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

[Benedictine 10]

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

 

 

 

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.

 

Hmm, I think you have misinterpreted what I meant. I am not talking about mothers abusing their babies, obviously, I am talking about the lack of income for families which impacts upon the child. You punish the father you really punish the child. I would have thought that was obvious.

 

Edit: for example you say no benefits after the second child. So the father ignores this, which is likely to happen with a population of 50 million, and so his 5/6 other children suffer after the first two. Even if only one father out of the whole population of the UK ignores the new 'legislation' you are effectively giving the green light to extreme poverty or neglect. Personally I'm not OK with that...if you are, like the 41%, then that's fine, but I'm not. This is why we have governments...

Edited August 31, 2012 by Benedictine

[*_ash_* 88]

I'm sorry but just to reiterate:

 

 

 

Anybody who thinks that is a good idea, anybody who voted 'yes' would be directly responsible for the neglect of babies.

 

You don't need to reiterate, I read it.

 

To think that people who voted yes would be directly responsible for the neglect of babies is utter rubbish Ben.

 

If a baby is neglected, then it is almost always down to the primary carer.

[Benedictine 10]

See my previous post.

[*_ash_* 88]

You are changing your posts. I'm not stupid.

[Benedictine 10]

You are changing your posts. I'm not stupid.

 

Ha, ha, not I'm not changing my posts beyond adding edits which I have shown. You really have no idea, that's OK.

[*_ash_* 88]

OK, to this post which you have completely changed to make my post look silly...

 

in this case...

 

Edit: for example you say no benefits after the second child. So the father ignores this, which is likely to happen with a population of 50 million, and so his 5/6 other children suffer after the first two. Even if only one father out of the whole population of the UK ignores the new 'legislation' you are effectively giving the green light to extreme poverty or neglect. Personally I'm not OK with that...if you are, like the 41%, then that's fine, but I'm not. This is why we have governments...

 

Child benefit doesn't work this way.

 

If say Bob impregnates 1 woman twice, and so they have two children, he then sods off, the primary carer (usually mum) claims 2 child benefits.

 

If Bob then moves away and impregnates another woman twice, and so they also have two children, then he sods off again, the mother can claim for two children.

 

When the second woman has her first child, it doesn't stop 1 claim from woman 1.

 

In either case, the primary carer can claim for the children in their care.

[Benedictine 10]

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

 

This is what I mean. You are not punishing the father but punishing the child.

 

As I said, anyone with a scrap of sense voted 'no' at the word 'condoms.'

 

I am sorry for being harsh but you really have no idea.

[*_ash_* 88]

Ha, ha, not I'm not changing my posts beyond adding edits which I have shown. You really have no idea, that's OK.

 

I am sorry for being harsh but you really have no idea.

 

Ad hominem to finish our discussion (twice now). Wonderful

[Benedictine 10]

OK, to this post which you have completely changed to make my post look silly...

 

in this case...

 

 

 

Child benefit doesn't work this way.

 

If say Bob impregnates 1 woman twice, and so they have two children, he then sods off, the primary carer (usually mum) claims 2 child benefits.

 

If Bob then moves away and impregnates another woman twice, and so they also have two children, then he sods off again, the mother can claim for two children.

 

When the second woman has her first child, it doesn't stop 1 claim from woman 1.

 

In either case, the primary carer can claim for the children in their care.

 

I can assure you, on my child's life, I have not changed my posts to make you, or anyone else, silly. Please believe me. If not then I can't say anything else to make you believe me. Only read my points over and maybe you will see that I am not lying. Jesus Christ.

[Benedictine 10]

Also, I would add an edit but I dare not be accused of cheating, any title with '2 kids max' might as well be a product of communist extremism, and should ring alarm bells immediately, in the sane...really I am quite ashamed of the 41% who thought this nonsense was a good idea. Like I said, this is why we have elected governments, even if they are corrupt!

[*_ash_* 88]

I can assure you, on my child's life, I have not changed my posts to make you, or anyone else, silly. Please believe me. If not then I can't say anything else to make you believe me. Only read my points over and maybe you will see that I am not lying. Jesus Christ.

Fair enough, and don't worry about blaspheming, I'm an atheist

 

Can you quote the same post as this one, and answer how it doesn't answer this point you made...

 

So the father ignores this, which is likely to happen with a population of 50 million, and so his 5/6 other children suffer after the first two

 

to which I quoted and answered in post 90?

[Benedictine 10]

Fair enough, and don't worry about blaspheming, I'm an atheist

 

Can you quote the same post as this one, and answer how it doesn't answer this point you made...

 

 

 

to which I quoted and answered in post 90?

 

I'm sorry, maybe it is too late and I have had too many beers (which I probably have) but I don't know what you mean.

 

All I know is what I have said at least twice or more. Any mention of 'two kids max' or 'condoms' in this context is a huge no, no.

 

You 'punish' the father, you punish the child.

 

I'm not OK with this. Apparently 41% are though??

 

Edit: now 43% are OK with child neglect...

Edited August 31, 2012 by Benedictine