Ration Books?

omnicorp

Ration Books.

I’ve got an idea. Instead of these “Tax Credits” and “Child Allowance” and even to some extent the Dole and other Social Payments, how about the Government provides people with ration books that entitle them to a certain amount of food, heating oil, clothes etc.?

Taxes could be raised and the Child Allowance could be scrapped to pay for it.
The Dole could be decreased.

This would ensure that the even the poorest people are entitled to good, healthy food and decent clothes.

It worked during the war, why can’t it work now?

I know some people will pick faults with it like affordability but I’m not Minister for Finance.

SkepticOne

Do you mean like food coupons in the US? You think we should implement something like that here?

omnicorp

something.
Free Food for every one who needs it.

SkepticOne

Well technically that is what is provided in the US. If you have no job, you get very little in social security money, but you do get food stamps which are exchangable in supermarkets.

Is this what you are proposing for here?

omnicorp

yes, but a bit more extensive.
Every one gets some depending on family size etc.
They can only be used on Govt. approved healthy food.
Taxes raised slightly and Child Allowance Scrapped.

Victor

So what about a farmer (with children) who grows his own food, what will be do with these ration books?

impr0v

Burn them for heat, duh.

uberwolf

there was a program on telly (poss even teh news) that followed some lass around tescos and demonstrated her difficulty in feeding her family on the budget provided.

Other than my slightly contraversial? opinion that people who can't afford children shouldn't have them (morally wrong). But I digress. Food stamps mighta forced her to buy nutrious food, not the home brand coke and chocolate bars.

I suppose though it's just too plain restricitive and demeaning?

cdebru

uberwolf wrote:

.

Other than my slightly contraversial? opinion that people who can't afford children shouldn't have them (morally wrong).

yes only the wealthy should be allowed procreate

perhaps we could bring in a tax to discourage them

or reduce their social welfare the more children they have

or maybe we should have forced abortions

and set up concentration camps were we could sterilize the poor

ah well if only the fuhrer had survived the world would be so much better

Imposter

cdebru wrote:

or reduce their social welfare the more children they have

That's actually quite a good idea!

cdebru

Imposter wrote:

That's actually quite a good idea!

yes lets starve their children that will teach them

or better still lets make them eat their children then we wouldn't have to feed the parents

dahamsta

cdebru wrote:

yes only the wealthy should be allowed procreate

Ok, I'll bite. Perhaps people that can't afford the money to provide for their children, or the time to teach them how to have an ounce of respect should keep their private parts to themselves and stop inflicting a generation of disrespectful dole scroungers on the rest of us.

adam

aidan_walsh

dahamsta wrote:

Ok, I'll bite. Perhaps people that can't afford the money to provide for their children, or the time to teach them how to have an ounce of respect should keep their private parts to themselves and stop inflicting a generation of disrespectful dole scroungers on the rest of us.

adam

Or ration books for free condoms...

Zenith74

perhaps we could bring in a tax to discourage them

I might not agree with that, but the current situation of paying people to have more children seems equally as ludicrous to me?

cdebru

dahamsta wrote:

Ok, I'll bite. Perhaps people that can't afford the money to provide for their children, or the time to teach them how to have an ounce of respect should keep their private parts to themselves and stop inflicting a generation of disrespectful dole scroungers on the rest of us.

adam

there is a difference between people that dont have much money
and people that are bad parents
you can have a lot of money and be a ****e parent and never teach your children to have respect for anything or anybody
perhaps people who are too busy with their careers should not have children
never mind people who dont have a career
it outrageous to suggest that all parents who are on social welfare or low wages are bad parents


where i would agree with you is in the case of junkies i dont think they should leave a child with a junkie

MrNuked

If everybody got ration books, that could only be redeemed for things such as healthy food, birth control, non-designer label clothes, and not just poor people, it would remove the social stigma and shame that must be attached to using food stamps. Taxes could be increased to compensate the cost, as well as reduced social welfare. It is a removal of civil liberties, but to be honest I think forcing people to spend money on things they need, instead of possibly in destructive ways is a good idea. No more holidays in edinburgh for people on the dole! You'll just end up worrying the whole time anyway!

I hate to burst the bubble here, but someone who talks about preventing poor people from being allowed have kids, and then talks about something being restrictive and demeaning, they're definitely trolling. Enough of the histrionic reactions.

Victor

MrNuked wrote:

If everybody got ration books, that could only be redeemed for things such as healthy food, birth control, non-designer label clothes, and not just poor people, it would remove the social stigma and shame that must be attached to using food stamps.

[Homer voice] "and we will hereby name these food stamps "money".[/Homer voice]

cdebru

Victor wrote:

[Homer voice] "and we will hereby name these food stamps "money".[/Homer voice]

lol very good i can hear it

dahamsta

cdebru wrote:

it outrageous to suggest that all parents who are on social welfare or low wages are bad parents

I only suggested it in your head fella. It is outrageous to suggest that someone that can't afford a child should have one ("only the wealthy should be allowed procreate"). Having a child you can't afford is bad parenting.

adam

Hairy Homer

dahamsta wrote:

Having a child you can't afford is bad parenting.

adam

****!!! I'm overdrawn this month and Christmas is coming. I must cut back on my single biggest item of expenditure.

Sorry kids. That's you. Look up the number of the nearest orphanage.

:rolleyes:
My guess is you're not a parent.

dahamsta

You couldn't be more obtuse if you tried Hairy Homer, you're stretching my statements to unbelievable lengths. And as a matter of fact I am a parent, of two kids. I gave one of them up for adoption when he was a baby and I was bearly an adult. Mostly because I was too immature to have a child, but also because I believed at the time I wouldn't have been able to give him a happy upbringing with the resources available to me. I would have scraped by and I have regrets, but I still believe to this day that he's had a better life with his adoptive parents. Any questions?

adam

cdebru

I think what hairy homer was trying to say is there is more to being a parent than having shed loads of money

uberwolf

cdebru wrote:

I think what hairy homer was trying to say is there is more to being a parent than having shed loads of money

absolutely, in fact I've seen it be a hinderance rather than a help in an awful lot of cases.

Despite suggestions to teh contary I'm not trolling when I say I don't think people should actively seek to conceive when they can't afford to bring that child up. I'm not suggesting a legislative response, and i'm not refering to those who have accidents, but if you couldn't afford to rear a child properly at the time of conception then you shouldn't have conceived on purpose. In retrospect I don't even see that as controversial. You shouldn't seek to make yourself more of a burden to the state

pickarooney

That's very short-term thinking. In cold economic terms, the real burdens to the state in Europe are the elderly. People living longer and having fewer kids is what's causing the social state to collapse, so in the long term discouraging people from having kids has a stronger negative effect than the short term positive of reduced child support.

Victor

uberwolf wrote:

I'm not trolling when I say I don't think people should actively seek to conceive when they can't afford to bring that child up. I'm not suggesting a legislative response, and i'm not refering to those who have accidents, but if you couldn't afford to rear a child properly at the time of conception then you shouldn't have conceived on purpose. In retrospect I don't even see that as controversial. You shouldn't seek to make yourself more of a burden to the state

But shouldn't you have your children when you are economically underemployed? If you have them when you are overemployed, you risk both child and work.

uberwolf

so what half of us reproduce and the other half support us?
If you have a child you're responsible for it. If you need help teh state steps in. I don't think you should have a child on the presumption the state will step in. However knowing the state can/will step in if things don't work out is a good thing.

pickarooney makes a good point all the same, which i'm still considering

cdebru

of course the converse is should only people that had children receive the old age pension
as why should you expect someone elses
children to support you in your old age
who is making themselves more of a burden on the state those that have children who go on to pay tax and support the state or those who dont and expect other peoples children to support them

the other point is
is virtually everyone in the third world morally wrong to have children as they have no means to support them

ionapaul

cdebru wrote:

of course the converse is should only people that had children receive the old age pension
as why should you expect someone elses
children to support you in your old age
who is making themselves more of a burden on the state those that have children who go on to pay tax and support the state or those who dont and expect other peoples children to support them

the other point is
is virtually everyone in the third world morally wrong to have children as they have no means to support them

Well, the argument here is that the pension situation should be modified so that everyone takes out precisely what they put in over the course of their working life, plus whatever interest / capital appreciation their contribution has made in the mean time. This is what *should* be done, but what isn't at present, most retirees take out much more than they have put in. Particularly civil servants (both my parents included).
Trying to limit people to only having the children they can afford will not fly in Ireland of today. We are too used to expecting the government (i.e. the taxpayer) to pay for children. People will rebel if told that they actually have to pay for the children they have! Economically, it is probably good for the nation for 18 year olds to have a few children and get the state to pay for them, if they turn out to be efficient workers in the end. That said, I know little of macro economics and as such am talking out my arse again!

cdebru

ionapaul wrote:

as such am talking out my arse again!

agreed lol

uberwolf

cdebru wrote:

is virtually everyone in the third world morally wrong to have children as they have no means to support them

I wouldn't bring a child into the world to face what they face.

DublinWriter

Zenith74 wrote:

I might not agree with that, but the current situation of paying people to have more children seems equally as ludicrous to me?

When was the last time you ever talked to a single mother?

The Children's allowance isn't exactly generous by any standards. Your comment makes you just sound like yet another middle-class whinger.