wages didn’t increase as my family grew, a benefit claimant income shouldn't grow just because they decide to have more kids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricgem2002 Posted November 19, 2011 Share Posted November 19, 2011 "Indian man has 39 wives, nearly 100 children" But he does live in a remote area of India, so it isn't really relevant. lets hope he aint got family here otherwise we know where he will be heading Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fruitisbad Posted November 19, 2011 Share Posted November 19, 2011 Is that mothers or virgin Mary's? Well said that man:thumbsup:....erm, hold on:suspect: Now look what you gone and done. Why don't we just castrate males at birth..or in the womb even? If it was reversable when kids were wanted I'd be fine with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinz Posted November 19, 2011 Share Posted November 19, 2011 I'd take it a step further - people do not earn their own way in life should have no right to a family. Or even further..."people do not earn their own way in life should have no right to a family life". Receiving benefits isn't exactly supporting yourself..is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGuy Posted November 19, 2011 Share Posted November 19, 2011 Do you mean for the first 4 then no more? Dont be daft, you can't get cigerattes with those. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xt500 Posted November 19, 2011 Share Posted November 19, 2011 Your right, this will never be allowed to happen. Any party that dared put this one forward would be trounced at the elections. Who says?? I think you will find quite alot of people are sick of paying out for people with no intention of working but manage to keep producing kids and then passing their ways to the next generation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
love_rat Posted November 19, 2011 Share Posted November 19, 2011 Who says?? I think you will find quite alot of people are sick of paying out for people with no intention of working but manage to keep producing kids and then passing their ways to the next generation. If you read my post, in about 5 or 6 years the kids that are being brought up in workless houses will greatly outnumber the kids who are born from working households. Think about it, migrants have many children (who will be voting in a few years time) the white chavs view sex as a passtime and don't bother with jonnys and churn out many kids. Meanwhile, your working family has one, maybe two because thats all they can afford, some working familys have no kids. Polititians need to appeal to the greater number of voters and so, we are at a tipping point where things can change. Give it about 5 years, and it will be impossible to make changes, simply because there will not be enough of the voting (working) public to win at the ballot box Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGuy Posted November 19, 2011 Share Posted November 19, 2011 If you read my post, in about 5 or 6 years the kids that are being brought up in workless houses will greatly outnumber the kids who are born from working households. Think about it, migrants have many children (who will be voting in a few years time) the white chavs view sex as a passtime and don't bother with jonnys and churn out many kids. Meanwhile, your working family has one, maybe two because thats all they can afford, some working familys have no kids. Polititians need to appeal to the greater number of voters and so, we are at a tipping point where things can change. Give it about 5 years, and it will be impossible to make changes, simply because there will not be enough of the voting (working) public to win at the ballot box Your hyperthetical lumpenproletariat majority churning out kids wont be bothered to vote, governments will be elected on small turnouts of the voting minority decent families. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
love_rat Posted November 19, 2011 Share Posted November 19, 2011 Your hyperthetical lumpenproletariat majority churning out kids wont be bothered to vote, governments will be elected on small turnouts of the voting minority decent families. Ugh yuk You = daily fail reader Won't happen mate, unless you going to frogmarch each benefit claimant off to the clinic for the snip. Adolf Hitler used to read the daily mail you know Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.