People shouldn't have children before they can afford them

[RYH64E]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2002195/Da...

More common sense from Cameron, looking forward to the national debate on this one!

[hyperblue]

Oh the lefties are going to love this!

[davepoth]

There are people who are unable to work in any capacity, and who are funded by the state to live. They should still be able to have children, basic human right that it is. But for anyone who is capable of work but can't be bothered to work or take steps to get into work, they should get benefits capped at the number of children they had when they started their claim. Any extra money would be dependent upon doing something productive. And if any leftist numpty disagrees, I will give them a dirty look.

[Carrot]

I totally agree with this.

I don't expect anyone to subsidise my life choices, so I don't really want to subsidise theirs.

[JohnnyRims]

I've always wondered what would happen if you said to chronic benefits claimants - you can have your £25k a year, but that's it. Part of the current problem is that in order to get their £25k (or whatever) the feckless end up having 6 kids. Inevitably in 18 years time these 6 kids end up having 6 kids of their own and so on.

Most of these people don't want the kids, they want the more comfortable lifestyle the kids bring. If you gave them that lifestyle, but took the hoards of children out of the equation, I wonder if in the long run it would be cheaper...

[Ginetta G15 Girl]

davepoth said:

There are people who are unable to work in any capacity, and who are funded by the state to live. They should still be able to have children, basic human right that it is.

Sorry but I fundamentally disagree. Having children is nobody's right it is a privilege, a lifestyle choice, but moreover, a responsibility.

I resent the idea that I should be required to pay for other people's offspring.

[hesnotthemessiah]

Carrot said:

I totally agree with this.

I don't expect anyone to subsidise my life choices, so I don't really want to subsidise theirs.

This.

[Tsippy]

Ginetta G15 Girl said:

Sorry but I fundamentally disagree. Having children is nobody's right it is a privilege, a lifestyle choice, but moreover, a responsibility.

I resent the idea that I should be required to pay for other people's offspring.

Personally I think that child benefits should be ended, if people want kids they should fund their offspring themselves. We'd soon see a reduction in the breeding of the feckless.

[Carrot]

I predict the following two statements (or slight variants of) appearing on this thread.

1) "You don't know what it's like to be a parent"

2) "Us parents are doing you a favour by breeding, because we are securing the future of the human race"

Game on...

[davepoth]

Tsippy said:

Ginetta G15 Girl said:

Sorry but I fundamentally disagree. Having children is nobody's right it is a privilege, a lifestyle choice, but moreover, a responsibility.

I resent the idea that I should be required to pay for other people's offspring.

Personally I think that child benefits should be ended, if people want kids they should fund their offspring themselves. We'd soon see a reduction in the breeding of the feckless.

All I'll say on the matter is that someone who is legitimately unable to support themselves most likely didn't chose to be so. We have as a society chosen to support these people's lives despite the fact that they cannot contribute to society in the way that the majority do. But under the Human Rights Act we have given everybody the right to a family life, and anyone who was unable to work would have a legitimate complaint.

[rich1231]

davepoth said:

There are people who are unable to work in any capacity, and who are funded by the state to live. They should still be able to have children, basic human right that it is. But for anyone who is capable of work but can't be bothered to work or take steps to get into work, they should get benefits capped at the number of children they had when they started their claim. Any extra money would be dependent upon doing something productive. And if any leftist numpty disagrees, I will give them a dirty look.

Why is it a human right to have a child?

I dont think any non net contributors should be able to reproduce.

[Tsippy]

davepoth said:

All I'll say on the matter is that someone who is legitimately unable to support themselves most likely didn't chose to be so. We have as a society chosen to support these people's lives despite the fact that they cannot contribute to society in the way that the majority do. But under the Human Rights Act we have given everybody the right to a family life, and anyone who was unable to work would have a legitimate complaint.

There are very few people who cannot do any form of work. And in all honesty, if they're unable to do any form of work, how are they managing to get themself / someone else pregnant?

[Zod]

We waited until we could afford them and then found it wasn't as easy as expected! In retrospect, we could have afforded them a few years earlier. In general though, this is just common sense. If you can't pay the bills, then the rest of us will have to.

[Silver]

Ginetta G15 Girl said:

davepoth said:

There are people who are unable to work in any capacity, and who are funded by the state to live. They should still be able to have children, basic human right that it is.

Sorry but I fundamentally disagree. Having children is nobody's right it is a privilege, a lifestyle choice, but moreover, a responsibility.

Spot on.

Obviously, it's impossible to enforce any kind of policy over having children so it's a fairly blatant move by Cameron to appeal to permanently-enraged Mail readers without having to do anything much about it.

The question of whether or not you can 'afford' to have children is also pretty subjective. Pretty much everyone can afford children if they're prepared to adjust their lifestyle but many are not. The middle-classes complain that they can't afford children and generally what they mean is that they don't want to make any sacrifices to do so.

[Mr_annie_vxr]

Child benefits should work in reverse. The more you have the less you get.

Those on benefits should be encouraged to limit the production of further benefit claimers.

[davepoth]

Tsippy said:

There are very few people who cannot do any form of work. And in all honesty, if they're unable to do any form of work, how are they managing to get themself / someone else pregnant?

When a man loves a woman very much...I think you know how the rest of it goes.

Seriously though, I can't come up with an example, but the possibility is there for it to happen. If someone has to rely on the state for their welfare, rather than it being a choice to rely on the state for their welfare, then I believe the state would need to fund their children to comply with the Human Rights Act. The numbers of people who would be funded in this way would likely be very small though.

[wolves_wanderer]

rich1231 said:

davepoth said:

There are people who are unable to work in any capacity, and who are funded by the state to live. They should still be able to have children, basic human right that it is. But for anyone who is capable of work but can't be bothered to work or take steps to get into work, they should get benefits capped at the number of children they had when they started their claim. Any extra money would be dependent upon doing something productive. And if any leftist numpty disagrees, I will give them a dirty look.

Why is it a human right to have a child?

I dont think any non net contributors should be able to reproduce.

Unlucky for a soldier who has had his legs blown off, still, you know best.

[Mojocvh]

rich1231 said:

davepoth said:

There are people who are unable to work in any capacity, and who are funded by the state to live. They should still be able to have children, basic human right that it is. But for anyone who is capable of work but can't be bothered to work or take steps to get into work, they should get benefits capped at the number of children they had when they started their claim. Any extra money would be dependent upon doing something productive. And if any leftist numpty disagrees, I will give them a dirty look.

Why is it a human right to have a child?

Ask the Vatican

[rover 623gsi]

you never have enough money to have kids - if everyone waited till they could 'afford' it the human race would die out pretty quickly

[rover 623gsi]

Silver said:

The question of whether or not you can 'afford' to have children is also pretty subjective. Pretty much everyone can afford children if they're prepared to adjust their lifestyle but many are not. The middle-classes complain that they can't afford children and generally what they mean is that they don't want to make any sacrifices to do so.

yep