Should the UK have a 5 children cap for benefits?

[boyfriday]

I think people would rather cut down on the amount of children they have rather than the amount of life they have.

 

On a micro scale I'd agree however those choices may well become severely limited as the effects of an ageing population over time place intolerable burdens on welfare provision and revenue to the exchequer.

[MrSmith]

On a micro scale I'd agree however those choices may well become severely limited as the effects of an ageing population over time place intolerable burdens on welfare provision and revenue to the exchequer.

 

There are vast swathes of the population that are a greater burden on society than the old people that have contributed; I imagine they would be the first to go. Criminals would be at the top of the list.

[boyfriday]

There are vast swathes of the population that are a greater burden on society than the old people that have contributed; I imagine they would be the first to go. Criminals would be at the top of the list.

 

But that doesn't address the social/economic consequences of an ageing population.

 

The current welfare/(state) pension system is effectively 'pay as you go', retirees are being subsidised by people in work now, they're also being cared for by people working in the healthcare system. An environment where children/family looked after their elderly relatives has largely become a thing of the past, and will continue to be so as the 'burden' of caring for the elderly (in years to come) falls on fewer and fewer people as the age demographic shifts.

 

Put quite simply, our social system and economy needs people of working age in increasing numbers to feed the sausage machine.

 

This is a very good report on the effects of the ageing population

 

http://www.21stcenturychallenges.org/focus/britains-greying-population/

[Joanl]

OK so why again does a thread subject get turned around to target the old people. I am proud that I have managed to live ten years longer than my parents did. What gives anybody the right to put us down like no longer wanted pets?

Why not automatic and compulsory vasectomys for any bloke that has sired say 3 kids, regardless of how many different women they are to, or automatic sterilization of women after 3, once again regardless of how many sperm doners they've used?

[chem1st]

OK so why again does a thread subject get turned around to target the old people. I am proud that I have managed to live ten years longer than my parents did. What gives anybody the right to put us down like no longer wanted pets?

Why not automatic and compulsory vasectomys for any bloke that has sired say 3 kids, regardless of how many different women they are to, or automatic sterilization of women after 3, once again regardless of how many sperm doners they've used?

 

Were NOT having ENOUGH children, to have enough workers in the future to cope with the rapidly increasing elderly population.

 

Would you shoot your carer to improve you old age care?

[boyfriday]

OK so why again does a thread subject get turned around to target the old people. I am proud that I have managed to live ten years longer than my parents did. What gives anybody the right to put us down like no longer wanted pets?

Why not automatic and compulsory vasectomys for any bloke that has sired say 3 kids, regardless of how many different women they are to, or automatic sterilization of women after 3, once again regardless of how many sperm doners they've used?

 

Nobody's having a go at you Joanl or people who are elderly now, certainly not me.

 

The real problem will be created in 10+ years time when the baby boomers start retiring in their millions (and their contributions to the exchequer reduces and their demands on health and care services increases), incidentally I'm one of those, so me and people of my generation are very much part of the 'problem', if that's what it can be called.

 

As I said earlier, the main problem isn't children being born (which is what the OP implies), but the age distribution of the population and how this will be overweighted towards older people.

 

Reducing the birth rate won't help the elderly in years to come because there will be insufficient numbers to support them, financially or in terms of health and caring.

[MrSmith]

But that doesn't address the social/economic consequences of an ageing population.

 

The current welfare/(state) pension system is effectively 'pay as you go', retirees are being subsidised by people in work now, they're also being cared for by people working in the healthcare system. An environment where children/family looked after their elderly relatives has largely become a thing of the past, and will continue to be so as the 'burden' of caring for the elderly (in years to come) falls on fewer and fewer people as the age demographic shifts.

 

Put quite simply, our social system and economy needs people of working age in increasing numbers to feed the sausage machine.

 

This is a very good report on the effects of the ageing population

 

http://www.21stcenturychallenges.org/focus/britains-greying-population/

 

By getting rid of everyone that doesn’t contribute to society the wealth that the workers generate will sustain them through their old age.

 

A million prisoners cost more to keep than a million old people and some are a burden for most of their life, some disable people are a burden for most of their life, workshy scroungers are a burden for most of their life and tend to be the people producing the most children. I can’t see a situation in which workers will volunteer to die young whilst there are still unproductive members of society languishing at the expense.

[boyfriday]

By getting rid of everyone that doesn’t contribute to society the wealth that the workers generate will sustain them through their old age.

 

A million prisoners cost more to keep than a million old people and some are a burden for most of their life, some disable people are a burden for most of their life, workshy scroungers are a burden for most of their life and tend to be the people producing the most children.

 

I can’t see a situation in which workers will volunteer to die young whilst there are still unproductive members of society languishing at the expense.

 

You're missing my point MrSmith, nowhere have I said 'workers should volunteer to die young'-we need more workers not less of them.

 

My main point is that the choice for euthanasia doesn't exist, in fact assisting a suicide is a criminal offence, yet the reasons for denying that choice seem to be rooted in religion, history and ethical policy.

 

All I'm saying is that in time the balance may well shift the other way, through necessity and debate..I could envisage a position where I may choose to end my own life in old age rather than suffer in penury or ill health with poor social/healthcare, especially if it helped my own children and their children. I don't particularly want to be maintained just for the sake of someone else's conscience.

 

Personally I wouldn't support the forced euthanasia of criminals or anyone else, whatever their age.

[skinz]

It would be more accurate to say that it affects practically no-one. The vast majority of families have less than six children.

 

With policy the numbers can change over time...from 5 to 3? or 2?

[MrSmith]

You're missing my point MrSmith, nowhere have I said 'workers should volunteer to die young'-we need more workers not less of them.

For a hypothetical scenario like Logan's Run to happen, the people would have to agree that at a certain age everyone should die. The workers represent the majority in our society, so if they are going to volunteer anyone for euthanasia, it will be the non productive members of society that go first, like prisoners, disabled, permanent unemployed. Why would some that works agree to die when they get old when they can just volunteer someone else that is a greater burden on society.

 

My main point is that the choice for euthanasia doesn't exist, in fact assisting a suicide is a criminal offence, yet the reasons for denying that choice seem to be rooted in religion, history and ethical policy.

 

 

I know, my response is about an hypothetical scenario like Logan's Run as mentioned in post 41

 

All I'm saying is that in time the balance may well shift the other way, through necessity and debate..I could envisage a position where I may choose to end my own life in old age rather than suffer in penury or ill health with poor social/healthcare, especially if it helped my own children and their children. I don't particularly want to be maintained just for the sake of someone else's conscience.

 

Personally I wouldn't support the forced euthanasia of criminals or anyone else, whatever their age.

 

That’s why birth control is a better solution to overpopulation, stop life before it starts as opposed to ending it because there are too many people.

I personally think the world population will be reduced by starvation and lack of water, because people will just keep breading regardless of the available food and water.