The Forum Site - Join the conversation
Forums: Politics:
UK Elections & Politics

Population Control

Reply to Topic
AuthorMessage
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 · >>
townie_guy On May 07, 2013

Deleted



, United Kingdom
#1New Post! Apr 13, 2012 @ 11:46:14
As we know live in the Chav COuncil Estate generation, our population is spiralling out of control. Miss Chavette will get pregnant just so she can get a free council flat and never work again and just live off benefits, then her kids will do the same when they are older.

What this country needs is some sort of financial assessment on wheather you can have kids or not. You should not be allowed to have children if you cannot afford them. China seem to have a process in place that works. If you have a first kid you are entitled to benefits but anymore, if you cannot afford it the benefits stop. This prevents people from living off of others hard earned tax payments. I pay 600 pound taxes a month and that funds drug habits and single mums, not the police NHS and other services like it should. Roads are different as they are covered by ROad Tax for vehicles and speeding ticket fines. And at end of day if you get caught by a speed camera you are an idiot as there are signs warning you before hand and most sat navs will alert you.

Anyway back to topic, there should be a financial assessment and maybe some sort of fertility device that is switched on and off as needs be. If you are a repeat offender and have a lot of kids you cannot afford then you should be neutered.
jmo On January 02, 2020
Beruset af Julebryg





Yorkshire, United Kingdom
#2New Post! Apr 13, 2012 @ 11:50:56
You want to live in a country where the government have the power to force people into invasive surgery based on the crime of having children!?

Sounds rather like a Big Brother society to me. Using China as an example of what our government should be doing isn't generally considered as a sound basis for an argument really.
sister_of_mercy On March 11, 2015




London, United Kingdom
#3New Post! Apr 13, 2012 @ 11:52:44
That would be a scary place to live in.

I do agree that overpopulation is a problem but forcing people with sanctions like neutering as if they're animals isn't the way to go about it.
townie_guy On May 07, 2013

Deleted



, United Kingdom
#4New Post! Apr 13, 2012 @ 11:54:16
No im just saying that the taxpayer shouldnt have to pay for other peoples children. You are missing my point completely. Im guessing the main people who will disagree with this are benefit thieves who rely on other [people working to finance there own lives.

Even when I have been out of work, which is only for 3 weeks since I have been 15 I have never been on the dole. I have always financed my own life and I am proud of it.
townie_guy On May 07, 2013

Deleted



, United Kingdom
#5New Post! Apr 13, 2012 @ 11:57:05
On the neutering, Im talking someone who never has any intention of working but has about 10 children for a free house and so they can get more income from tax credits than if they worked.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2083998/Benefit-cap-190-families-10-children-cost-taxpayers-11m-A-YEAR.html
jmo On January 02, 2020
Beruset af Julebryg





Yorkshire, United Kingdom
#6New Post! Apr 13, 2012 @ 11:57:26
There are two things worth noting, firstly that the population of the UK has only risen by 10 million over the past 50 years, and secondly, probably more importantly, that we don't actually have enough children in this country to sustain our population never mind increase it. The reason the population is growing (and fairly slowly really) is immigration.
davii On January 14, 2013
I'm Awesome


Deleted



London, United Kingdom
#7New Post! Apr 13, 2012 @ 11:59:01
By all means look at removing benefits that do not impact on the child, but ultimately mindsets need to change, not the state deciding whether people can have kids.
townie_guy On May 07, 2013

Deleted



, United Kingdom
#8New Post! Apr 13, 2012 @ 12:01:55
Well without population control we will not be able to sustain ourselves there is only limited food and resources. Lets look at the feul scare for example. Also on the above point maybe we should have some more stringent immigration control.

https://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/aug/27/population-growth-uk-birth-rate-immigration

Before world war 1 the population was approx 18 million, we could sustain ourselves then, it is like it says in the Matrix we are like a virus that just spreads and spreads eating everything, we never come to an equilibrium with our surroundings.
jmo On January 02, 2020
Beruset af Julebryg





Yorkshire, United Kingdom
#9New Post! Apr 13, 2012 @ 12:02:20
@townie_guy Said

On the neutering, Im talking someone who never has any intention of working but has about 10 children for a free house and so they can get more income from tax credits than if they worked.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2083998/Benefit-cap-190-families-10-children-cost-taxpayers-11m-A-YEAR.html



Surely that is a flaw in the benefit system though. I don't really see what right we have to neuter someone against their will.

It seems a bit of an awful thought process to think that because the tax payer is funding her that we therefore have ownership of her uterus.

It also seems somewhat strange to bring in an extremely illiberal governmental policy based on the actions of one person.
townie_guy On May 07, 2013

Deleted



, United Kingdom
#10New Post! Apr 13, 2012 @ 12:02:47
@davii Said

By all means look at removing benefits that do not impact on the child, but ultimately mindsets need to change, not the state deciding whether people can have kids.


I agree with this, but sometimes harsh measures are temporarily needed to change mindsets. Just saying PLEASE never really works.
davii On January 14, 2013
I'm Awesome


Deleted



London, United Kingdom
#11New Post! Apr 13, 2012 @ 12:07:15
@townie_guy Said

I agree with this, but sometimes harsh measures are temporarily needed to change mindsets. Just saying PLEASE never really works.


True, but there's a duty of care to consider toward the child(ren) which puts the state between a rock and a hard place.
treebee On April 13, 2015
Government Hooker

Moderator




London, United Kingdom
#12New Post! Apr 13, 2012 @ 12:07:53
rather than impose law on sexual and personal freedoms how about we just stop being a benefit state?
Eaglebauer On July 23, 2019
Moderator
Deleted



Saint Louis, Missouri
#13New Post! Apr 13, 2012 @ 12:39:49
@treebee Said

rather than impose law on sexual and personal freedoms how about we just stop being a benefit state?



This.

Also, townie..you've mentioned your pride in always paying for your own life and being out of work collectively for 3 weeks since you were 15. Well...that's laudable...but your stance seems to be that those who are on your dole or are unemployed are invariably so either by choice or simple lack of effort. I can't speak with much knowledge about the state of things in your country, but I can say that here not everyone who is destitute or living on public funds is doing so by choice. I agree there are those who do, in any large population there are bound to be those individuals, but to condemn all of them as simply lazy is at best naive in my opinion and at worst, pernicious.

Perhaps I've run a little far with what you said, but using your life as template for the lives of others doesn't really work. You can't really say "See? I did it..so why can't everyone else?"

I myself have also always lived by my own effort and money and I've always been able to provide for my own family by my own hand, but I realize that while there are those who live "free" for lack of a better term by their own choice, there are also those who simply haven't been able to live otherwise.
davii On January 14, 2013
I'm Awesome


Deleted



London, United Kingdom
#14New Post! Apr 13, 2012 @ 13:01:26
@Eaglebauer Said

This.

Also, townie..you've mentioned your pride in always paying for your own life and being out of work collectively for 3 weeks since you were 15. Well...that's laudable...but your stance seems to be that those who are on your dole or are unemployed are invariably so either by choice or simple lack of effort. I can't speak with much knowledge about the state of things in your country, but I can say that here not everyone who is destitute or living on public funds is doing so by choice. I agree there are those who do, in any large population there are bound to be those individuals, but to condemn all of them as simply lazy is at best naive in my opinion and at worst, pernicious.

Perhaps I've run a little far with what you said, but using your life as template for the lives of others doesn't really work. You can't really say "See? I did it..so why can't everyone else?"

I myself have also always lived by my own effort and money and I've always been able to provide for my own family by my own hand, but I realize that while there are those who live "free" for lack of a better term by their own choice, there are also those who simply haven't been able to live otherwise.


There's a few other things too; Some are all too quick to pat people on the back for doing things that, on the face of it, you can't necessarily argue against (like having kids at a young age) that should really be more critical.

Plus, being in the system myself, it's all too evident that if you don't take what you're entitled too, the state is all to happy to forget you exist - unless they can take something from you, of course.
ninozara On April 30, 2020




Cheshire, United Kingdom
#15New Post! Apr 13, 2012 @ 13:58:14
That is NOT what happens in China. They have/had the One Child Law because they predicted that if the population kept expanding at the rate it did they would be unable to produce enough food - it was nothing to do with space or benefits. There is no benefits system in China, not like ours anyway.

If a woman gets pregnant with a second child she is brow beaten by the community, shunned and her job is threatened. As is the fathers. They can also be heavily fined, and forced sterilisation. So a second child doesn't result in a loss of benefits, but possibly the loss of any income at all.

And don't even start on the problems China is facing now because of this! Their population is dropping (They've had to change the rules so that siblingless couples can have two children), men outnumber women by a HUGE amount - and they are going to have problems with caring for the elderly (because it traditionally if left to the son's wife, the state isn't set up to do it.)


The Goverment are in a difficult situation, because if they start cutting benefits then it could be the children who suffer. Personally I think instead of a monetry system, it should be mainly vouchers for food/bill/rent, and I actually agree with capping the amount you can receive.
Reply to Topic<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >>
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 · >>

1 browsing (0 members - 1 guest)

Quick Reply
Politics Forum - Some Rudeness Allowed

      
Subscribe to topic prefs

Similar Topics
    Forum Topic Last Post Replies Views
New posts   News & Current Events
Tue Jul 13, 2010 @ 00:10
8 526
New posts   Rants & Raves
Tue Sep 22, 2009 @ 11:09
36 1581
New posts   Politics
Wed Jul 02, 2008 @ 15:53
7 921
New posts   Politics
Wed Sep 26, 2007 @ 17:25
26 962
New posts   Society & Lifestyles
Tue Aug 29, 2006 @ 17:07
7 538