Should the UK have a 5 children cap for benefits?

[boyfriday]

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.

 

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

 

I hear what you say but you can't 'volunteer' someone for something without removing their freedom of choice which would remove my support for the Logan's Run type scenario.

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.

The problem isn't too many people, it's too many people who will place a burden on limited resources.

 

Since my statements may be taken personally by older posters, let's look at the example of my own case. Until I was 40 I enjoyed really good health, but post 45 bits started failing, like they do for many people. As I have medical insurance the costs (and personnel) required to treat me are borne by my insurers.

 

Once I retire some significant things will happen:

 

(i) I'll no longer be able to afford the luxury of PMI.

(ii) The incidence of ill health will increase with increasing age.

(iii) The costs of maintaining my health and providing personnel to do so will fall entirely on the state.

(iv) I'll be taking up resources in the NHS which to date have been available to other citizens.

 

I don't believe my situation is particularly exceptional, there will be many millions in my position.

 

Let's say the birth rate is curtailed, that presents certain problems within the next 20 years when those children who would have been born would be working and contributing. Yes it reduces the population, but it also means the sick and elderly will be placed in a precarious position, unless they don't have to rely on state pensions and state healthcare.

[MrSmith]

I hear what you say but you can't 'volunteer' someone for something without removing their freedom of choice which would remove my support for the Logan's Run type scenario.

The problem isn't too many people, it's too many people who will place a burden on limited resources.

 

 

Most workers would be able to keep themselves through their old age if they didn’t have the burden of supporting and feeding the non productive members of society. And if we can’t increase the resources all we are left with is reducing the population, preferably by birth control as opposed to starvation or euthanasia.

[boyfriday]

Most workers would be able to keep themselves through their old age if they didn’t have the burden of supporting and feeding the non productive members of society. And if we can’t increase the resources all we are left with is reducing the population, preferably by birth control as opposed to starvation or euthanasia.

 

But not supporting the 'less productive members of society' isn't an option as far as I'm concerned, and I wouldn't want to live in a world that adopted such a regime anyway.

 

It's the thin end of the wedge, however the option for voluntary euthanasia is less onerous and to be honest should be available irrespective of the population situation, I'd like to have the choice to end my life when I'm ready should that eventuality present itself. Let's start with people like me before we start dragging the disabled, people on benefits and criminals to the slaughter houses.

 

Incidentally, I'm not so sure workers would be able to support themselves through old age, one of the problems I've mentioned is that there quite simply won't be enough people to care for the elderly anyway notwithstanding their financial position..

[Teddybare]

The rapidly ageing population situation is a very temporary one. People who harp on about it forget one important thing: the fatties. The British whale epidemic. Another 20 years when the fatties become the fat pensioners, if they ever get that old, won't have many years to draw a pension.

 

Have as many kids as you like, pensions crisis solved: send everyone out for another mcDonalds.

[boyfriday]

The rapidly ageing population situation is a very temporary one. People who harp on about it forget one important thing: the fatties. The British whale epidemic. Another 20 years when the fatties become the fat pensioners, if they ever get that old, won't have many years to draw a pension.

 

Have as many kids as you like, pensions crisis solved: send everyone out for another mcDonalds.

 

"the fatties", "the drinkers", "the smokers", "the inactive" place a disproportionate burden on the state especially as pensioners since they tend to be ill long before they die and advances in medicine help to prolong their lives.

 

We need less of the above, not more.

 

Perhaps GP's should issue prescriptions for sausage & egg mcmuffins..and a 12 bore shotgun to take your life afterwards?

[Ian Dome]

i'd introduce a birth certificate tax - £2000 a child.

[MrSmith]

But not supporting the 'less productive members of society' isn't an option as far as I'm concerned, and I wouldn't want to live in a world that adopted such a regime anyway.

 

It's the thin end of the wedge, however the option for voluntary euthanasia is less onerous and to be honest should be available irrespective of the population situation, I'd like to have the choice to end my life when I'm ready should that eventuality present itself. Let's start with people like me before we start dragging the disabled, people on benefits and criminals to the slaughter houses.

 

Incidentally, I'm not so sure workers would be able to support themselves through old age, one of the problems I've mentioned is that there quite simply won't be enough people to care for the elderly anyway notwithstanding their financial position..

 

Logan’s run wasn't voluntary euthanasia, but I do agree that we should be able to choose to die in a free society; to be denied the right to end one’s life is to deny us freedom.

 

The post you answered had an age of 50 and most people are can still be productive into their 70's and will have family to care for them.

[boyfriday]

Logan’s run wasn't voluntary euthanasia, but I do agree that we should be able to choose to die in a free society; to be denied the right to end one’s life is to deny us freedom.

 

The post you answered had an age of 50 and most people are can still be productive into their 70's and will have family to care for them.

 

Sorry MrSmith, I was merely supporting the notion of euthanasia to address increasing population rather than directly the Logan's Run 'model', apologises for any misunderstanding, but I see where it may have come from.

 

Ps: weren't they younger than 50 in LR?

[MrSmith]

Sorry MrSmith, I was merely supporting the notion of euthanasia to address increasing population rather than directly the Logan's Run 'model', apologises for any misunderstanding, but I see where it may have come from.

 

Ps: weren't they younger than 50 in LR?

 

I think it was 30, I had a memory of it being a good film until I watched it again a couple of months ago, and it was crap. I will watch the remake though when it’s available.

[andygardener]

"the fatties", "the drinkers", "the smokers", "the inactive" place a disproportionate burden on the state especially as pensioners since they tend to be ill long before they die and advances in medicine help to prolong their lives.

 

I think conditionality of treatment on lifestyle changes where lifestyle is a key factor is already being talked about now and will become a certainty over the next 20 years. Which seems fair enough, no point treating people for ilnesses caused by their lifestyle if they are not prepared to change it.