Should we sterilise the poor?

How about just limiting their benefits?

 

If you're unemployed you won't get any support for another new child, no benefits, no larger housing etc.?

I thought we already had?

How about just limiting their benefits?

 

If you're unemployed you won't get any support for another new child, no benefits, no larger housing etc.?

That makes no sense.

Who do you tell that they won’t get any more support for a new child?

What happens if they subsequently get (or lose) a job. Do you change your attitude to a person depending upon their employment status?

I don't agree with sterilising the poor, however I think in certain circumstances there is an argument for sterilising adults who have had their children permanently taken into the care system due to abuse or the fact that they have a proven record of not being able to adequately care for them.

Killing the rich would also solve that problem?

Well thought out, then the poor could pay the taxes to fund your benefits.

Well thought out, then the poor could pay the taxes to fund your benefits.

The wealth of the rich wouldn't disappear of course.

The answer to the OP is of course, unless you are evil, a resounding no.

Any other answer is moral insanity.

The wealth of the rich wouldn't disappear of course.

True, but it would eventually when it was put in the hands of the people who didn't know how to invest it for the best returns.

You can't cure poverty by breeding.

But you can increase poverty by breeding when you cannot afford to pay for that child yourself.

But you can increase poverty by breeding when you cannot afford to pay for that child yourself.

I was going to post how few there were. But it seems there are almost 30%, wow; low compared to other countries though.

https://data.oecd.org/unemp/long-term-unemployment-rate.htm

Maybe that includes pensioners?

I was going to post how few there were. But it seems there are almost 30%, wow; low compared to other countries though.

 

https://data.oecd.org/unemp/long-term-unemployment-rate.htm

 

Maybe that includes pensioners?

So 30% of 4% is...?

Seems pretty low to me.

I was going to post how few there were. But it seems there are almost 30%, wow; low compared to other countries though.

 

https://data.oecd.org/unemp/long-term-unemployment-rate.htm

 

Maybe that includes pensioners?

No, it wouldn't

Unemployment is usually measured by national labour force surveys and refers to people reporting that they have worked in gainful employment for less than one hour in the previous week, who are available for work and who have sought employment in the past four weeks.

Is that data showing the % of unemployed who are in fact LONG TERM unemployed, because the headline rate for unemployment is

4.3%

https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peoplenotinwork/unemployment

Ah right, on the text of the page you linked

The long-term unemployment rate shows the proportion of these long-term unemployed among all unemployed.

So that 30% is of the 4.3% (as someone already said).

So that 30% is of the 4.3% (as someone already said).

Ah, I was thinking the total numbers of people not working; when we are discussing this group of people that need help because they are stuck at the bottom and breeding like crazy, I assume it includes those on disability that cannot work.