I1L2T3 Posted September 19, 2015 Share Posted September 19, 2015 I repeat as you seem to like doing. They won't lose a penny,they will just receive less, there's a fairly simple solution, if you can't afford kids don't have them or get a better paid job. And where does all this end? Some are saying we need people like her to keep the population up, so her five have five each recurring, the country will finish up with a population like China's. Is there any economic basis for this argument? Or is it just some kind of accepted morality? And if so based on what? What is the justification for using this argument? It's actually quite a dangerous argument if you think it through properly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gomgeg Posted September 19, 2015 Share Posted September 19, 2015 Is there any economic basis for this argument? Or is it just some kind of accepted morality? And if so based on what? What is the justification for using this argument? It's actually quite a dangerous argument if you think it through properly. No, it's based on what the elected government has decided to do. It's called democracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJC1 Posted September 19, 2015 Share Posted September 19, 2015 No, it's based on what the elected government has decided to do. It's called democracy. It's about as logical as your they won't lose money they just receive less argument Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted September 19, 2015 Share Posted September 19, 2015 No, it's based on what the elected government has decided to do. It's called democracy. On what basis though? What are the exact reasons for the decision? Are they economic reasons? Are they religious reasons? Are they moral reasons and if so based on whose morality? Are they class-based reasons? Are they cultural reasons? What are the reasons for the government taking an anti-parent stance? Who decides? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gomgeg Posted September 19, 2015 Share Posted September 19, 2015 On what basis though? What are the exact reasons for the decision? Are they economic reasons? Are they religious reasons? Are they moral reasons and if so based on whose morality? Are they class-based reasons? Are they cultural reasons? What are the reasons for the government taking an anti-parent stance? Who decides? The government decides. If you or me can't afford something we don't buy it, So why should taxpayers pay for someone's lifestyle choice, it's nothing to do with class. And as for cultural reasons it's always been the culture in this country to live within your means until labour brought in the nanny state. And if anyone wants loads of kids for religious reasons surely their God will provide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexAtkin Posted September 19, 2015 Share Posted September 19, 2015 The government decides. If you or me can't afford something we don't buy it, So why should taxpayers pay for someone's lifestyle choice, it's nothing to do with class. And as for cultural reasons it's always been the culture in this country to live within your means until labour brought in the nanny state. And if anyone wants loads of kids for religious reasons surely their God will provide. I agree with the principle of don't have a ton of kids if you can't afford them. But how was she supposed to know that the government would suddenly cut tax credits, taking her from "I can afford them" into "I can't afford them"? What do you expect people to do when their financial situation changes beyond their control? Or are you in favour of what some bankers did during the crisis, killed all their family and themselves because they knew they could no longer afford their lifestyle? If everyone lives their life based on what "might" happen, nobody would have kids! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamston Posted September 19, 2015 Share Posted September 19, 2015 Why? Hers was a good point and very well made. Five kids. Five future workers. Five future taxpayers. 18 years of modest taxpayer support for 50 years of future taxes to be paid by her kids. We should be proud of her and her husband. And no, that is not a wind-up!! Just basic economics. I have a more economic idea .......... Why doesn't Claire, her husband and five kids trade places with the two twelve year old Syrian girl twins and their family who were on SKY News today . The two girls are well educated , spoke good english and want to be doctors . And no, that is not a wind-up!! Just basic economics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted September 19, 2015 Share Posted September 19, 2015 The government decides. If you or me can't afford something we don't buy it, So why should taxpayers pay for someone's lifestyle choice, it's nothing to do with class. And as for cultural reasons it's always been the culture in this country to live within your means until labour brought in the nanny state. And if anyone wants loads of kids for religious reasons surely their God will provide. Kids aren't objects. They aren't things you buy. They're the workers and taxpayers of the future. It's quite telling that this argument is frequently framed in terms of the objects that those criticising think the recipients of state help can buy. It's like you can't have the 'kid' object if you have other consumer objects. It's seriously messed up. So, I'll ask again. What are your reasons? ---------- Post added 19-09-2015 at 19:10 ---------- I have a more economic idea .......... Why doesn't Claire, her husband and five kids trade places with the two twelve year old Syrian girl twins and their family who were on SKY News today . The two girls are well educated , spoke good english and want to be doctors . And no, that is not a wind-up!! Just basic economics. Because people like you would then complain that Britain was becoming too ethnic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamston Posted September 19, 2015 Share Posted September 19, 2015 ---------- Post added 19-09-2015 at 19:10 ---------- Because people like you would then complain that Britain was becoming too ethnic. People like me ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gomgeg Posted September 19, 2015 Share Posted September 19, 2015 I agree with the principle of don't have a ton of kids if you can't afford them. But how was she supposed to know that the government would suddenly cut tax credits, taking her from "I can afford them" into "I can't afford them"? What do you expect people to do when their financial situation changes beyond their control? Or are you in favour of what some bankers did during the crisis, killed all their family and themselves because they knew they could no longer afford their lifestyle? If everyone lives their life based on what "might" happen, nobody would have kids! First of all, she couldn't afford them, she wasn't paying for them. Secondly, when someone's financial situation changes I would expect them to be supported in the short term until they found work. And what other people do, you say bankers is beyond mine and your control. And finally we believe in democracy in this house and the storm trooper has decided we are going out so I've got to go. ---------- Post added 19-09-2015 at 19:28 ---------- Kids aren't objects. They aren't things you buy. They're the workers and taxpayers of the future. It's quite telling that this argument is frequently framed in terms of the objects that those criticising think the recipients of state help can buy. It's like you can't have the 'kid' object if you have other consumer objects. It's seriously messed up. So, I'll ask again. What are your reasons? ---------- Post added 19-09-2015 at 19:10 ---------- Because people like you would then complain that Britain was becoming too ethnic. I've had to come back and risk her wrath. I've already explained. It's what the democratically elected government decided. Surely you've heard of democracy, if not I'm sure you can google it. Now I really am pushing it with her, so I'm going. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts