Bloomdido Posted December 14, 2011 Posted December 14, 2011 I have just watched the BBC panorama programme on adoption. It was stated that there are 65,000 children waiting for adoption and it costs about £150 a day to support each of those children. 65,000 children x £150 x 365 days = £3,558,750,000 I make that three and a half trillion pounds a year. That is a lot of money. I'm also sure there is a lot of upset, distress and sense of loss on all sides. Three siblings were given back by their adoptive parents three years in to the adoption. Now they may have to be split-up if they are to find new adoptive parents. Is it too easy for people to have children? Are social services too eager to take children in to care after baby Peter? Is there a better way to approach this problem?
spooky3 Posted December 14, 2011 Posted December 14, 2011 I have just watched the BBC panorama programme on adoption. It was stated that there are 65,000 children waiting for adoption and it costs about £150 a day to support each of those children. 65,000 children x £150 x 365 days = £3,558,750,000 I make that three and a half trillion pounds a year. That is a lot of money. I'm also sure there is a lot of upset, distress and sense of loss on all sides. Three siblings were given back by their adoptive parents three years in to the adoption. Now they may have to be split-up if they are to find new adoptive parents. Is it too easy for people to have children? Are social services too eager to take children in to care after baby Peter? Is there a better way to approach this problem? Seriously, how? Other than giving the parents a proper hard kick up the .... But this has always been a problem.
HeadingNorth Posted December 14, 2011 Posted December 14, 2011 Is it too easy for people to have children? It clearly is, but how would you propose making it harder? Not many people are going to support forced sterilization and only being allowed to have a child when the government/authorities decide you can.
quisquose Posted December 14, 2011 Posted December 14, 2011 Well it clearly can't be £3.5 trillion, so the figures quoted by the BBC must be wrong. I can't believe it costs £150 per day.
Resident Posted December 14, 2011 Posted December 14, 2011 I have just watched the BBC panorama programme on adoption. It was stated that there are 65,000 children waiting for adoption and it costs about £150 a day to support each of those children. 65,000 children x £150 x 365 days = £3,558,750,000 I make that three and a half trillion pounds a year. That is a lot of money. I'm also sure there is a lot of upset, distress and sense of loss on all sides. Three siblings were given back by their adoptive parents three years in to the adoption. Now they may have to be split-up if they are to find new adoptive parents. Is it too easy for people to have children? Are social services too eager to take children in to care after baby Peter? Is there a better way to approach this problem? Whilst it's a shocking figure, it's not in trillions. Going on your calculation it's 'only' 3.5 billion which is significantly less than 3.5 trillion. I'd also like to see the costings of this per child. £150 a DAY seems a lot. It doesn't cost a grand a week to feed, cloth & house a child. There are full families living on far less and managing. As for your question about is it too easy to have kids. Yes it is. Far too many people lie down and open their legs because they know the state will pick up the tab if they mess up.
quisquose Posted December 14, 2011 Posted December 14, 2011 Whilst it's a shocking figure, it's not in trillions. Going on your calculation it's 'only' 3.5 billion which is significantly less than 3.5 trillion. As for your question about is it too easy to have kids. Yes it is. Far too many people lie down and open their legs because they know the state will pick up the tab if they mess up. Bloomdido is referring to the "short scale" trillion, or the US version, which financial statistics tend to be quoted in these days ... unfortunately. I prefer scientists to economists to be honest.
Bloomdido Posted December 14, 2011 Author Posted December 14, 2011 Whilst it's a shocking figure, it's not in trillions. Going on your calculation it's 'only' 3.5 billion which is significantly less than 3.5 trillion. I'd also like to see the costings of this per child. £150 a DAY seems a lot. It doesn't cost a grand a week to feed, cloth & house a child. There are full families living on far less and managing. As for your question about is it too easy to have kids. Yes it is. Far too many people lie down and open their legs because they know the state will pick up the tab if they mess up. I'll sack the 13 year-old maths wizard. Of course it's billions (with hindsight). Should have trusted my judgement. Still a lot of money though.
quisquose Posted December 14, 2011 Posted December 14, 2011 I'll sack the 13 year-old maths wizard. Of course it's billions (with hindsight). Should have trusted my judgement. Still a lot of money though. ... and I'll sack this 47 year-old waths mizard. It's £3.5 billion in "short scale" format, which is feasible.
HeadingNorth Posted December 14, 2011 Posted December 14, 2011 Bloomdido is referring to the "short scale" trillion, or the US version The figure given is 3.5 billions on the US scale. It's not even one billion on the archaic English scale.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.