Should the long term unemployed be capped on government funding for more children?
#91
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Pot Belly HQ
Posts: 16,694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Baby A: I'm Hungry. Feed me. Change me.
Baby B: I'm Hungry. Feed me. Change me.
Parent A: We're short on cash, we better hold off on having another baby and cut back on the expenses.
Parent B: We're short on cash, we better have another baby asap.
Politician: Who's vote am I most likely to get?
#92
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Worthing..
Posts: 7,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#93
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Pot Belly HQ
Posts: 16,694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Result: less purchases, economy suffers, more people out of work, more benefits to pay out.
Parents B: "Let's have another. The tax payer can pay for it."
Result: more benefits paid out, taxes go up to meet demand, cuts made putting people out of work, economy suffers, less disposable income for those working, economy suffers.
I think the economy is doomed either way.
#94
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Worthing..
Posts: 7,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Parents A: "We can't afford another. Let's start saving and cut back on our luxuries".
Result: less purchases, economy suffers, more people out of work, more benefits to pay out.
Parents B: "Let's have another. The tax payer can pay for it."
Result: more benefits paid out, taxes go up to meet demand, cuts made putting people out of work, economy suffers, less disposable income for those working, economy suffers.
I think the economy is doomed either way.
Result: less purchases, economy suffers, more people out of work, more benefits to pay out.
Parents B: "Let's have another. The tax payer can pay for it."
Result: more benefits paid out, taxes go up to meet demand, cuts made putting people out of work, economy suffers, less disposable income for those working, economy suffers.
I think the economy is doomed either way.
#95
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Pot Belly HQ
Posts: 16,694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#96
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Worthing..
Posts: 7,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well yeah, as evidenced by the fact that many more people go out to work versus those that don't.
Of course we would all like to get money for nothing and not have to work. But the vast majority understand that outside of winning the lottery, this is not a viable lifestyle choice.
Of course we would all like to get money for nothing and not have to work. But the vast majority understand that outside of winning the lottery, this is not a viable lifestyle choice.
#97
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.
Last edited by jonc; 20 February 2013 at 11:54 AM.
#98
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Worthing..
Posts: 7,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And how are you going to pay for it? Handouts have increased from £129bn when Labour took office in 1997 to the total spent last year of £205bn and is set to grow. The growth in the economy is being outstripped by the growth in welfare. In the last 50 years our economy has grown threefold whilst welfare spending has grown sevenfold.
The amount spent on childrens benefits of 4 plus children is not a huge amount; there are possibly 57,000 families claiming to varying degrees.
Our ecomony has grown considerably more than threefold in 50 years. In 1960 GDP was £25billion. In 2010 it was over 50 times that.
I would be interested to see where you got the threefold figure from.
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_gdp_history.
There are various options to what funds get diverted from where. Or you raise taxes. Either way, you are talking about a few billion. Not 10's or 100's.
Last edited by PeteBrant; 20 February 2013 at 11:58 AM.
#99
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Pot Belly HQ
Posts: 16,694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well yeah, as evidenced by the fact that many more people go out to work versus those that don't.
Of course we would all like to get money for nothing and not have to work. But the vast majority understand that outside of winning the lottery, this is not a viable lifestyle choice.
Of course we would all like to get money for nothing and not have to work. But the vast majority understand that outside of winning the lottery, this is not a viable lifestyle choice.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...osta-jobs.html
The Government may be claiming that the latest figures for employment show the highest levels, but I suspect that these figures must have been massaged.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/j...wth-slows.html
#100
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Worthing..
Posts: 7,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not saying that everyone is lazy, for example in the little community where I live, there is a new Costa Coffee opening on Friday. They required 8 staff. 1701 people applied. I'm wondering where the 1693 who didn't get the jobs are getting their income from? Or are where they going to find work? Or they could just have more kids to enable them to claim more benefits.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...osta-jobs.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...osta-jobs.html
Sitting at home on your **** on benefits is not seen an a desireable lifestyle choice by most people
#101
Scooby Regular
But it's not sustainable. I’m not saying I have the answer, but at some point the human population has got to, or will realise that it can’t continue to grow and grow.
#102
Most of that is in pensions, Jon. And that is being tackled in raising the pensionable age.
The amount spent on childrens benefits of 4 plus children is not a huge amount; there are possibly 57,000 families claiming to varying degrees.
Our ecomony has grown considerably more than threefold in 50 years. In 1960 GDP was £25billion. In 2010 it was over 50 times that.
I would be interested to see where you got the threefold figure from.
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_gdp_history.
There are various options to what funds get diverted from where. Or you raise taxes. Either way, you are talking about a few billion. Not 10's or 100's.
The amount spent on childrens benefits of 4 plus children is not a huge amount; there are possibly 57,000 families claiming to varying degrees.
Our ecomony has grown considerably more than threefold in 50 years. In 1960 GDP was £25billion. In 2010 it was over 50 times that.
I would be interested to see where you got the threefold figure from.
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_gdp_history.
There are various options to what funds get diverted from where. Or you raise taxes. Either way, you are talking about a few billion. Not 10's or 100's.
#103
You're assuming that all the applicants are unemployed at present, that might not be the case. Of course there is a high unemployment problems at the moment, made worse by an ailing economy. But the fact remains; on the whole people want to go out and work and better their financial standing.
Sitting at home on your **** on benefits is not seen an a desireable lifestyle choice by most people
Sitting at home on your **** on benefits is not seen an a desireable lifestyle choice by most people
Sure it's the dailymail, but it's written by a reputable journalist.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...titlement.html
Last edited by jonc; 20 February 2013 at 01:06 PM.
#104
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (78)
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.
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.
The Fine as the Chinese call it is simply a case of, they apply to have a 2nd child, and if they have the funds to prove they can look after and cater for the welfare of the said child, they simply pay a fee. This might sound cruel, but it would certainly help prevent the amount of sponging going forward.
We are all aware accidents do happen, but yet safe sex seems to be a distant memory for some. What is wrong with society these days, get pissed up and getting laid on a Thursday afternoon at the local Bingo hall to then appear on Jeremy Kyle 6 years later with 5 kids, all of which appears to be on their bucket list!
Never mind, back to work so I can help fund the poor
Rob
#105
In most cases,the pensioners are the ones who worked all those years to generate the wealth of this country and also paid their national insurance while they were doing it. What they paid into the system was based on the cost of maintaining them with a pension when they reached retirement age.
Les
Les
#106
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Somewhere in Kent, sniffing some V-Power
Posts: 15,029
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You're assuming that all the applicants are unemployed at present, that might not be the case. Of course there is a high unemployment problems at the moment, made worse by an ailing economy. But the fact remains; on the whole people want to go out and work and better their financial standing.
Sitting at home on your **** on benefits is not seen an a desireable lifestyle choice by most people
Sitting at home on your **** on benefits is not seen an a desireable lifestyle choice by most people
Yes, I know we need more children now to fund our pensions of tomorrow, but it's no bloody good if they have no desire to work!
If the parents sit at home all day, why should 'they' have to go to school and learn? What's the point when the benifits system is their to catch them.
Welfare should not provide a comfortable living. It should be for rent, energy and food. And may be the odd £5 to spend in a charity shop for clothing. THIS would make people want to better themselves and find a job. To give some selfish idiot £70 a week to spend however they see fit is a stupid way of doing things.
#107
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Grantham
Posts: 1,056
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another thing especially for the lady with 11 kids that's getting a purpose built house, who can possibly excersise parental control with that many kids, we have a family in our village with more kids than you can shake a stick at and most of them come home at night in the back of a police car and between them they've robbed quite a few homes in the village - how much does all that cost . Andy
Last edited by AndyBaker; 20 February 2013 at 05:47 PM.
#110
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Somewhere in Kent, sniffing some V-Power
Posts: 15,029
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yup, nothing wrong there!
#111
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Pot Belly HQ
Posts: 16,694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#115
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Pottering around ...
Posts: 3,573
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#118
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Pot Belly HQ
Posts: 16,694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Mattybr5@MB Developments
Full Cars Breaking For Spares
28
28 December 2015 11:07 PM
Mattybr5@MB Developments
Full Cars Breaking For Spares
12
18 November 2015 07:03 AM