TeaFan Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 No chance on that me old mucker, it's called immigration and it's already happening. Having done a quick bit of reading online it appears that there is actually little evidence that it would reduce birth rates, so it looks like I was wrong. So the effect would more likely be the same number of children, no more jobs than there are now, lower welfare payments, so either more crime or just more deprived children. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*_ash_* Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 No it isn't. Not that I agree with the OP's suggestions, but... Two children maximum paid for by the benefit system, one is an accident, if it happens again, OK - its another accident. If it happens again, then you need to think about condoms. Also, after baby number 3,the father needs to provide. I just wonder about that 41% who voted yes. Obviously they are OK with punishing new born babies Say the father refuses to provide, you would be OK with the child starving to death then? If you can't see an issue with your logic, then there is no point discussing any further. The conclusions you came to [in bold] with what was suggested, are absurd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benedictine Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 I'm sorry but just to reiterate: Quote: Two children maximum paid for by the benefit system, one is an accident, if it happens again, OK - its another accident. If it happens again, then you need to think about condoms. Also, after baby number 3,the father needs to provide. Anybody who thinks that is a good idea, anybody who voted 'yes' would be directly responsible for the neglect of babies. Do you think from Sheffield's population of five hundred thousand, or the country's population of fifty million, there would be no 'fathers' who would go over this 'limit?' If 'no' then you are naive. If 'yes' then you are punishing the child for the father's action. This is why we have a government. Edit: any sensible person rejects these points upon the 'you need to think about condoms' part...Jesus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*_ash_* Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 It is the most likely outcome. To suggest that reductions in child benefit would create... Would mean the abuse of babies. If you did what you suggested above, 1000s of new born babies in Sheffield would suffer neglect. To suggest that without child benefit, mothers would abuse and neglect their children is nothing short of insulting every mother in the country. And specifically every Mum who brought children into the world before child benefits, perhaps even your own mother if you are old enough. If one wants to look at what is wrong with society and modern human thought, your last couple of posts highlight them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benedictine Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 To suggest that reductions in child benefit would create... To suggest that without child benefit, mothers would abuse and neglect their children is nothing short of insulting every mother in the country. And specifically every Mum who brought children into the world before child benefits, perhaps even your own mother if you are old enough. If one wants to look at what is wrong with society and modern human thought, your last couple of posts highlight them. Hmm, I think you have misinterpreted what I meant. I am not talking about mothers abusing their babies, obviously, I am talking about the lack of income for families which impacts upon the child. You punish the father you really punish the child. I would have thought that was obvious. Edit: for example you say no benefits after the second child. So the father ignores this, which is likely to happen with a population of 50 million, and so his 5/6 other children suffer after the first two. Even if only one father out of the whole population of the UK ignores the new 'legislation' you are effectively giving the green light to extreme poverty or neglect. Personally I'm not OK with that...if you are, like the 41%, then that's fine, but I'm not. This is why we have governments... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*_ash_* Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 I'm sorry but just to reiterate: Anybody who thinks that is a good idea, anybody who voted 'yes' would be directly responsible for the neglect of babies. You don't need to reiterate, I read it. To think that people who voted yes would be directly responsible for the neglect of babies is utter rubbish Ben. If a baby is neglected, then it is almost always down to the primary carer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benedictine Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 See my previous post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*_ash_* Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 You are changing your posts. I'm not stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benedictine Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 You are changing your posts. I'm not stupid. Ha, ha, not I'm not changing my posts beyond adding edits which I have shown. You really have no idea, that's OK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*_ash_* Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 OK, to this post which you have completely changed to make my post look silly... in this case... Edit: for example you say no benefits after the second child. So the father ignores this, which is likely to happen with a population of 50 million, and so his 5/6 other children suffer after the first two. Even if only one father out of the whole population of the UK ignores the new 'legislation' you are effectively giving the green light to extreme poverty or neglect. Personally I'm not OK with that...if you are, like the 41%, then that's fine, but I'm not. This is why we have governments... Child benefit doesn't work this way. If say Bob impregnates 1 woman twice, and so they have two children, he then sods off, the primary carer (usually mum) claims 2 child benefits. If Bob then moves away and impregnates another woman twice, and so they also have two children, then he sods off again, the mother can claim for two children. When the second woman has her first child, it doesn't stop 1 claim from woman 1. In either case, the primary carer can claim for the children in their care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.