I1L2T3 Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 Is it just me or have people noticed that a lot of the benefits are towards people with kids. With population of 62 billion and rising (some say its nearer 7bn). Why should people like us who choose not to have children pay for those that do. Surely reducing the population should be encouraged rather than procreation. You're not alone. A lot of people share your view. But maybe something to have a think about - if the birth rate falls below a certain point then the age profile of the population will become heavily weighted towards older age groups. There would be fewer young people, fewer people working, fewer people paying taxes, fewer people to look after the old. What taxes were collected would be spent disproportionately on the old. This is exactly the demographic timebomb Germany and Japan are facing in the coming decades. Clearly we have similar issues but our higher birth rate should offset it to a degree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uptowngirl Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 Wages are up 10% in the past 5 years (NMW up just 8%), benefits are up 20%. Social rents are up 26%. Most people claiming benefits are WORKERS - albeit unemployed workers. We need to bring back the unemployed to the ranks of producers. Tomorrows unemployed are yesterdays workers, and tomorrows workers are todays unemployed. We should be reducing rents, and taxing economic rents... Get a job and save up to buy a house. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slugger Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 Is it just me or have people noticed that a lot of the benefits are towards people with kids. With population of 62 billion and rising (some say its nearer 7bn). Why should people like us who choose not to have children pay for those that do. Surely reducing the population should be encouraged rather than procreation. Its not just you. Someone else on here trys to promote Abortion as a solution ! 62 billion or nearer 7 billion ? Think you made a mistake in your post The only thing that is going to reduce the populous is another world war ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supertramp Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 Its not just you. Someone else on here trys to promote Abortion as a solution ! 62 billion or nearer 7 billion ? Think you made a mistake in your post The only thing that is going to reduce the populous is another world war ! Or instead of sending aid to India/China/Africa just send condoms Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 According to this it'll be a while before they are back to trend. I bought my first house at age 21, my kids couldn't hope to buy that house now even though they have much better jobs than I had. For them to afford the first house I bought, I would say wages need to double or house prices fall by half. My first house is valued at six times their income and it was three times my income 30 years ago. Most of that rise took place from 2000 to 2007 though, and it then fell for a bit, and has been flat since. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slugger Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 Or instead of sending aid to India/China/Africa just send condoms Think they stopped sending aid to India recently, the amount was pitiful anyway. Basically India admitted they didnt need it. Sending condoms would be a waste of time if they didnt know how to use them or didnt want to ! They would probably be blown up to use as balloons on special occasions or used to carry water. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 You're not alone. A lot of people share your view. But maybe something to have a think about - if the birth rate falls below a certain point then the age profile of the population will become heavily weighted towards older age groups. There would be fewer young people, fewer people working, fewer people paying taxes, fewer people to look after the old. What taxes were collected would be spent disproportionately on the old. This is exactly the demographic timebomb Germany and Japan are facing in the coming decades. Clearly we have similar issues but our higher birth rate should offset it to a degree. The birth rate in the UK is already below 2 children per 2 adults. And benefits that are targeted at parents are generally for the child. Ie they aren't to encourage anyone to have children (and if they thought about it they wouldn't be encouraged), they are to ensure that children don't grow up in poverty. Cutting such benefits in order to disincentivise parenthood punishes children, not just parents who can't afford it. ---------- Post added 08-01-2013 at 14:43 ---------- Or instead of sending aid to India/China/Africa just send condoms How much aid do we send to China then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supertramp Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 The birth rate in the UK is already below 2 children per 2 adults. And benefits that are targeted at parents are generally for the child. Ie they aren't to encourage anyone to have children (and if they thought about it they wouldn't be encouraged), they are to ensure that children don't grow up in poverty. Cutting such benefits in order to disincentivise parenthood punishes children, not just parents who can't afford it. ---------- Post added 08-01-2013 at 14:43 ---------- How much aid do we send to China then? I think none since a few years ago. Ok send condoms to Africa and a new religion that says condoms are the gift of God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slugger Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 I think none since a few years ago. Ok send condoms to Africa and a new religion that says condoms are the gift of God. Sounds good so long as they dont think they are socks ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodmally Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 You're not alone. A lot of people share your view. But maybe something to have a think about - if the birth rate falls below a certain point then the age profile of the population will become heavily weighted towards older age groups. There would be fewer young people, fewer people working, fewer people paying taxes, fewer people to look after the old. What taxes were collected would be spent disproportionately on the old. This is exactly the demographic timebomb Germany and Japan are facing in the coming decades. Clearly we have similar issues but our higher birth rate should offset it to a degree. Thats a worrying point of view but very valid. However if the population rises so we can pay for those living lonber then in years time there will be more people living longer. So its just going to make the current situation worse not better when we should be encouraging people to have less children or not at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.