1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

More evidence you should need a license to reproduce...

Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by NeilF, Nov 16, 2009.

  1. mollymoo

    Mobster

    Joined: Mar 5, 2009

    Posts: 2,916

    Location: North

    The problem being there is a mixture of deserving and non-deserving people claiming benefits and as yet no real way to assess them properly.
    As for savings, if you have them then you don't require help from the state as you still have money to look after yourself. Not fair but unfortunately true.
     
  2. dirtydog

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 47,398

    Location: Essex

    It doesn't work like that at all, if you want to give more specifics I will be happy to explain how it works.
     
  3. dirtydog

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 47,398

    Location: Essex

    It isn't even the case that savings disqualify you from receiving benefits. For example, you can get full housing benefit if your savings are below £6,000. Or partial housing benefit if you have under £16,000 savings.
     
  4. mollymoo

    Mobster

    Joined: Mar 5, 2009

    Posts: 2,916

    Location: North

    Right didn't know that :)
    Sounds fair enough to me.
     
  5. Von Smallhausen

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Aug 1, 2004

    Posts: 12,584

    Location: Tyneside

    * shakes head *

    While her life may be effectively knackered at the age of 22, she should not have the opportunity to take her children with her.

    Such a lack of moral responsibility disgusts me to say the least.
     
  6. NeilF

    Capodecina

    Joined: Nov 15, 2003

    Posts: 13,559

    Location: Marlow

    "The four-year-old girl had tried to feed the baby by using chairs to climb up to a kitchen cupboard and reach a tin of milk powder."

    Heartwrenching isn't it! :( She'd obviously reacted to the cries of distress in the only way she could... and failed... :(
     
  7. regulus

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Aug 18, 2006

    Posts: 9,736

    Location: Wellington, NZ

    No amount of adjectives can accurately describe my total digust when I read this. For some reason all I can think of is my brother-inlaw's little girl (5 year old) and imagining her in a situation like that. A four year old setting an example for a 22 year old :rolleyes:
     
  8. NeilF

    Capodecina

    Joined: Nov 15, 2003

    Posts: 13,559

    Location: Marlow

    As I've mentioned in a post above, when you have children of your own, or know or love others close to you, you cannot help but see there faces planted on any trajedy you hear about :(

    I know it's a cliche about 'not knowing what it's like till you have kids'... But it's true... :(
     
  9. dirtydog

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 47,398

    Location: Essex

    You hardly need to have kids to find this story disgusting and tragic (for the kids involved).
     
  10. Saberu

    Mobster

    Joined: Feb 25, 2003

    Posts: 3,263

    Location: Stafford (uni)

    Haven't posted here for a while but I'd like to think I have more wisdom now than I did before.

    Basically there are two choices for dealing with this problem:

    1) Forced abortion for any benefit claimers who try to have more than one child.

    2) Allow them to have children, but take them away soon after birth so they are raised in foster homes. Though this comes with a danger of it's own, as you can imagine the state mind controlling these children from an early age to obey unless foster parents are found for them all.

    Option one is probably against human rights laws even though It's the favourable option from my point of view.
     
  11. miniyazz

    Soldato

    Joined: Dec 25, 2008

    Posts: 5,979

    Location: Sheffield/Norwich

    1) I actually agree with the sentiment here - why should other people pay to support someone else's child, when they got pregnant in the knowledge that they couldn't afford to bring it up - but it's totally unworkable, as is only giving benefits for the first child, due to human rights regulations, as you said.

    2) This just adds more expense on the state, as well as giving teenagers the impression that they really don't have to worry about getting pregnant because if they do, the baby will just go in a foster home and they won't have to worry about it. Plus human rights regulations.

    Alternatively there's option 3.

    3) Reform the benefits system. If you're on benefits for more than, say, a month per year, put them to work doing unskilled labour at an appropriate wage - or no benefits until the next year when the same principle applies. This would cost more in the short term but would be hugely more cost-effective long-term.

    As for mothers, unfortunately there's little that can be done - child support is very important. I think education has to be the key issue here - primarily about contraception (something which has been making progress the last few years), especially with the advent of things like the implant and mirena coil, which remove the cost and regularity problems associated with remembering to take things like the pill every day, at the right time.
     
  12. robmiller

    Capodecina

    Joined: Dec 26, 2003

    Posts: 16,522

    Location: London

    Because it's not the kid's fault it got born into those circumstances. Why condemn children to poverty in addition to the terrible upbringing they get from such unprepared people? It just ensures that there will be another generation doing the same as their parents.
     
  13. miniyazz

    Soldato

    Joined: Dec 25, 2008

    Posts: 5,979

    Location: Sheffield/Norwich

    Their upbringing, in the main, will ensure they follow the paths of their parents. And that assumes childcare support goes to the child and not on fags or booze or whatever else the mum decides to spend it on - that's the problem, the mother spending other people's money on herself, rather than on her children.
     
  14. Vonhelmet

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jun 28, 2005

    Posts: 48,109

    Location: On the hoods

    Those ideas also come with the added problem of having to install a fascist state before you can operate them.
     
  15. RDM

    Capodecina

    Joined: Feb 1, 2007

    Posts: 20,292

    So a few more Labour terms then? :)
     
  16. Saberu

    Mobster

    Joined: Feb 25, 2003

    Posts: 3,263

    Location: Stafford (uni)

    I think it's pretty fascist having to pay for other peoples children leading to the whole moral hazard of them being encouraged to make children in the first place.

    Just to clarify my point on income equality. The closest point of view I've seen to mine was Dolph's negative income tax idea but that has flaws.

    Basically we have a problem in this country which is jobs being offshored, as well as efficiency cuts, and immigration. Which means less jobs and more people.

    The best way to address this fairly would be to give out a citizens divided to everyone over the age of 16 which is enough money to live but not enough to make people lazy/ give up job searching. Whereas the current benefits system is way too comfortable for couples with children.

    Dolph should like this idea because it's fair, and also cuts down on government management/ bloatage. Also no need for JSA with a citizen's dividend, people aren't children..if they want a job they will look for one and if they don't they will just 'cheat the system' so why even bother checking?

    Wow here's a crazy idea too, the idea that perhaps we have enough resources to pay people a basic citizens wage.

    This citizens wage could be funded by two methods. Method one is taxing land, not just incomes, method two is the unemployed who are fit and healthy, and claiming citizens wage could work a token amount like 15 hours/ week to help the community.

    The citizens wage should be £500/ month. Which is enough money to rent a room, pay the bills, and pay for food...not much else. And in the end it would work out cheaper than our current benefits system while giving people more freedom and treating people as adults, not children.

    So let's do some calculations:

    £500/ month = £6,000/ year

    UK population = 61.4 million (source: Google.com/publicdata)

    1/5 of UK population under 16 (source: statistics.uk.gov)

    61.4 * 0.8 = 49.12m

    49.12m * 6,000 = £294.72bn

    So only £105 billion more than the current 'social protection' budget. More interestingly, overall it would only be a 16% rise in total expenditure (currently £671 billion). And I'm sure people and businesses would happily pay 20% more tax to be £500/ month better off each especially if we abolish minimum wage at the same time (to get the business vote). Could also replace the public pension liabilities we can't afford to pay.

    Someone mentioned a possible moral hazard that if the state were to take away children it would encourage people to have children without care for consequence. Well this can easily be defeated by either charging them a lot of money or making it a criminal offense to have children if you can't afford it and I don't think that is fascist, it's just logical.
     
    Last edited: Nov 24, 2009
  17. wnb

    Mobster

    Joined: Feb 27, 2004

    Posts: 3,848

    I dont have anthing to add to this discusion other than the article almost brings tears to my eyes. The 4 year old girl has more sense than her mum.
     
  18. edscdk

    Soldato

    Joined: Jul 17, 2008

    Posts: 6,813

    why should you get full benefits at 16? live at home if you cannot afford to get a place.. or are to lazy to work...

    upping the age to 25 would make your figures look better :)
     
  19. robmiller

    Capodecina

    Joined: Dec 26, 2003

    Posts: 16,522

    Location: London

    What happens when you get kicked out by your parents, or forced to pay rent, but can't find a job? What happens if you don't have parents? What happens if your parents can't afford to look after you—once their child benefit/child support stops, for example?

    Not everyone's lucky enough to have a comfortable middle class safety net.
     
  20. bitslice

    PermaBanned

    Joined: May 18, 2006

    Posts: 9,041

    It's very easy to give women like this a kicking, but babies require two people to create. It's very convenient to criticise her without giving equal criticism to the feckless men who have got her pregnant and then abandoned her

    Oh wait, I forgot this forum is mostly male :rolleyes: