2 kids max, £8k benefit cap - would you vote this? (other ideas too)

[chem1st 10]

Lets say someone earns £220 a week, the state would top them up to £250 by giving £30, someone earning £190 each week would get £60 etc.....

 

This would be funded by a cut to benefits to people who refuse work, foregn aid would also be cut to fund this. There would also be the raising of the tax threashold to £12000 a year so work always pays

 

The tax threshold doesn't determine whether work pays

 

Besides, already we only spend £5Bn on JSA and £30Bn on topping up peoples wages.

 

Some people on JSA get £56 a week, whilst many families get £200 in working tax a week (some get much much more!)

[Eric_Collins 11]

Do you think there might be some negative consequences from the collapse in the birth rate that would likely follow? How would you plan to address those?

 

No chance on that me old mucker, it's called immigration and it's already happening.

[Benedictine 10]

I just wonder about that 41% who voted yes. Obviously they are OK with punishing new born babies...

 

My idea was to implement the cap in April 2013 or 2014, this would not punish current kids being born, but would give people advanced warning that changes were in the pipeline in the future.

 

People would have to change their behavior or fall foul of the new rules.

 

Yes implementing the new system would be harmfull now, but if it was to be started 2 years into the future, people could not say they were not warned

 

As I said stick to putting things right in the pub. Your second point:

 

Two children maximum paid for by the benefit system, one is an accident, if it happens again, OK - its another accident. If it happens again, then you need to think about condoms. Also, after baby number 3,the father needs to provide.

 

Would mean the abuse of babies. I am not alright with that personally, even if 41% of people who voted are. This is just another example of why we need a government and not 100% referendums because most people have no idea.

 

If you did what you suggested above, 1000s of new born babies in Sheffield would suffer neglect. Sorry but I'd not vote for that. Say the father refuses to provide, you would be OK with the child starving to death then?

 

Again, this is another example of why people should stick to their day job...

 

~And this is just looking at your second point.

[rubydazzler 11]

Have you ever lived with a partner and 2 children in a 1 bedroom flat?

I've lived with another adult in a bedsit, and two other adults in a one bedroom flat. But I was only in my early 20s then and it was ok. Crowded sometimes, especially if anyone had someone stay over, but do-able

 

But if you only have a one bedroom flat, and that's all you can afford, why would you have two children? I wouldn't have a child in a flat anyway, unless it was ground floor, with access to a garden area.

[*_ash_* 88]

I just wonder about that 41% who voted yes. Obviously they are OK with punishing new born babies...

 

As I said stick to putting things right in the pub. Your second point:

 

 

 

Would mean the abuse of babies. I am not alright with that personally, even if 41% of people who voted are. This is just another example of why we need a government and not 100% referendums because most people have no idea.

 

If you did what you suggested above, 1000s of new born babies in Sheffield would suffer neglect. Sorry but I'd not vote for that. Say the father refuses to provide, you would be OK with the child starving to death then?

 

Again, this is another example of why people should stick to their day job...

 

~And this is just looking at your second point.

 

Despite the first part being a blatant Straw man (and an appeal to pity), the second part is also nonsense.

[chem1st 10]

But if you only have a one bedroom flat, and that's all you can afford, why would you have two children? I wouldn't have a child in a flat anyway, unless it was ground floor, with access to a garden area.

 

This is the blooming problem.

 

Back in the day there was housing and jobs. You could buy a house and feed a family.

 

Nowadays people are trapped in substandard housing - houses have been demolished. It used to be the case houses were BUILT!

 

So people can't access family housing, so they postpone having children

 

- The average age of a mother has been rising for nigh on 30 years!

 

- House building is at record lows, falling pretty much for 30 years and the lowest in peacetime for over 80 years!

 

-Birth rates have been below replacement level for 41 years!

[TeaFan 10]

I've lived with another adult in a bedsit, and two other adults in a one bedroom flat. But I was only in my early 20s then and it was ok. Crowded sometimes, especially if anyone had someone stay over, but do-able

 

But if you only have a one bedroom flat, and that's all you can afford, why would you have two children? I wouldn't have a child in a flat anyway, unless it was ground floor, with access to a garden area.

 

He's saying that if you had 2 kids and became unemployed you'd only get £75 a week in housing benefit, i.e. you'd all have to live in a bedsit. Which is a stupid and immoral idea. Also, research evidence from the USA shows that where states introduce 'family caps', in other words only pay welfare for a limited number of children, it has no effect on fertility rates, just results in more poor families. Researchers over the world seem to agree that the best way to get birth rates down is strong economic performance - Germany has the lowest EU birth rate. Mr. Parkin hasn't told us how he's going to improve economic performance.

[Benedictine 10]

Despite the first part being a blatant Straw man (and an appeal to pity), the second part is also nonsense.

 

No it isn't. It is the most likely outcome.

[TeaFan 10]

No chance on that me old mucker, it's called immigration and it's already happening.

 

Having done a quick bit of reading online it appears that there is actually little evidence that it would reduce birth rates, so it looks like I was wrong. So the effect would more likely be the same number of children, no more jobs than there are now, lower welfare payments, so either more crime or just more deprived children.

[*_ash_* 88]

No it isn't.

 

Not that I agree with the OP's suggestions, but...

 

Two children maximum paid for by the benefit system, one is an accident, if it happens again, OK - its another accident. If it happens again, then you need to think about condoms. Also, after baby number 3,the father needs to provide.

 

I just wonder about that 41% who voted yes. Obviously they are OK with punishing new born babies

 

Say the father refuses to provide, you would be OK with the child starving to death then?

 

If you can't see an issue with your logic, then there is no point discussing any further.

 

The conclusions you came to [in bold] with what was suggested, are absurd.

[Benedictine 10]

I'm sorry but just to reiterate:

 

Quote:

Two children maximum paid for by the benefit system, one is an accident, if it happens again, OK - its another accident. If it happens again, then you need to think about condoms. Also, after baby number 3,the father needs to provide.

 

Anybody who thinks that is a good idea, anybody who voted 'yes' would be directly responsible for the neglect of babies. Do you think from Sheffield's population of five hundred thousand, or the country's population of fifty million, there would be no 'fathers' who would go over this 'limit?'

 

If 'no' then you are naive. If 'yes' then you are punishing the child for the father's action. This is why we have a government.

 

Edit: any sensible person rejects these points upon the 'you need to think about condoms' part...Jesus.

Edited August 31, 2012 by Benedictine

[*_ash_* 88]

It is the most likely outcome.

 

To suggest that reductions in child benefit would create...

 

 

Would mean the abuse of babies.

 

If you did what you suggested above, 1000s of new born babies in Sheffield would suffer neglect.

 

To suggest that without child benefit, mothers would abuse and neglect their children is nothing short of insulting every mother in the country. And specifically every Mum who brought children into the world before child benefits, perhaps even your own mother if you are old enough.

 

If one wants to look at what is wrong with society and modern human thought, your last couple of posts highlight them.