Should we sterilise the poor?

[willman]

usually being poor is a result of parents with poor education or no interest in bettering themselves and a view that they are entitled so they sit around waiting for the handout, this obviously doesnt mean everyone but a large percentage. sterilization is an option for people that are quite incapable of understanding contraception after they have 2 kids, the old saying if you cant feed em dont breed them is particularly apt:roll:

 

Why let them have 2 kids then?

If they're poor 2 kids would grow up poor.

Why not put a salary threshold on of 50k per couple, then below that you can't have children.

Is that as fair ?

[max]

How about we sterilise the shareholders of companies which receive the most in benefits? Those companies where, due to their low wages, the majority of their employees have to claim benefits in order to survive would be a start.

 

Then we could sterilise landlords whose rents are so high that their tenants have to claim housing benefits.

[Bonzo77]

I wouldn't limit how many children they have but would limit the layouts to say 2 kids then no benefits for more,if people want more no problem but they should support them.

 

......because families on benefits is the cause of the world's problems?

 

Stop blaming benefit claimants and immigrants, for god's sake!

[ENG601PM]

How about we sterilise the shareholders of companies which receive the most in benefits? Those companies where, due to their low wages, the majority of their employees have to claim benefits in order to survive would be a start.

 

Then we could sterilise landlords whose rents are so high that their tenants have to claim housing benefits.

 

Make it simpler and just eliminate benefits and the NMW.

 

Wages will rise to the level of supply and demand equilibrium. You might have to do something about levels of immigration for unskilled workers for a while.

 

If we're suggesting radical solutions you don't get the monopoly.

[Bonzo77]

Make it simpler and just eliminate benefits and the NMW.

 

Wages will rise to the level of supply and demand equilibrium. You might have to do something about levels of immigration for unskilled workers for a while.

 

If we're suggesting radical solutions you don't get the monopoly.

 

Yeah, can't really see employers jumping at the chance to raise wages.

 

How will eliminating benefits aid the disabled and unemployed?

[ENG601PM]

Yeah, can't really see employers jumping at the chance to raise wages.

 

How will eliminating benefits aid the disabled and unemployed?

 

I may not have been entirely serious but the point about supply and demand does apply. While it is politically unconscionable and putting aside edge cases, disabilities, etc, if benefits were eliminated employers would need to pay higher wages. There is a very reasonable case to say that the NMW has depressed wages since its introduction.

[tinfoilhat]

Yeah, can't really see employers jumping at the chance to raise wages.

 

How will eliminating benefits aid the disabled and unemployed?

 

If you got rid of housing benefit, the average rent would fall through the floor.

[Cyclone]

Why let them have 2 kids then?

If they're poor 2 kids would grow up poor.

Why not put a salary threshold on of 50k per couple, then below that you can't have children.

Is that as fair ?

 

Growing up poor isn't a huge problem, so long as they grow up educated and cared for.

If they grow up educated, then they won't themselves stay poor.

 

The problem is that poverty (not just being poor) is a cycle, it breeds resentment of authority, children are not encouraged to try at school, in fact the opposite might be true, and then they in turn go through life in poverty.

Breaking the cycle is hard.

 

---------- Post added 23-01-2018 at 22:09 ----------

 

I may not have been entirely serious but the point about supply and demand does apply. While it is politically unconscionable and putting aside edge cases, disabilities, etc, if benefits were eliminated employers would need to pay higher wages. There is a very reasonable case to say that the NMW has depressed wages since its introduction.

 

It's easy to make a comparison between very similar places both with and without minimum wages to see if this is true.

Simply select two US states, geographically close to each other, one with and one without MW. See if wages are somehow higher in the "right to work" state.

 

---------- Post added 23-01-2018 at 22:11 ----------

 

If you got rid of housing benefit, the average rent would fall through the floor.

 

Rental rates probably would fall. But homelessness would increase massively as well.

It might help the supply of houses for 1st time buyers though, as landlords exited the market. But the tories don't want to see a house price correction, certainly not a drastic one, nobody does really as the last one caused a depression that we're arguably still only just recovering from. And that was 2008, a decade ago!

[ENG601PM]

It's easy to make a comparison between very similar places both with and without minimum wages to see if this is true.

Simply select two US states, geographically close to each other, one with and one without MW. See if wages are somehow higher in the "right to work" state.

 

Go on then.

[Mister M]

You can't cure poverty by breeding.

 

You can cure it if you get rid of the Conservative party.

 

In all probability, had this MP's idea of sterilising the poor been around a couple of generations ago he, and many of his Conservative supporting friends, wouldn't have been born. He's forgotten where he's come from.

Edited January 24, 2018 by Mister M