Rob Day

iTrader: (78)

The Chinese Rule makes perfect sense to me..

1 Child per couple only, which has prevented around 400 million births since introduced in 79.

The only way a couple can have a 2nd child is by paying for a heavy fine, which mean only couple that can afford to have a 2nd, 3rd child are permitted.

There are some exceptions, such as if your first child has disabilities then you are permitted a 2nd child which seems logical to me, however I believe foreigners were not under the same ruling?!?!

I think in principal this makes sense to me although it would need tweaking to fit here, such as foreingers being exempt (ahhh).

Anyway thats my 2 pence!

Rob

jonc

Like I said, the parents should have considered this before having their hypothetical 6th child as this now impacts the other 5 children. Spending on luxury items I listed previously would be cut for a start. But I would have to accept that times would be tougher as a result and not continue to expect the state to keep bailing me out whenever I have another child. But as a parent I would have the responsibility not to get myself and put my family in this situation.

What would you do?

PeteBrant

Yeah because there no such thing as accidents is there.
Jon, you still haven't answered the question.

Let's say you know, for a fact, that reducing benefits after child 6 means that the other 5 will suffer. Do you still reduce those benefits?

Lets imagine that the parents don't live in Daily Mail land, and are actually struggling to make ends meet. They have an unplanned 6th child. Benefits cuts will push them under. What do you do?

ScoobyWon't

Abortion?
Adoption?

PeteBrant

The EU and UK have an aging population. If we want to have things like a pension, and hospitals, it is essential that we lower the average age. So that they can pay for these things for us. It's one of the reasons we have immigration.

If you limited people to one child each, aside from being a horrible, horrible abuse of human rights, that leads to some horrific events (children being killed at birth etc), you would find yourself destitute in your old age because there would no one around to pay your pension.

PeteBrant

What, Enforced?

PeteBrant

And how are you going to enforce this mandatory restriction on the ability to procreate?

Are you going to take women screaming from their homes, then drug them, and conduct an operation on them against their will? That sort of thing?

ScoobyWon't

I'm not sure how you would force someone in to an abortion.

I seem to remember the German 'Baby Box' idea was mentioned here last summer. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18585020

leeds_182

iTrader: (2)

Fined for having a second child? And what if you can't pay the fine? Imprisonment? An ak47 round to the back of the head.

Policies like this don't work in countries with civil liberties and human rights.

ScoobyWon't

Time to scrap the civil liberties and human rights then

PeteBrant

Ok...And what about people that don't want to leave their baby in a box outside a hospital?

PeteBrant

This is the issue. It's all well and good coming up with this ban this and fine that. But what do you do when someone says "**** you, I'm having another baby" Then your avenue for punishment invariably harms the child rather than the parent.

dpb

Sudza, and greens (if available)

All round.

Rather than pizza carlsberg and flat screen tv's ponies and etc

Gear Head

iTrader: (2)

Accept sterilisation of face having benifits cut. Job done. It puts the decision well and truely in their court.

The mrs and I went 10 years without having an 'accident', so it is possible.

People who can't afford to have kids cannot continue to have them. It iisn't fair on them, their children or the state.

Can I have your opinion on the my 'hunter-gatherer' comment please.

jonc

Pete, I have 3 young children, I've opted out of CB and don't receive CTC which equates to well over £2k less disposable income which is a sizeable along with a sizeable mortgage. So I have had to make cutbacks and sacrifice a few things so that my children do not goes without. My wife also works part time job.

With regards to your hypothetical question, the benefit is not reduced, it would still be the same amount. The only person reducing the benefit to the other children would be the parent in having another child. The benefit system is not there to bail out parents who make stupid decisions. Note that whilst having children is a right, it's not there to be abused and neither should the benefit system be seen as a 'right' so that the hard working taxpayers fund this lifestyle. So why don't you answer your own question, what would you do?

dpb

If it really is just 57000 families, do you really believe our population will increase in age without them Pete

If so I think we can end the debate right there

Luan Pra bang

Let them suffer.

jonc

Like wise you could still find yourself destitute as no one will be working and everyone claiming benefits, it's a downward spiral.

PeteBrant

Job done?

So either you have babies and suffer the consequences whilst on benefits, or we will fix you so you can't ever have anymore kids (at tax payer expense, ironically) regardless of your financial stituation in the future and you can keep your benefits as is. That it?

Let's say the person decides to forego the generous offfer of sterilisation and has another child anyway. Then you are back at square one. You stll have a child that will suffer because of the states refuasal to help.

Your solution has changed nothing.
Of course it's possible. But it does happen. There is no 100% effective contraception other than not having sex.
But it happens. Idealology only gets you so far. At some point you have to deal with the reality.
Do you really want that?

ScoobyWon't

Who's reality should we deal with?

PeteBrant

You're still playing the blame game , Jon. It doens't matter that the parents have been irresponsible. All the matters is the welfare of the child, in my opinion. That's what would drive my decisions. Not how to "teach the parents a lesson"


At least you accept the reality of the alternative to helping.

PeteBrant

The Childs.

ScoobyWon't

One shared reality to cover every child?

Or should each child receive a personalised appraisal of the reality it is born in to?

jonc

No it's not about laying the blame on someone else and of course it matters if the parents aren't taking responsibility for their children's welfare. It's all very well saying all that matters is the welfare of the child, but where does it stop? Why don't you adopt under privileged children that are up for adoption, why don't you become a foster parent if you really care about child welfare? Does the state not provide enough already with all the other different benefits available? In any case what makes you think that the benefits are actually spent in a way to solely benefit the child as intended? You still haven't answered your own question.

^Qwerty^

So we lower the average age by having more and more children. How long do you think we can go on doing this?

PeteBrant

I'm advoctating the stauts quo, Jon. I have already answered the question. What would I do? Ensure as far as I could the child has enough money coming in to ensure its well being. That happens now with social care and benefits. What you are advoctaing is a restriction on benefits and the end result be damned.

Gear Head

iTrader: (2)

The reality is that we have an ever increasing number of people dependant on state benifits.
Should we ignore it?

Gear Head

iTrader: (2)

And how would you do that if you had no money??

PeteBrant

Or have immigration.

Its a simple choice. Want to live comfortable in our old age? We need people to pay for it.

Don't want to have a growing population? Accept dying younger or living in poverty without any welfare.

PeteBrant

I am speaking as a government. Not as an individual obviously. Through benefits to people who are not in work and cannot provide for thier own children. As it the status quo.