In 2 years the 5 children cap will be introduced.

After the 5th child your benefit claim will be maxed out and capped.

This affects practically everyone.

The unemployed claim.
Workers claim.

Workers often claim more! (Some workers receive more in WTC than they do in dole; the in-work benefit payment exceeds the out of work benefit payment)

The following link shows the changes in graphical format.

http://blog.cix.co.uk/gmorgan/2012/02/02/the-real-comparisons-for-capping/

It is curious that the family on average earnings may easily receive more in benefits than in net earnings when that seems to have been the justification for capping those out of work.

Not many earn enough to have enough earnings to not have to rely on benefits in the form of tax credits in the first place.

In 2 years the 5 children cap will be introduced.

After the 5th child your benefit claim will be maxed out and capped.

This affects practically everyone.

It would be more accurate to say that it affects practically no-one. The vast majority of families have less than six children.

...wibble...

You are a total reactionary looney aren't you...

...note to self, ignore chem1st in future...

Good news IMO. I'd like to see it reduced much further, to two, and then to one. We need to reduce the population before resources are gone.

Good news IMO. I'd like to see it reduced much further, to two, and then to one. We need to reduce the population before resources are gone.


Should be ended. You breed em' you feed em.


Angel.

Good news IMO. I'd like to see it reduced much further, to two, and then to one. We need to reduce the population before resources are gone.

A reasonable idea, shame we're hell bent on doing the exact opposite.

It would be more accurate to say that it affects practically no-one. The vast majority of families have less than six children.

Maybe so. But there hasn't been a cap like this in the UK for a long time.

Before the welfare state come about, people often had large families, and could afford to feed them on manual workers' wage (when they were far less productive!).

The graphs in the article allude to the point which is often overlooked...

It is curious that the family on average earnings may easily receive more in benefits than in net earnings when that seems to have been the justification for capping those out of work.

Income is determined not by hard work, not by skill, it is by the state, depending upon family size.

Good news IMO. I'd like to see it reduced much further, to two, and then to one. We need to reduce the population before resources are gone.

Why should the state determine income and breeding ability?

Surely people should be free to have as many children as they wish?
(And access to the land required to feed them)

Good news IMO. I'd like to see it reduced much further, to two, and then to one. We need to reduce the population before resources are gone.

I'd go further, for new claimants.

If we had a universal benefit which declined for every child that you had beyond two, that might encourage people to have small families and help us to regain control of the population.

Should be ended. You breed em' you feed em.


Angel.

How much of workforce is employed in agriculture? The amount that produce more than enough to feed us all? It is but a few per cent!

Consider also that the workforce is also less than half the population!

UK nearly 30 million workers, over 60 million people!

Feeding people is easy, people can feed themselves if only they have access to the land they need to work to provide for themselves and produce wealth for wider society.

I'd go further, for new claimants.

If we had a universal benefit which declined for every child that you had beyond two, that might encourage people to have small families and help us to regain control of the population.

For over 40 years our birth rate has been below replacement level, the TFR is lower than 2.1/ And it has been since 1971 when FIAT money took hold, and the accompanying inflation.

UK population growth is driven 100% by immigration. IF it wan;t for immigration our population would be shrinking!

I'd go further, for new claimants.

If we had a universal benefit which declined for every child that you had beyond two, that might encourage people to have small families and help us to regain control of the population.

Id cap it at 2 kids aswell. Most responsible parents only have as many children as they can afford.

Its a pity more people dont have that attitude.

UK population growth is driven 100% by immigration. IF it wan;t for immigration our population would be shrinking!

I was thinking bigger. The population of the Earth is too big. We need a decent method of population control. I think paying people to not have kids is a way forward.

There is of course no plan to cap the number of children you can have, contrary to the thread title and the first sentence of the OP.

Good news IMO. I'd like to see it reduced much further, to two, and then to one. We need to reduce the population before resources are gone.

The unpalatable truth though is that the problems of increasing population aren't created by babies being born, but people retiring younger and living longer.

There is of course no plan to cap the number of children you can have, contrary to the thread title and the first sentence of the OP.

I recall a case of tax change policy in the US.

With regards to a laxer inheritance tax. Before it came into place, old aged deaths decreased! And afterwards there was a slight peak!

UK population growth is driven 100% by immigration. IF it wan;t for immigration our population would be shrinking!

Which would only exacerbate the serious social and economic problems associated with an ageing population.

I recall a case of tax change policy in the US.

With regards to a laxer inheritance tax. Before it came into place, old aged deaths decreased! And afterwards there was a slight peak!

I must be missing something - what is the relevance of that to the post you quoted?

The unpalatable truth though is that the problems of increasing population aren't created by babies being born, but people retiring younger and living longer.

In terms of land productivity, 36 billion could easily be fed.

But the value of 'low population density' would increase. Even now, when one walks in the hills, he comes across people. The chance to be alone, or to have your 'own space' say an house, it diminishes, more compete for less per capita space, and space demands a premium.

I must be missing something - what is the relevance of that to the post you quoted?

This change in economic policy WILL affect family structure.

The unpalatable truth though is that the problems of increasing population aren't created by babies being born, but people retiring younger and living longer.

also, as mentioned, we are actually reproducing at a low rate. It's other countries that are going breeding bonkers.

I must be missing something - what is the relevance of that to the post you quoted?

I think chem1st is relaxing with a glass of Absinthe ;)

I think chem1st is relaxing with a glass of Absinthe ;)

Some people might say you boil water.

I personally might be heating water to a specific temp, then utilising the inner powers of yeast and a set amount of sugar containing ingredients in the mix (majority water) to make a brew. The resulting beverage being alcohol.

I might describe it as 'fruity'.

Others would describe it as 'warm water'.

To some it may be warm water, to others is may be a fruity wine. Some links people find irrational, others do not.

As Jezza would say' "put something on the end of it"

I was thinking bigger. The population of the Earth is too big. We need a decent method of population control. I think paying people to not have kids is a way forward.

The world is large enough to easily cater for the population it holds, the problem is we are too densely packed into a tiny portion of it.

The world is large enough to easily cater for the population it holds, the problem is we are too densely packed into a tiny portion of it.

But only whilst the majority of the world’s population are content to live on the bread line and do without the things that we enjoy, access to plenty of clean water , good quality food, energy, and all the other luxuries we enjoy.

But only whilst the majority of the world’s population are content to live on the bread line and do without the things that we enjoy, access to plenty of clean water , good quality food, energy, and all the other luxuries we enjoy.

Luxuries or entrapments?

Food, water and shelter would be the very basics. Most of everything else is put forward and accepted as a must have until we are so used to having them that we can't see a way of operating without them.

Luxuries or entrapments?

Food, water and shelter would be the very basics. Most of everything else is put forward and accepted as a must have until we are so used to having them that we can't see a way of operating without them.

The problem is though, that the people with the trapping of technology don’t want to do without it, and the people that don’t have it, want it. We can’t do both, either we keep increasing the worlds population and some people will have to do without, or we work toward decreasing the population so that everyone can have the trapping we enjoy.

The problem is though, that the people with the trapping of technology don’t want to do without it, and the people that don’t have it, want it. We can’t do both, either we keep increasing the worlds population and some people will have to do without, or we work toward decreasing the population so that everyone can have the trapping we enjoy.

Catch22 .................

a 2 child cap would be better. Birth control is so easily available these days, and infant mortality is lower than its ever been. Theres no reason to have more than 2 children. The population explosion is partly due to the fact that in the 19th century, it was normal to have in excess of 9 children, due to lack of birth control presumably. Even Queen Victoria had 9.

Some people might say you boil water.

I personally might be heating water to a specific temp, then utilising the inner powers of yeast and a set amount of sugar containing ingredients in the mix (majority water) to make a brew. The resulting beverage being alcohol.

I might describe it as 'fruity'.

Others would describe it as 'warm water'.

To some it may be warm water, to others is may be a fruity wine. Some links people find irrational, others do not.

:thumbsup:

The unpalatable truth though is that the problems of increasing population aren't created by babies being born, but people retiring younger and living longer.

Maybe older people, say over 50 just for the sake of it, could volunteer to be Logan's Runned ;)

In 2 years the 5 children cap will be introduced.

After the 5th child your benefit claim will be maxed out and capped.

This affects practically everyone.

The unemployed claim.
Workers claim.

Workers often claim more! (Some workers receive more in WTC than they do in dole; the in-work benefit payment exceeds the out of work benefit payment)

The following link shows the changes in graphical format.

http://blog.cix.co.uk/gmorgan/2012/02/02/the-real-comparisons-for-capping/



Not many earn enough to have enough earnings to not have to rely on benefits in the form of tax credits in the first place.



It needsto b capped at 2 kids.

OK look, a girls can become pregnant once and fair enough we should help her and house her, if she does it again, OK - we will let that one go too (we aren't all right wingers here)

But I'm sorry if it happens again then the girl needs to


Make sure the lad is using a johnny
Pick the lads better


I'm sorry but there comes a time when a girl should have a few johnnys in her handbag if she is prone to casual sex, lets be right the sort of lad who is after this sort of woman is not the sort of lad who is bothered about using johnnys.

The other issue of course are our non english friends whos culture it is to have as many kids as possible, limit this to 2 - then all of a sudden England is not such a good place to come to breed and take benefits.

Lets say for the sake of argument if the UK decided to stop paying so much out in benefits, but then spain took a liberal attitude and said "as many kids as you want and we will pick up the tab", do you think our non english friends would still be coming to the UK? i don't think so, i can see huge queues at malaga airpowt

It needsto b capped at 2 kids.

OK look, a girls can become pregnant once and fair enough we should help her and house her, if she does it again, OK - we will let that one go too (we aren't all right wingers here)

But I'm sorry if it happens again then the girl needs to


Make sure the lad is using a johnny
Pick the lads better


I'm sorry but there comes a time when a girl should have a few johnnys in her handbag if she is prone to casual sex, lets be right the sort of lad who is after this sort of woman is not the sort of lad who is bothered about using johnnys.

The other issue of course are our non english friends whos culture it is to have as many kids as possible, limit this to 2 - then all of a sudden England is not such a good place to come to breed and take benefits.

Lets say for the sake of argument if the UK decided to stop paying so much out in benefits, but then spain took a liberal attitude and said "as many kids as you want and we will pick up the tab", do you think our non english friends would still be coming to the UK? i don't think so, i can see huge queues at malaga airpowt


If we had an increasing population due to people having lots of children we would have never bothered bringing immigrants in, in the first place.

We allow rampant immigration because we haven't bred enough and have a decreasing host population. we rely on growth and thus use population growth to ensure it (and we use immigration to grow the population).

Social services should be allowed to intervine if a woman who is living below the poverty line is continuing to breed, the Hospital should be allowed to get the Authorities involved and they should be allowed to force the person to have a termination, as to me that would be kinder than having a child you know you cannot afford and that childs life would be miserable.

The mother is already miserable and stressed out as she has other children to look after that she cannot afford why would we continue to let the cycle carry on, break it before it can start again some people who have children have no common sense to think I will stop at two or three and just carry on and that is when it gets stupid.

I know people like this and I am so glad that I have no children and have my head screwed on I have common sense unlike some who clearly need to go back to school and re learn Sex Education, because how you can fall pregnant as may times as some people do is beyond me. It really makes me sick that pregnancy is always bestowed on those who do not appreciate what it means. :rant: :rant: :rant: :rant: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

I ... have my head screwed on I have common sense .... because how you can fall pregnant as may times as some people do is beyond me.

Google the word sex.

Good news IMO. I'd like to see it reduced much further, to two, and then to one. We need to reduce the population before resources are gone.

Agree, why should the tax payer subsidise some one's kids. :rant:

@LeMaquis I do not need to google that I PRACTISE SAFE SEX UNLIKE SOME THEY NEED TO GOOGLE WHAT THAT IS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!.

The unpalatable truth though is that the problems of increasing population aren't created by babies being born, but people retiring younger and living longer.

Load of crap.:loopy:

Load of crap.:loopy:

I think you might struggle to offer a (coherent) argument to justify that statement, but for the time being I'm all ears...

Maybe older people, say over 50 just for the sake of it, could volunteer to be Logan's Runned ;)

Maybe not such a crazy idea taxman, in years to come I can certainly see euthanasia becoming socially (and legally) accepted.

Maybe not such a crazy idea taxman, in years to come I can certainly see euthanasia becoming socially (and legally) accepted.

I think people would rather cut down on the amount of children they have rather than the amount of life they have.:)

I think people would rather cut down on the amount of children they have rather than the amount of life they have.:)

On a micro scale I'd agree however those choices may well become severely limited as the effects of an ageing population over time place intolerable burdens on welfare provision and revenue to the exchequer.

On a micro scale I'd agree however those choices may well become severely limited as the effects of an ageing population over time place intolerable burdens on welfare provision and revenue to the exchequer.

There are vast swathes of the population that are a greater burden on society than the old people that have contributed; I imagine they would be the first to go. Criminals would be at the top of the list. :o

There are vast swathes of the population that are a greater burden on society than the old people that have contributed; I imagine they would be the first to go. Criminals would be at the top of the list. :o

But that doesn't address the social/economic consequences of an ageing population.

The current welfare/(state) pension system is effectively 'pay as you go', retirees are being subsidised by people in work now, they're also being cared for by people working in the healthcare system. An environment where children/family looked after their elderly relatives has largely become a thing of the past, and will continue to be so as the 'burden' of caring for the elderly (in years to come) falls on fewer and fewer people as the age demographic shifts.

Put quite simply, our social system and economy needs people of working age in increasing numbers to feed the sausage machine.

This is a very good report on the effects of the ageing population

http://www.21stcenturychallenges.org/focus/britains-greying-population/

OK so why again does a thread subject get turned around to target the old people. I am proud that I have managed to live ten years longer than my parents did. What gives anybody the right to put us down like no longer wanted pets?
Why not automatic and compulsory vasectomys for any bloke that has sired say 3 kids, regardless of how many different women they are to, or automatic sterilization of women after 3, once again regardless of how many sperm doners they've used?

OK so why again does a thread subject get turned around to target the old people. I am proud that I have managed to live ten years longer than my parents did. What gives anybody the right to put us down like no longer wanted pets?
Why not automatic and compulsory vasectomys for any bloke that has sired say 3 kids, regardless of how many different women they are to, or automatic sterilization of women after 3, once again regardless of how many sperm doners they've used?

Were NOT having ENOUGH children, to have enough workers in the future to cope with the rapidly increasing elderly population.

Would you shoot your carer to improve you old age care?

OK so why again does a thread subject get turned around to target the old people. I am proud that I have managed to live ten years longer than my parents did. What gives anybody the right to put us down like no longer wanted pets?
Why not automatic and compulsory vasectomys for any bloke that has sired say 3 kids, regardless of how many different women they are to, or automatic sterilization of women after 3, once again regardless of how many sperm doners they've used?

Nobody's having a go at you Joanl or people who are elderly now, certainly not me.

The real problem will be created in 10+ years time when the baby boomers start retiring in their millions (and their contributions to the exchequer reduces and their demands on health and care services increases), incidentally I'm one of those, so me and people of my generation are very much part of the 'problem', if that's what it can be called.

As I said earlier, the main problem isn't children being born (which is what the OP implies), but the age distribution of the population and how this will be overweighted towards older people.

Reducing the birth rate won't help the elderly in years to come because there will be insufficient numbers to support them, financially or in terms of health and caring.

But that doesn't address the social/economic consequences of an ageing population.

The current welfare/(state) pension system is effectively 'pay as you go', retirees are being subsidised by people in work now, they're also being cared for by people working in the healthcare system. An environment where children/family looked after their elderly relatives has largely become a thing of the past, and will continue to be so as the 'burden' of caring for the elderly (in years to come) falls on fewer and fewer people as the age demographic shifts.

Put quite simply, our social system and economy needs people of working age in increasing numbers to feed the sausage machine.

This is a very good report on the effects of the ageing population

http://www.21stcenturychallenges.org/focus/britains-greying-population/

By getting rid of everyone that doesn’t contribute to society the wealth that the workers generate will sustain them through their old age.

A million prisoners cost more to keep than a million old people and some are a burden for most of their life, some disable people are a burden for most of their life, workshy scroungers are a burden for most of their life and tend to be the people producing the most children. I can’t see a situation in which workers will volunteer to die young whilst there are still unproductive members of society languishing at the expense.

By getting rid of everyone that doesn’t contribute to society the wealth that the workers generate will sustain them through their old age.

A million prisoners cost more to keep than a million old people and some are a burden for most of their life, some disable people are a burden for most of their life, workshy scroungers are a burden for most of their life and tend to be the people producing the most children.

I can’t see a situation in which workers will volunteer to die young whilst there are still unproductive members of society languishing at the expense.

You're missing my point MrSmith, nowhere have I said 'workers should volunteer to die young'-we need more workers not less of them.

My main point is that the choice for euthanasia doesn't exist, in fact assisting a suicide is a criminal offence, yet the reasons for denying that choice seem to be rooted in religion, history and ethical policy.

All I'm saying is that in time the balance may well shift the other way, through necessity and debate..I could envisage a position where I may choose to end my own life in old age rather than suffer in penury or ill health with poor social/healthcare, especially if it helped my own children and their children. I don't particularly want to be maintained just for the sake of someone else's conscience.

Personally I wouldn't support the forced euthanasia of criminals or anyone else, whatever their age.

It would be more accurate to say that it affects practically no-one. The vast majority of families have less than six children.

With policy the numbers can change over time...from 5 to 3? or 2?

You're missing my point MrSmith, nowhere have I said 'workers should volunteer to die young'-we need more workers not less of them.
For a hypothetical scenario like Logan's Run to happen, the people would have to agree that at a certain age everyone should die. The workers represent the majority in our society, so if they are going to volunteer anyone for euthanasia, it will be the non productive members of society that go first, like prisoners, disabled, permanent unemployed. Why would some that works agree to die when they get old when they can just volunteer someone else that is a greater burden on society.


My main point is that the choice for euthanasia doesn't exist, in fact assisting a suicide is a criminal offence, yet the reasons for denying that choice seem to be rooted in religion, history and ethical policy.


I know, my response is about an hypothetical scenario like Logan's Run as mentioned in post 41


All I'm saying is that in time the balance may well shift the other way, through necessity and debate..I could envisage a position where I may choose to end my own life in old age rather than suffer in penury or ill health with poor social/healthcare, especially if it helped my own children and their children. I don't particularly want to be maintained just for the sake of someone else's conscience.

Personally I wouldn't support the forced euthanasia of criminals or anyone else, whatever their age.

That’s why birth control is a better solution to overpopulation, stop life before it starts as opposed to ending it because there are too many people.
I personally think the world population will be reduced by starvation and lack of water, because people will just keep breading regardless of the available food and water.

For a hypothetical scenario like Logan's Run to happen, the people would have to agree that at a certain age everyone should die. The workers represent the majority in our society, so if they are going to volunteer anyone for euthanasia, it will be the non productive members of society that go first, like prisoners, disabled, permanent unemployed. Why would some that works agree to die when they get old when they can just volunteer someone else that is a greater burden on society.

I know, my response is about an hypothetical scenario like Logan's Run as mentioned in post 41

I hear what you say but you can't 'volunteer' someone for something without removing their freedom of choice which would remove my support for the Logan's Run type scenario.

That’s why birth control is a better solution to overpopulation, stop life before it starts as opposed to ending it because there are too many people. The problem isn't too many people, it's too many people who will place a burden on limited resources.

Since my statements may be taken personally by older posters, let's look at the example of my own case. Until I was 40 I enjoyed really good health, but post 45 bits started failing, like they do for many people. As I have medical insurance the costs (and personnel) required to treat me are borne by my insurers.

Once I retire some significant things will happen:

(i) I'll no longer be able to afford the luxury of PMI.
(ii) The incidence of ill health will increase with increasing age.
(iii) The costs of maintaining my health and providing personnel to do so will fall entirely on the state.
(iv) I'll be taking up resources in the NHS which to date have been available to other citizens.

I don't believe my situation is particularly exceptional, there will be many millions in my position.

Let's say the birth rate is curtailed, that presents certain problems within the next 20 years when those children who would have been born would be working and contributing. Yes it reduces the population, but it also means the sick and elderly will be placed in a precarious position, unless they don't have to rely on state pensions and state healthcare.

I hear what you say but you can't 'volunteer' someone for something without removing their freedom of choice which would remove my support for the Logan's Run type scenario.
The problem isn't too many people, it's too many people who will place a burden on limited resources.




Most workers would be able to keep themselves through their old age if they didn’t have the burden of supporting and feeding the non productive members of society. And if we can’t increase the resources all we are left with is reducing the population, preferably by birth control as opposed to starvation or euthanasia.

Most workers would be able to keep themselves through their old age if they didn’t have the burden of supporting and feeding the non productive members of society. And if we can’t increase the resources all we are left with is reducing the population, preferably by birth control as opposed to starvation or euthanasia.

But not supporting the 'less productive members of society' isn't an option as far as I'm concerned, and I wouldn't want to live in a world that adopted such a regime anyway.

It's the thin end of the wedge, however the option for voluntary euthanasia is less onerous and to be honest should be available irrespective of the population situation, I'd like to have the choice to end my life when I'm ready should that eventuality present itself. Let's start with people like me before we start dragging the disabled, people on benefits and criminals to the slaughter houses.

Incidentally, I'm not so sure workers would be able to support themselves through old age, one of the problems I've mentioned is that there quite simply won't be enough people to care for the elderly anyway notwithstanding their financial position..

The rapidly ageing population situation is a very temporary one. People who harp on about it forget one important thing: the fatties. The British whale epidemic. Another 20 years when the fatties become the fat pensioners, if they ever get that old, won't have many years to draw a pension.

Have as many kids as you like, pensions crisis solved: send everyone out for another mcDonalds.

The rapidly ageing population situation is a very temporary one. People who harp on about it forget one important thing: the fatties. The British whale epidemic. Another 20 years when the fatties become the fat pensioners, if they ever get that old, won't have many years to draw a pension.

Have as many kids as you like, pensions crisis solved: send everyone out for another mcDonalds.

"the fatties", "the drinkers", "the smokers", "the inactive" place a disproportionate burden on the state especially as pensioners since they tend to be ill long before they die and advances in medicine help to prolong their lives.

We need less of the above, not more.

Perhaps GP's should issue prescriptions for sausage & egg mcmuffins..and a 12 bore shotgun to take your life afterwards? ;)

i'd introduce a birth certificate tax - £2000 a child.

But not supporting the 'less productive members of society' isn't an option as far as I'm concerned, and I wouldn't want to live in a world that adopted such a regime anyway.

It's the thin end of the wedge, however the option for voluntary euthanasia is less onerous and to be honest should be available irrespective of the population situation, I'd like to have the choice to end my life when I'm ready should that eventuality present itself. Let's start with people like me before we start dragging the disabled, people on benefits and criminals to the slaughter houses.

Incidentally, I'm not so sure workers would be able to support themselves through old age, one of the problems I've mentioned is that there quite simply won't be enough people to care for the elderly anyway notwithstanding their financial position..

Logan’s run wasn't voluntary euthanasia, but I do agree that we should be able to choose to die in a free society; to be denied the right to end one’s life is to deny us freedom.

The post you answered had an age of 50 and most people are can still be productive into their 70's and will have family to care for them.

Logan’s run wasn't voluntary euthanasia, but I do agree that we should be able to choose to die in a free society; to be denied the right to end one’s life is to deny us freedom.

The post you answered had an age of 50 and most people are can still be productive into their 70's and will have family to care for them.

Sorry MrSmith, I was merely supporting the notion of euthanasia to address increasing population rather than directly the Logan's Run 'model', apologises for any misunderstanding, but I see where it may have come from.

Ps: weren't they younger than 50 in LR?

Sorry MrSmith, I was merely supporting the notion of euthanasia to address increasing population rather than directly the Logan's Run 'model', apologises for any misunderstanding, but I see where it may have come from.

Ps: weren't they younger than 50 in LR?

I think it was 30, I had a memory of it being a good film until I watched it again a couple of months ago, and it was crap. I will watch the remake though when it’s available.

"the fatties", "the drinkers", "the smokers", "the inactive" place a disproportionate burden on the state especially as pensioners since they tend to be ill long before they die and advances in medicine help to prolong their lives.

I think conditionality of treatment on lifestyle changes where lifestyle is a key factor is already being talked about now and will become a certainty over the next 20 years. Which seems fair enough, no point treating people for ilnesses caused by their lifestyle if they are not prepared to change it.

Sorry MrSmith, I was merely supporting the notion of euthanasia to address increasing population rather than directly the Logan's Run 'model', apologises for any misunderstanding, but I see where it may have come from.

Ps: weren't they younger than 50 in LR?

Euthanasia for the ones not able to do Logan's run and a "pensioner dash" special for those who are. Sorted.


I agree with you on the smoking because some of them live to 90 but how many obese people make it past retirement age?

My point is only that the reason there's so many of our oldies around now is because they've lived modest lives and not over indulged throughout their youth.
And I'd rather feed people to death than round up biddies and put them down.

And I'd rather feed people to death than round up biddies and put them down.

:hihi::hihi::hihi:

You're obviously unacquainted with our dear old poppins?? ;)

I think conditionality of treatment on lifestyle changes where lifestyle is a key factor is already being talked about now and will become a certainty over the next 20 years. Which seems fair enough, no point treating people for ilnesses caused by their lifestyle if they are not prepared to change it.

Problem with that would be: where do you draw the line?
A woodsman walks into hospital and is refused treatment for an he cut off?

A security guard knifed in the eyeball should have led a different life?

A nurse gets her ear bitten off by a mental patient? Sorry love you should've chosen a different lifestyle.

Only way of making healthcare selective would be to introduce an insurance based system which the poorest couldn't afford and the sickest wouldn't be allowed to join.
And anyone who thinks healthcare should be selective should go and live somewhere like America. Where the ambulance driver will want paying to take you to hospital.


Edit: damn it. I should've said a gardener walks into hospital with his fingers in a little bag after a hedetrimming accident and they won't sew them back on because it's his lifestyle choice to be a gardener. :hihi:

I think conditionality of treatment on lifestyle changes where lifestyle is a key factor is already being talked about now and will become a certainty over the next 20 years. Which seems fair enough, no point treating people for ilnesses caused by their lifestyle if they are not prepared to change it.

Totally agree, lifestyle changes will reduce the (chronic) burden on the NHS, but it's hard to predict the effect these changes will have on health or whether patients will absolutely be refused life saving treatment if they've failed to adhere to a healthy regime.

Of course better health=lower mortality rates so it could be a poisoned chalice in terms of absolute population numbers ;)

Problem with that would be: where do you draw the line?
A woodsman walks into hospital and is refused treatment for an he cut off?

A security guard knifed in the eyeball should have led a different life?

A nurse gets her ear bitten off by a mental patient? Sorry love you should've chosen a different lifestyle.

Only way of making healthcare selective would be to introduce an insurance based system which the poorest couldn't afford and the sickest wouldn't be allowed to join.
And anyone who thinks healthcare should be selective should go and live somewhere like America. Where the ambulance driver will want paying to take you to hospital.


Edit: damn it. I should've said a gardener walks into hospital with his fingers in a little bag after a hedetrimming accident and they won't sew them back on because it's his lifestyle choice to be a gardener. :hihi:

Your 'style' has all the hallmarks of 'dangerousdave' ;)

Problem with that would be: where do you draw the line?
A woodsman walks into hospital and is refused treatment for an he cut off?

A security guard knifed in the eyeball should have led a different life?

A nurse gets her ear bitten off by a mental patient? Sorry love you should've chosen a different lifestyle.

Only way of making healthcare selective would be to introduce an insurance based system which the poorest couldn't afford and the sickest wouldn't be allowed to join.
And anyone who thinks healthcare should be selective should go and live somewhere like America. Where the ambulance driver will want paying to take you to hospital.

I agree it's not an easy choice to decide where to draw the line but I would immagaine it will end up being drawn at the points the BF raised. Inactivity, drinking, smoking, obesity with the addition of illegal drug users. Not in terms of previous lifestyle but in terms on needing to change lifestyle going forward.

I think it was 30, I had a memory of it being a good film until I watched it again a couple of months ago, and it was crap. I will watch the remake though when it’s available.

I revisited it on Lovefilm very recently and still loved it (especially the bits with Jenny Agutter)!

The unpalatable truth though is that the problems of increasing population aren't created by babies being born, but people retiring younger and living longer.

:roll: Well its all those things isn't it?! how can you say that(too many) new babies born isn't a contributory factor in population growth??

Totally agree, lifestyle changes will reduce the (chronic) burden on the NHS, but it's hard to predict the effect these changes will have on health or whether patients will absolutely be refused life saving treatment if they've failed to adhere to a healthy regime.

Of course better health=lower mortality rates so it could be a poisoned chalice in terms of absolute population numbers ;)

I think as pressures continue to increase on the NHS there would be broad public support for legally binding contracts for patients presenting with lifestyle relatyed medical problems to address the lifestyle issue or not recieve further treatment on the NHS.

Like you say though, it may cause us as many problems as it solves. In the wider context the UK is a drop in the ocean of the global population growth problem though.

The main reasons for population growth are advances in medical science, health and safety awareness and Immigration of particular people who's culture it is to produce large broods.

I agree it's not an easy choice to decide where to draw the line but I would immagaine it will end up being drawn at the points the BF raised. Inactivity, drinking, smoking, obesity with the addition of illegal drug users. Not in terms of previous lifestyle but in terms on needing to change lifestyle going forward.

Like promising not to drink after a liver transplant or you'll have to pay for the op retrospectively?

Not sure any criteria would work and if it did no one would want to do anything risky/fun/dangerous/outside for fear they'd go bankrupt from hospital fees.

Unless something is congenital/hereditary, how many other things couldn't be classed as "lifestyle related"?

Nhs is either free for all, unconditionally or it may as well not exist.

Like promising not to drink after a liver transplant or you'll have to pay for the op retrospectively?

Not sure any criteria would work and if it did no one would want to do anything risky/fun/dangerous/outside for fear they'd go bankrupt from hospital fees.

Unless something is congenital/hereditary, how many other things couldn't be classed as "lifestyle related"?

Nhs is either free for all, unconditionally or it may as well not exist.

That's rather the issue, if it continues to be free for all, unconditionally, it will end up not existing. We can't ignore the demographic pressures. If you add even 50% of the population living 10 years longer to where we were in 1970 (and i think it's probably more than that) with more diseases that can at a cost be treated then the impact on what we are asking the NHS to do is enormous. I'm not saying what we're talking about here is necessarilly the answer, but we certainly cannot just carry on as we are and expect the NHS to cope, it won't.

:roll: Well its all those things isn't it?! how can you say that(too many) new babies born isn't a contributory factor in population growth??

That's absolutely fine, but it isn't actually what I said.

The main reasons for population growth are advances in medical science, health and safety awareness and Immigration of particular people who's culture it is to produce large broods.

There may well be 'cultures' who produce 'large broods' but they don't exist in sufficient numbers (compared to births in the indigenous population) to have a material effect on the problems associated with population growth..in fact a compelling argument could be presented to prove the opposite (chem1st alluded to it in an earlier post).

I think as pressures continue to increase on the NHS there would be broad public support for legally binding contracts for patients presenting with lifestyle relatyed medical problems to address the lifestyle issue or not recieve further treatment on the NHS. I agree, I think very few people faced with such a stark choice would continue with their harmful lifestyles.

Like you say though, it may cause us as many problems as it solves. In the wider context the UK is a drop in the ocean of the global population growth problem though.

Interesting perspective, I wonder whether geographical trends in health, births, death and prosperity have to be cyclical?

Third world populations are to some degree moderated by poverty, and the food/water supply..I wonder if developed nations create their own problems by maintaining comprehensive health/social care systems where people don't have to die from starvation, dysentery or other illnesses associated with poverty and our expectations are too elevated.

In time will those third world countries steal a march on us in being more adaptable to food, water and revenue shortages...it's food for thought!

I agree, I think very few people faced with such a stark choice would continue with their harmful lifestyles.


Interesting perspective, I wonder whether geographical trends in health, births, death and prosperity have to be cyclical?

Third world populations are to some degree moderated by poverty, and the food/water supply..I wonder if developed nations create their own problems by maintaining comprehensive health/social care systems where people don't have to die from starvation, dysentery or other illnesses associated with poverty and our expectations are too elevated.

In time will those third world countries steal a march on us in being more adaptable to food, water and revenue shortages...it's food for thought!

The problem is that it’s the third world countries populations that are growing, most developed countries populations are only increasing because of immigration.

Good news IMO. I'd like to see it reduced much further, to two, and then to one. We need to reduce the population before resources are gone.
Which 'we' is that, then? The 'we' who like democracy; or the 'we' adopting the Chinese Government's policy of killing babies which inconveniently happen to be girls born first?

Interesting perspective, I wonder whether geographical trends in health, births, death and prosperity have to be cyclical?

Third world populations are to some degree moderated by poverty, and the food/water supply..I wonder if developed nations create their own problems by maintaining comprehensive health/social care systems where people don't have to die from starvation, dysentery or other illnesses associated with poverty and our expectations are too elevated.

In time will those third world countries steal a march on us in being more adaptable to food, water and revenue shortages...it's food for thought!

I think, and hope that we are smart enough as a nation to fight our way through the upcoming crises and come out if not on top but very near the top. If we are to do this our relationship with the third world is key. The BRICS countries are wreaking havoc on their environments in pursuit of growth by selling us cheap rubbish, we need to hold the line and look at sustainable investment partnerships in Africa as and when democratic participation creates a backlash/nationalisation of chinese "on our terms only" investments.

Britain can recover hugely, we just need to play our cards right, and this includes in the short term doing what we are doing to attract the last of the arab oil money into physical infrastructure projects like the Thames port which we can nationalise in a heartbeat if their governments fall.

..I wonder if developed nations create their own problems by maintaining comprehensive health/social care systems where people don't have to die from starvation, dysentery or other illnesses associated with poverty and our expectations are too elevated.

In time will those third world countries steal a march on us in being more adaptable to food, water and revenue shortages...it's food for thought!

We can't have dysentery epidemics and Logan's run. Choose one and stick to it :)

It would be more accurate to say that it affects practically no-one. The vast majority of families have less than six children.

Not where i live they dont, they breed like rabbits..I stopped at 3 myself now all grown up and left home,the minority of idiots just have em for the sake of it.:D

The problem is that it’s the third world countries populations that are growing, most developed countries populations are only increasing because of immigration.

..this is a furrow that's been ploughed before but immigration into developed countries is required because the host population doesn't provide enough fodder/expertise to cover skills/labour shortages.

I think, and hope that we are smart enough as a nation to fight our way through the upcoming crises and come out if not on top but very near the top. If we are to do this our relationship with the third world is key. The BRICS countries are wreaking havoc on their environments in pursuit of growth by selling us cheap rubbish, we need to hold the line and look at sustainable investment partnerships in Africa as and when democratic participation creates a backlash/nationalisation of chinese "on our terms only" investments.

Britain can recover hugely, we just need to play our cards right, and this includes in the short term doing what we are doing to attract the last of the arab oil money into physical infrastructure projects like the Thames port which we can nationalise in a heartbeat if their governments fall.

Spot on fella :thumbsup:

..this is a furrow that's been ploughed before but immigration into developed countries is required because the host population doesn't provide enough fodder/expertise to cover skills/labour shortages.

That really depends on your point of view, if we didn’t have access to the labour from other countries we would have to find a way to give our young the skill we need, but it easier to poach what we need from elsewhere. So when you said, “I wonder if developed nations create their own problems” I would agree with you. We create our own problems by making the welfare state too generous, by allowing it to be defrauded and by not educating our young to do the jobs that need doing. We don’t need people we need the people we have to acquire the skills we need and a desire to work.

That really depends on your point of view, if we didn’t have access to the labour from other countries we would have to find a way to give our young the skill we need, but it easier to poach what we need from elsewhere. The freedom of labour movement is one of the great features of international trade and commerce, many Brits are 'poached' to work abroad because they have the skills other countries are seeking. It's been said before here but many of the (unskilled) jobs being done by immigrants are not popular amongst native Brits, and ironically these are jobs in the very sector which is affected most negatively by an ageing population...health & social care-if it weren't for foreign workers our loved ones would go into hospital and we would be required to feed them and wash their backsides..form an orderly queue please Britons!

So when you said, “I wonder if developed nations create their own problems” I would agree with you. We create our own problems by making the welfare state too generous, by allowing it to be defrauded and by not educating our young to do the jobs that need doing. It's a laudable ambition isn't it MrSmith?...all our young filling the jobs and skills shortages that our country creates, but it's fantasy and wishful thinking.

For a start remember the ageing population and calls here for reductions in domestic birth rates? Even with youngsters with the relevant skills there won't be enough of them to satisfy demand-option? Import labour.

Secondly, are you sure British youths will exist in sufficient numbers and capable of achieving the high entry requirements to train as doctors etc?


We don’t need people we need the people we have to acquire the skills we need and a desire to work. "We need"-Most of us through experience appreciate that there always exists a shortfall between what we want and what we can have.

The freedom of labour movement is one of the great features of international trade and commerce, many Brits are 'poached' to work abroad because they have the skills other countries are seeking. It's been said before here but many of the (unskilled) jobs being done by immigrants are not popular amongst native Brits, and ironically these are jobs in the very sector which is affected most negatively by an ageing population...health & social care-if it weren't for foreign workers our loved ones would go into hospital and we would be required to feed them and wash their backsides..form an orderly queue please Britons!
It's a laudable ambition isn't it MrSmith?...all our young filling the jobs and skills shortages that our country creates, but it's fantasy and wishful thinking.

For a start remember the ageing population and calls here for reductions in domestic birth rates? Even with youngsters with the relevant skills there won't be enough of them to satisfy demand-option? Import labour.

Secondly, are you sure British youths will exist in sufficient numbers and capable of achieving the high entry requirements to train as doctors etc?

"We need"-Most of us through experience appreciate that there always exists a shortfall between what we want and what we can have.

This is why I agree with you that we have created our own problem; we have people that won't work (solvable) skills shortages (solvable) and an aging population that wants caring for (solvable).

But solving them by increasing the population can only work if the population continues to expand which in itself creates a new problem. The bigger the population the bigger the future problems, more skill shortages and more old people in need of care, and we will keep expanding the population until the system collapses under the strain, much like we did with the banks. All because it was easier to borrow more money rather than live within our means, the same will happen with the population, and all because it’s easier to just keep expanding it rather than do without.

Good news IMO. I'd like to see it reduced much further, to two, and then to one. We need to reduce the population before resources are gone.

Reduce it to zero and we will an infinite resources:population ratio.

:roll:

Five is a very modest limit. I would prefer it to be two, or at the most three.

5 is too many. Better for everyone if the limit is two or at most three. Beyond that, people are free to have as many as they want as long as they pay for them.

Five is a very modest limit. I would prefer it to be two, or at the most three.

I agree, and make nobody exempt on cultural grounds.

I agree, and make nobody exempt on cultural grounds.


any jews ,catholics,and muslims out there care to respond:D

This is why I agree with you that we have created our own problem; we have people that won't work (solvable) skills shortages (solvable) and an aging population that wants caring for (solvable). Could you expand on how? It's not something Great Britain has ever really been able to achieve throughout its history.

Could you expand on how? It's not something Great Britain has ever really been able to achieve throughout its history.

It’s too radical for you and wouldn’t be the easy option, but we need to create an environment in which employers want to teach the British unemployed to work and to do the job that needs doing, and in which the unemployed want to learn and do the job.

Whilst ever there are unemployed with the ability to learn the job an employer can’t fill a vacancy using foreign labour and whilst ever there are vacancies, unemployment isn’t an option and benefits will be stopped. It’s now in the interests of both employer and potential employee to work together to fill the vacancy.

The reason foreign workers are happy to come to the UK is for a better life, without that incentive they wouldn’t want to come here; we don’t have the same incentive because our welfare system is too generous.
Do you think foreigners enjoy cleaning peoples arses or do they do it out off desperation?

It’s too radical for you and wouldn’t be the easy option, but we need to create an environment in which employers want to teach the British unemployed to work and to do the job that needs doing, and in which the unemployed want to learn and do the job. Well if it's too radical for me it's likely to be 'too radical' for the majority.

Whilst ever there are unemployed with the ability to learn the job an employer can’t fill a vacancy using foreign labour and whilst ever there are vacancies, unemployment isn’t an option and benefits will be stopped. It’s now in the interests of both employer and potential employee to work together to fill the vacancy. Again this is fanciful thinking. Businesses have to compete on a global platform, and whilst it would be wonderful to 'match' vacancies with a plentiful supply of domestic labour at the right price in reality is just cant happen. Foreign labour is already well motivated, flexible in it's application (goes where it's skills are needed) and can adjust to seasonal markets (goes home when it's no longer required) and most importantly-cheap.

The reason foreign workers are happy to come to the UK is for a better life, without that incentive they wouldn’t want to come here; we don’t have the same incentive because our welfare system is too generous. Just try reinventing that wheel. I'm afraid the peasants would become more revolting.

Do you think foreigners enjoy cleaning peoples arses or do they do it out off desperation? I think they do it for the reasons you describe, but tell me..where are you going to find British workers willing to work for similar pay to foreign workers and not resent being forced to do so? Frankly I don't want anyone like that anywhere near my nether regions.

Well if it's too radical for me it's likely to be 'too radical' for the majority.
Again this is fanciful thinking. Businesses have to compete on a global platform, and whilst it would be wonderful to 'match' vacancies with a plentiful supply of domestic labour at the right price in reality is just cant happen. Foreign labour is already well motivated, flexible in it's application (goes where it's skills are needed) and can adjust to seasonal markets (goes home when it's no longer required) and most importantly-cheap.
Just try reinventing that wheel. I'm afraid the peasants would become more revolting.
I think they do it for the reasons you describe, but tell me..where are you going to find British workers willing to work for similar pay to foreign workers and not resent being forced to do so? Frankly I don't want anyone like that anywhere near my nether regions.

Its sounds like you agree with me, we have created our own problems and the fix isn't that desirable to some, so we take the easy rout, which will inevitably lead to a bigger problem in the future, but it will be a problem for the next generation and not us so it doesn’t matter.


We can create that kind of motivation easily by cutting or stopping benefits.

Its sounds like you agree with me, we have created our own problems and the fix isn't that desirable to some, so we take the easy rout, which will inevitably lead to a bigger problem in the future, but it will be a problem for the next generation and not us so it doesn’t matter. But the easy route is what created the British Empire-low paid workers, colonisation, a low tax environment and a failure to invest properly in our social infrastructure. Inevitably it would have consequences.

During the boom years of the 50's & 60's life expectancy was shorter and retirement ages of 65 for men and 60 for women pretty much anticipated. Actuarial calculations of future pensions, life expectancy and health spend were based on flawed assumptions-hence the mess we're in today.


We can create that kind of motivation easily by cutting or stopping benefits.

I disagree, that would only create motivation to take to the streets and riot..remember the poll tax kerfuffle and relatively speaking that was over nothing.

B



I disagree, that would only create motivation to take to the streets and riot..remember the poll tax kerfuffle and relatively speaking that was over nothing.


Why do you think riots would caused by creating an environment in which the unemployed would have the opportunity and incentive to work.

Why do you think riots would caused by creating an environment in which the unemployed would have the opportunity and incentive to work.

Because if the desire to work and provide for themselves and their families isn't enough motivation then tackling them with a cattle prod is unlikely to have the desired effect. The streets of our larger cities was awash with them last summer.

Britons who don't want to work and are being beaten in the race up the job vacancy queue by foreigners who often don't even speak English are unlikely to appreciate the reasons for being compelled to work or be the motivated employees that employers are looking for.

Because if the desire to work and provide for themselves and their families isn't enough motivation then tackling them with a cattle prod is unlikely to have the desired effect. The streets of our larger cities was awash with them last summer.

Britons who don't want to work and are being beaten in the race up the job vacancy queue by foreigners who often don't even speak English are unlikely to appreciate the reasons for being compelled to work or be the motivated employees that employers are looking for.

Not everyone that took to the streets was unemployed and some took to the streets because of the lack of opportunity, and by stopping there benefits all we are doing is giving them the same motivation as the foreign workers, work or starve. If they do take to the streets the money saved on their benefits could be used to increase the size of the police.

I think some of you on here have missed the point. It doesnt say cap children at 5 for everyone just those claiming benefits, so anyone who wants to support their children by working can have as many as they like.

Lets face it most of the families that have large amounts of kids only do it to get benefits and it is very unlikely their offspring will ever actually join the workforce of the future, so saying we need these large families to support OAP's in the future is just not true at all.

so saying we need these large families to support OAP's in the future is just not true at all.

Nobody's saying we need feckless parents producing large numbers of feckless children but what we don't need are disincentives to responsible adults to procreate.

I think some of you on here have missed the point. It doesnt say cap children at 5 for everyone just those claiming benefits, so anyone who wants to support their children by working can have as many as they like.

Lets face it most of the families that have large amounts of kids only do it to get benefits and it is very unlikely their offspring will ever actually join the workforce of the future, so saying we need these large families to support OAP's in the future is just not true at all.
I can think of a couple of families that just produce the next generation of benefit claimants. It’s just a life style choice and normal for some people, working for a living is something they have never known.

There should be a cap or what incentive is there to get back into work to support your children when having more on benefits is more financially viable? It's not fair for those supporting children whilst trying to work as well which isn't easy. I know it's not as simple as this but a cap would encourage people to focus on supporting themselves rather than others doing it for them.

I think some of you on here have missed the point. It doesnt say cap children at 5 for everyone just those claiming benefits, so anyone who wants to support their children by working can have as many as they like.

Lets face it most of the families that have large amounts of kids only do it to get benefits and it is very unlikely their offspring will ever actually join the workforce of the future, so saying we need these large families to support OAP's in the future is just not true at all.

Most people are on benefits.

Many working people claiming the benefit called 'working tax credit and child tax credit', they claim more than the unemployed, and get more in benefit than they do from working.

Should be ended. You breed em' you feed em.


Angel.



Have to agree with that,its their responsibilty to keep them not everyone elses.

Most people are on benefits.

Many working people claiming the benefit called 'working tax credit and child tax credit', they claim more than the unemployed, and get more in benefit than they do from working.

Are they really? I've not read anything to suggest the majority of working age people are on benefits. And I don't class those on contribution based state pensions as being on benefits, even though the DWP refers to all state pensions as benefits in their correspondence. :roll:

Are they really? I've not read anything to suggest the majority of working age people are on benefits. And I don't class those on contribution based state pensions as being on benefits, even though the DWP refers to all state pensions as benefits in their correspondence. :roll:

Tax credits can be claimed by people earning above the average wage, the median wage is even lower.

Only 2/3rds of working age people work in the first place.

The majority of the private sector is running on public subsidy. There is no free market. And income is for all intents and purposes determined by the state.

Have to agree with that,its their responsibilty to keep them not everyone elses.

How many working people claim tax credits? Do the 16/24 hours? And receive more in tax credits than they do in wages, and more in tax credits than what they would in dole if they were unemployed!

Why is there no poll to vote for the answer?

Anyway, yes it should, and for that matter it should have a 3 or possibly even 2 child cap being introduced over the next decade (to give people time to get used to the idea).

How many working people claim tax credits? Do the 16/24 hours? And receive more in tax credits than they do in wages, and more in tax credits than what they would in dole if they were unemployed!

Why don't you actually check and then prove that you're correct.... (You're not of course, but I don't have time to prove it right now, I have to go to work and not claim any benefits, just like all my friends and family).

How many working people claim tax credits? Do the 16/24 hours? And receive more in tax credits than they do in wages, and more in tax credits than what they would in dole if they were unemployed!

3.5 million people claim tax credits which is down from 4.7 million in 2011
Tax credits creates jobs, first the government use an army of tax officials to administer the taxation of everyone, then they use another army of tax credits officials to give some or all of that tax back to the workers. Just think of the money that could be saved if they just upped the minimum wage and cut taxes to everyone including the employer. The only problem with making the system easier would be the impending strikes from all the tax office employees that rely on this overly bureaucratic system to stay in work. :)

When you look through this site it make you wonder why anyone would want to come to the UK.
The Poverty Site (http://www.poverty.org.uk/50/index.shtml)

16% of working-age households are workless.
The UK has a higher proportion of its working-age population living in workless households than most other EU countries, all bar Hungary, Ireland, Belgium and Lithuania.
The proportion of economically inactive working-age adults who are in relative low income is higher in the UK than in any other EU country. Many of these people will be disabled.

Tax credits can be claimed by people earning above the average wage, the median wage is even lower.

Only 2/3rds of working age people work in the first place.

The majority of the private sector is running on public subsidy. There is no free market. And income is for all intents and purposes determined by the state.

Here we go, I checked it for you.

Between 190,000 and 275,000 employees – more than two thirds of them women and all
of them without dependent children – may be entitled to WTC only. The uncertainty in
this figure (and hence the range) reflects the fact that the employee or their partner has to
work at least 30 hours a week to be entitled to WTC and this information is not known.
• A further 80,000 employees are likely to be entitled to both WTC and CTC (in other
words, they have dependent children but are sufficiently lowly paid to be due some
WTC).

That's a top figure of 355,000 people claiming WTC.
That's out of something like 20,000,000 working people.
Or less than 2% of working people can claim WTC.

3.5 million people claim tax credits which is down from 4.7 million in 2011
This figure must be including CTC...
Tax credits creates jobs, first the government use an army of tax officials to administer the taxation of everyone, then they use another army of tax credits officials to give some or all of that tax back to the workers. Just think of the money that could be saved if they just upped the minimum wage and cut taxes to everyone including the employer. The only problem with making the system easier would be the impending strikes from all the tax office employees that rely on this overly bureaucratic system to stay in work. :)
Surely it's more about increasing the personal allowance than tinkering with the minimum wage. Stop taking the money off people in the form of tax and then giving it back as a tax credit.

This figure must be including CTC...
Surely it's more about increasing the personal allowance than tinkering with the minimum wage. Stop taking the money off people in the form of tax and then giving it back as a tax credit.

It needs both because some people on minimum wage don't pay personal tax, but still claim tax credits because their income is too low, upping the minimum wage and lowing the taxes of the employer would prevent the need for tax credits.

Anyone on minimum wage (working full time) pays personal tax.

Here we go, I checked it for you.



That's a top figure of 355,000 people claiming WTC.
That's out of something like 20,000,000 working people.
Or less than 2% of working people can claim WTC.

Your figures are incorrect.

And I said tax credits, not specifically WTC.

Howcome tax credits bill is ~ £28 billion, and JSA bill ~ £4.5 billion.

FTR 1.61 million are claiming JSA.

Anyone on minimum wage (working full time) pays personal tax.

Yes you are right; I was working on the 24 hours that people have to work to claim tax credits.

Yes you are right; I was working on the 24 hours that people have to work to claim tax credits.

Should MW be enough for someone who doesn't work full time to live on without claiming (assuming that they can claim)?

Your figures are incorrect.

And I said tax credits, not specifically WTC.

Howcome tax credits bill is ~ £28 billion, and JSA bill ~ £4.5 billion.

FTR 1.61 million are claiming JSA.

CTC isn't really a benefit, it's disingenuous to claim that anyone with a child is in receipt of benefits, although it would be better to add it to their tax code and reduce the level of bureaucracy involved.

CTC isn't really a benefit, it's disingenuous to claim that anyone with a child is in receipt of benefits, although it would be better to add it to their tax code and reduce the level of bureaucracy involved.

Yes it is a benefit.

It is a tax credit only in name, in reality is is a benefit.

Should MW be enough for someone who doesn't work full time to live on without claiming (assuming that they can claim)?

It is probably enough for a single person in a bedsit, or sharing accommodation. Two adults on full time, minimum wage incomes should also be able to manage. The difficulties arise when the jobs aren't full time, there isn't any affordable accommodation available, and/or there are dependents.

A 37 hour week on NMW = Annual salary of £11700. That probably equates to a bring home wage of around £200 a week/£400 a week for a couple.

It is probably enough for a single person in a bedsit, or sharing accommodation. Two adults on full time, minimum wage incomes should also be able to manage. The difficulties arise when the jobs aren't full time, there isn't any affordable accommodation available, and/or there are dependents.

A 37 hour week on NMW = Annual salary of £11700. That probably equates to a bring home wage of around £200 a week/£400 a week for a couple.

With a minimum wage, we need a maximum rent. The maximum rent being a proportion of the minimum wage.

Yet in the UK, the minimum wage is rising below inflation, and rent is being forced up consistently above inflation...

Meaning wages are too low/rent is too high.

As the years go by more people realise the swindle. And the financially rational stop working and claim benefits.

Housing costs in this country are a complete and utter joke. Serfs work for the lords of the land, and realise no fruits from their labour. The only solution is to abuse the state benefit system and force the state to crash, meanwhile working cash in hand in preparation for a transition to a new state.

Yes you are right; I was working on the 24 hours that people have to work to claim tax credits.


I assume you have kids otherwise you have to work 30 hrs if your single to get WTC.

I assume you have kids otherwise you have to work 30 hrs if your single to get WTC.

Yes all grown up and working, but thanks for pointing that out. :)

Should MW be enough for someone who doesn't work full time to live on without claiming (assuming that they can claim)?

I would say that to get the work life balance right 24 hours work should earn enough to exist without the need for assistance, obviously the luxuries of life would come from working more hours, and not from getting benifits.

I disagree, that's only working a 3 day week, if you're skills only qualify you for MW then it doesn't seem unreasonable that life would require a full working week from you.

With a minimum wage, we need a maximum rent. The maximum rent being a proportion of the minimum wage.
This makes no sense, why should the rent of a 10 bedroom mansion be related to the minimum wage?

Yet in the UK, the minimum wage is rising below inflation, and rent is being forced up consistently above inflation...
Forced by what?

Meaning wages are too low/rent is too high.

As the years go by more people realise the swindle. And the financially rational stop working and claim benefits.
Or they buy a house and stop paying rent.

Housing costs in this country are a complete and utter joke. Serfs work for the lords of the land, and realise no fruits from their labour.
Apart from being paid of course, but lets pretend eh. The only solution is to abuse the state benefit system and force the state to crash, meanwhile working cash in hand in preparation for a transition to a new state.
Or to gain some skills, get better work, be paid appropriately and live a happy life. But that would require a little bit of effort instead of a lot of whining.

Id cap it at 2 kids aswell. Most responsible parents only have as many children as they can afford.

Its a pity more people dont have that attitude.

I have two step children - what you are saying is I shouldn't be allowed to create my own as that would be more than two. Who are you to dictate if I should be allowed children or not.

I work. I changed my career so I could provide for my family (in more ways than just money as my original career would see me out of the country a lot)

My wife is studying to get a better job. Our long term aim is to not relay on any benefits.

I have two step children - what you are saying is I shouldn't be allowed to create my own as that would be more than two. Who are you to dictate if I should be allowed children or not.

.

I don't think Green's argument is against larger families but that benefits should only be paid for 2 children..

Or to gain some skills, get better work, be paid appropriately and live a happy life. But that would require a little bit of effort instead of a lot of whining.

This is what my wife is doing - but to do this we need to claim HB/CTB and tax credits.

After my wife qualifies and hopefully finds a job her starting wage will be slightly more than our total income (inc benefits) now so add my wage to it and we will be fine.

I have a disability so I'm still only need to work 16 hrs a week. The work I have managed to secure us casual so some good months and some bad months. All worked out at end of year and sometimes there is a overpayment and sometimes an underpayment.

I am currently looking for full time work but I will not work for MW in a profession that I put myself at risk, can't be avoided sometimes but if I'm gonna do this I deserve to be rewarded appropriately not ripped off.

I don't think Green's argument is against larger families but that benefits should only be paid for 2 children..

Where does this stop. My children or include my step children as legally I have no parently rights over them so why should benefits stop due to them.

Life is not as black and white as that.

Where does this stop. My children or include my step children as legally I have no parently rights over them so why should benefits stop due to them.

Life is not as black and white as that.

Seems quite straight forward..2 children in one household is 2 children..I'm not saying whether it's right or wrong just pointing out how simple it is..no-one would be stopping you having more but there'd be no benefit payments for them..

Seems quite straight forward..2 children in one household is 2 children..I'm not saying whether it's right or wrong just pointing out how simple it is..no-one would be stopping you having more but there'd be no benefit payments for them..

So why can't I claim for MY children if I have 1 but have 2 step children who i have no legal rights over but because they live in my household I'm legally have to count as a dependent.

This is wrong and you have no right to say I can't have children just because I fall in love with someone who already has some.

What do you say to people who lose their jobs. They give their children up to care. When they had there children they may have been able to afford them, then life dealt a cruel blow and now need help from the welfare state but due to having too many children they can't claim?

Why not a reduction in amount like how it is for child benefit rather than full stop?

This makes no sense, why should the rent of a 10 bedroom mansion be related to the minimum wage?


I did mean of basic accommodation (you know that stuff built to house the people - built by the state according to the parker morris standards.

Forced by what?
Goverment sets minimum wages and rents of basic accommodation, minimum wage is rising below inflation, rents are being forced up above inflation.

Or they buy a house and stop paying rent.
Apart from being paid of course, but lets pretend eh.
Or to gain some skills, get better work, be paid appropriately and live a happy life. But that would require a little bit of effort instead of a lot of whining.

It isn't that simple. If only it were. If only people were better off for working eh?

This is wrong and you have no right to say I can't have children just because I fall in love with someone who already has some.



Where did I say you can't have children?

So why can't I claim for MY children if I have 1 but have 2 step children who i have no legal rights over but because they live in my household I'm legally have to count as a dependent.

This is wrong and you have no right to say I can't have children just because I fall in love with someone who already has some.

What do you say to people who lose their jobs. They give their children up to care. When they had there children they may have been able to afford them, then life dealt a cruel blow and now need help from the welfare state but due to having too many children they can't claim?

The point of the debate isn’t about the amount of children you have; it’s about the amount of children the tax payer should be expected to support. If you have children with a partner that already has children then the total amount of children would the ones she already has plus the one you have will her. I understand your argument no one should have a right say how many children you can have, you don’t seem to grasp the other side of the argument about why should someone else support your kids.

has, the word is has.

I did mean of basic accommodation (you know that stuff built to house the people - built by the state according to the parker morris standards.
Council housing is already subsidised and let out at below the market rate.


Goverment sets minimum wages and rents of basic accommodation, minimum wage is rising below inflation, rents are being forced up above inflation.
You could view this as subsidised rents are gradually catching up with the real market value.



It isn't that simple. If only it were. If only people were better off for working eh?
It is that simple. It really is. Skill up, get a decent job, get paid well. It's the capitalist way.

I have two step children - what you are saying is I shouldn't be allowed to create my own as that would be more than two. Who are you to dictate if I should be allowed children or not.
Create what you like, but pay for it yourself.

I work. I changed my career so I could provide for my family (in more ways than just money as my original career would see me out of the country a lot)

My wife is studying to get a better job. Our long term aim is to not relay on any benefits.
Excellent, so there would be nothing to stop you having additional children. I think you might have missed the point of the thread. Nobody is discussing a cap on how many children you can have, just on how many the state will give you money for.

has, the word is has.

I've changed it, I hope it's easier to read now.:)

Create what you like, but pay for it yourself.
Excellent, so there would be nothing to stop you having additional children. I think you might have missed the point of the thread. Nobody is discussing a cap on how many children you can have, just on how many the state will give you money for.

I see the point of the post. We have 5 children between us. We have been married for over 12 years and in that time I have been unemployed for a total of 8 months, so hardly a benefit scrounger.

Without things like HB and tax credits etc my wife would not be able to afford to study and make our life better.

What is needed is the government to penalise those who refuse to work. They is no extra help for those who want to get an education and get a decent job and out of the MW trap.

I pay for all my training and licenses to enable me to work. I can claim some income tax back is this still a benefit? And under your ideas not be allowed for my family?

Where did I say you can't have children?

It was implied. Basically you said because my wife has two children I can't because if **** happens and I lose
my job we can't afford any extra.

The welfare system is there for times of hardship and shouldn't be deemed on how many children you have to if you qualify as this will create more child poverty.

...............duplicate post.....

It was implied. Basically you said because my wife has two children I can't because if **** happens and I lose
my job we can't afford any extra.

The welfare system is there for times of hardship and shouldn't be deemed on how many children you have to if you qualify as this will create more child poverty.

So a limitless pot then?

It was implied. Basically you said because my wife has two children I can't because if **** happens and I lose
my job we can't afford any extra.

The welfare system is there for times of hardship and shouldn't be deemed on how many children you have to if you qualify as this will create more child poverty.

Surely not, it would just create adult poverty, because a parent would do without so that their child can have.

Surely not, it would just create adult poverty, because a parent would do without so that their child can have.

Yes and no

Really would create both as depends how much is too go around the family.

So a limitless pot then?

No not at all.

As I said it it is there for times of hardship.

In 12 years 8 months I've needed to claim JSA other times the benefits have been in work benefits.

I know plenty of people who haven't worked at all in those same 12 years and have no intention of working as they are plain lazy and sooner let other provide wholly for them.

We are trying to get out of the MW trap others can't be bothered to get on the MW ladder. More needs to be done to get these people of JSA/IS and working. At least they will have event some of it.