Poor people shouldn't have more than two kids?

My name is Mud

Im just back from a personal traumatic experience at the Rotunda.

All I can say is:

You need a licence for a dog
You need a licence for a TV
You need a licence to drive

Some people make me sick. They really do.

/edit... wooo 500 posts in 9 years. Oh yeah.

Pherekydes

King Felix wrote: »

The .1 is a little awkward alright.

3 kids would be population growth.

Fine if you have the resources to cover it. We could probably manage here in Ireland bot on a global scale, I think not.

If you can work out how every woman of child-bearing age is made to have exactly two children then you have solved the population problem.

However, you should immediately realise that some women simply cannot have children, so the number immediately begins to deviate from 2, upwards.

LOL at Ted Turner's suggestion that the world population should be reduced to 300 million. I wonder how many of those would be American?

starbelgrade

OK, so the basic premise is that too many kids are a drain on the world's resources, right?

So why stop there? Why not shoot everyone who can't work & contribute - the old, the sick, the handicapped etc?

Sure f*ck it, let's make the world a playboys mansion for the rich.

King Felix

Pherekydes wrote: »

If you can work out how every woman of child-bearing age is made to have exactly two children then you have solved the population problem.

However, you should immediately realise that some women simply cannot have children, so the number immediately begins to deviate from 2, upwards.

You could swap your baby-having licence like carbon credits. Be a right little money spinner. Ditto for those that don't want kids.

I'm not seriously advocating that but, and getting away from the poor people thing, in a world with a growing population and depleting resources, something has to give.

starbelgrade

I can't believe the poll now stands at nearly 50% "yes". There must be a hell of a lot of extremist right wing rich kids voting on this.

King Felix

starbelgrade wrote: »

OK, so the basic premise is that too many kids are a drain on the world's resources, right?

So why stop there? Why not shoot everyone who can't work & contribute - the old, the sick, the handicapped etc?

Sure f*ck it, let's make the world a playboys mansion for the rich.

Who's talking about shooting people?

It's about personal responsibility, afaic.

Terry

Here's the solution.
Because there is not 100% safe contraceptive, the only way to stop the povs from reproducing is to make them have gay sex every time they are horny.
Problem solved.


That's what this thread is about, right? Making ridiculous comments about population control?

syklops

starbelgrade wrote: »

OK, so the basic premise is that too many kids are a drain on the world's resources, right?

So why stop there? Why not shoot everyone who can't work & contribute - the old, the sick, the handicapped etc?

Sure f*ck it, let's make the world a playboys mansion for the rich.

FFS, this thread is getting ridiculous. She is simply suggesting that people who receive benefit/social welfare should not be able to have as many kids as they want and get more many as a result.

What is so difficult to understand?

Terry

starbelgrade wrote: »

I can't believe the poll now stands at nearly 50% "yes". There must be a hell of a lot of extremist right wing rich kids voting on this.

Try the same with a public poll and the results will be quite different.

stovelid

Septic Leper wrote: »

Yes you should! look at the state of the country ,why bring kids into a situation that you cannot really afford to have them when your living on the bread line?

So I take it that if you wanted children, you wouldn't have any if you were unemployed.

And what about people who work in jobs that don't pay much more than social welfare?

In other words, only allow a certain class of people to reproduce.

That said, if a few no-doubt middle-class families had not brought a handful of bankers, politicians and property developers into the world, we be billions of Euro better off.

fonecrusher1

clived2 wrote: »

How about everybody is allowed to have as many children as you want,
However you only get all allowances/welfare for the first 2,
This seems very fair to me,

Yup, seems fair to me.

Then you'd see a sudden & welcome increase in the use of contraception in the scummer population thats for sure.:D

OldNotWIse

Schism wrote: »

If there were less people on social welfare do you really think you'd be paying less tax?

Of course not, but the money that we pay could be put to better use than paying others to procreate

Pherekydes

starbelgrade wrote: »

I can't believe the poll now stands at nearly 50% "yes". There must be a hell of a lot of extremist right wing rich kids voting on this.

+1.

They were born into houses with 2 or 3 cars, TVs in every room etc. When I was born our family didn't have a fridge, a phone, a car, a record player, a washing machine and probably other things I can't recall right now. I was the 3rd of 4 children. Maybe I should have been aborted.

USA is the richest country in the world. It consumes the most resources, but it doesn't have the biggest population.

If you can't work it out for yourselves (or wilfully refuse to do so), then here it is in plain English:

Rich people consume the lion's share of the planet's resources.

Lumen

Pherekydes wrote: »

Rich people consume the lion's share of the planet's resources.

Screw those lions - antelope steaks all round!

Pherekydes

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Of course not, but the money that we pay could be put to better use than paying others to procreate

The govt could give it to Anglo-Irish.

King Felix

Pherekydes wrote: »

+1.

They were born into houses with 2 or 3 cars, TVs in every room etc. When I was born our family didn't have a fridge, a phone, a car, a record player, a washing machine and probably other things I can't recall right now. I was the 3rd of 4 children. Maybe I should have been aborted.

USA is the richest country in the world. It consumes the most resources, but it doesn't have the biggest population.

If you can't work it out for yourselves (or wilfully refuse to do so), then here it is in plain English:

Rich people consume the lion's share of the planet's resources.

And if you divide the resources equally among the worlds population, which is happening with the growing middle classes in India, China, Brazil etc., you'll still face the same problem, no?

Finite resources, growing populations.

Sticky_Fingers

starbelgrade wrote: »

I can't believe the poll now stands at nearly 50% "yes". There must be a hell of a lot of extremist right wing rich kids voting on this.

Not extremist just pragmatic. We as a species cannot carry on ****ting out children at the current rate, it's just not sustainable. Thats why there should be a limit of 2 kids per family, as posted earlier it will lead to population decline but our current numbers are IMO too high so this can only be a good thing.

Just look at China and there 1 child policy, it's criticized here in the West for being repressive and cruel but what many people fail to see that if it wasn't for the Chinese taking such a hardliner approach then their country would be knee deep in kiddies by now. While the main problem of population growth is in the poorer nations we can hardly tell them to stop having kids while not limiting our own numbers. As the Western population ages there will be plenty of people who are more than willing to emigrate to pick up the shortfall in the labour force. Population reduction is win win all round just as Doug Stanhope...
NSFW, contains naughty language

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkgDhDa4HHo

clived2

clived2 wrote: »

Thats a very poor argument, We might not be paying less tax, however
that money could be used for education, etc



How about everybody is allowed to have as many children as you want,
However you only get all allowances/welfare for the first 2,
This seems very fair to me,

SugarHigh wrote: »

Is it fair on the children born after the 2nd?

You realise child benefit is there for the sake of the child not the parent and the reason why we have child benefit is because as a society we decided it wasn't fair for any child to grow up in poverty and not have the same chance in life as someone born from a wealthy family.

Its is the parents responsibilty to bring a child into this world and to look after it, and ensure it doesn`t bring it into poverty,
If a couple accidentally gets pregnant, I think the child benefit etc covers the chance of a child being born into poverty, Now we are generous enough
to give them a second chance, If they bring a third child into this world, they surely must have planned it and realised the financial consquences

What pains me about the world, is bringing children into the word who will not be educated, looked after, nurtured, and be thought ethical values a human should posess, to create a better world for everybody.

iPlop

stovelid wrote: »

So I take it that if you wanted children, you wouldn't have any if you were unemployed.

And what about people who work in jobs that don't pay much more than social welfare?

In other words, only allow a certain class of people to reproduce.

That said, if a few no-doubt middle-class families had not brought a handful of bankers, politicians and property developers into the world, we be billions of Euro better off.

I agree with you to a point!:) But there are people out there having kids for the extra benefits( I am related to one or two through my OH)and I personally am sick of the benefits they get and the reasons they do it when the rest of us have to PAY for it....A deterrent of no benefits would suffice me thinks!!

King Felix

Septic Leper wrote: »

I agree with you to a point!:) But there are people out there having kids for the extra benefits( I am related to one or two through my OH)and I personally am sick of the benefits they get and the reasons they do it when the rest of us have to PAY for it....A deterrent of no benefits would suffice me thinks!!

I've never gotten the having kids for benefits thing.

How can that be financially viable?

General question. Don't feel compelled to answer, SL.

Rabidlamb

Ah, the survival of the weakest option.
Scangers have 5 kids where middle class professional folk can only afford 2.
Evolution of the human stalls & regresses in parts.
In 20 generations we'll be back throwing our feaces at each other.

There's too many human rights issues with controlling births.
You'd have to be sneaky about it & offer packs of Johnny Blue as a disincentive or something.
Free hysterectomy plus a €250 voucher for The Square.

starbelgrade

syklops wrote: »

FFS, this thread is getting ridiculous. She is simply suggesting that people who receive benefit/social welfare should not be able to have as many kids as they want and get more many as a result.

What is so difficult to understand?

Having children is a basic human right. To try & prevent people from having children based purely on their wealth is an absolutely abborant concept, based on the simple premise that the more wealthy you are, the more rights you are entitled to.

I would understand - though not agree with - the voting results on this poll more if Ireland were a country with huge differences, but Ireland is in many ways a classless society, or at the very most, a two class society.

There seem to be an awful of people voting "yes" that seem to think that they are part of some elitist super-rich society.

strobe

evercloserunion wrote: »

From the article:

Craig, 50, who was educated at Bedales School, has written in the past about how much she would have liked a third child. "To have had one when we first became a couple would have been the end of our relationship, but, by the time we could afford a baby, I was too old to have more than two," she said.

That's it then. If crazy menopause lady can't have kids, no one can.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2422/3777084698_a7ef4bf328.jpg

syklops

King Felix wrote: »

I've never gotten the having kids for benefits thing.

How can that be financially viable?

General question. Don't feel compelled to answer, SL.

Things are cheaper if you buy in bulk.

SugarHigh

Rabidlamb wrote: »

Ah, the survival of the weakest option.
Scangers have 5 kids where middle class professional folk can only afford 2.
Evolution of the human stalls & regresses in parts.
In 20 generations we'll be back throwing our feaces at each other.

There's too many human rights issues with controlling births.
You'd have to be sneaky about it & offer packs of Johnny Blue as a disincentive or something.
Free hysterectomy plus a €250 voucher for The Square.

You have no understanding of evolution.

28064212

SugarHigh wrote: »

clived2 wrote: »

How about everybody is allowed to have as many children as you want,
However you only get all allowances/welfare for the first 2,
This seems very fair to me,

Is it fair on the children born after the 2nd?

You realise child benefit is there for the sake of the child not the parent and the reason why we have child benefit is because as a society we decided it wasn't fair for any child to grow up in poverty and not have the same chance in life as someone born from a wealthy family.

It's the state's responsibility to ensure that every child is cared for*, not just the eldest two. What should be happening is a complete reform of the children's allowance system. At the moment, parents are given money for children with the intention that the money is spent on the children's upbringing. Grand, in a utopia. What actually happens is that the bad parents send their children to school without books, without proper food or clothes, and spend the money on other things. The state is relying on parents to be 'good'

Child benefit should be slashed down to a fraction of what it is now. There should be a wide-ranging restructuring of education so that it is, for intents and purposes, free (free books, uniforms, shoes, school-time meals etc.). Health-care should be free for U-18s. Children's clothing should be massively subsidised, part of the allowance should be provided in food-stamps.

Of course none of this will actually happen, none of the parties will risk losing that many votes from a measure that will largely target the lower-middle and lower classes

*ensure every child is cared for, not that it should care for every child

iPlop

King Felix wrote: »

I've never gotten the having kids for benefits thing.

How can that be financially viable?

General question. Don't feel compelled to answer, SL.

childrens allowance for four kids €674 per month

unmarried mothers allowance €320 per week

her partner is unemployed €200 per week(he's not meant to be living there)

social house ( rent €22 per week)

free medical cards ,free bin tags etc.... the list goes on


€2754 per month =€33048 -€1144 rent =€31904 tax free

dvpower

King Felix wrote: »

I've never gotten the having kids for benefits thing.

How can that be financially viable?

General question. Don't feel compelled to answer, SL.

It doesn't make any sense to me either.
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/social-welfare/irish-social-welfare-system/claiming-a-social-welfare-payment/claiming-and-increase-in-your-payment-for-a-child-dependant

A person on benefits gets €29.80 a week extra for a child (plus CHB). As anyone who has children knows, this isn't a big incentive.

RolandIRL

no one has mentioned bringing a child into the world for love. i bet AH is full of childless people. you don't have a baby just so you can get benefits. my parents didn't have 5 children just so they could claim even more child allowance. they did it because they wanted to be parents.
how can someone be so cynical to say poor people only have children to get benefits? :mad:

King Felix

Septic Leper wrote: »

childrens allowance for four kids €674 per month

unmarried mothers allowance €320 per week

her partner is unemployed €200 per week(he's not meant to be living there)

social house ( rent €22 per week)

free medical cards ,free bin tags etc.... the list goes on

Ok. But you then have to fork out for the kids for the next 16-18 years or so.

I don't see how it's a profitable situation ie. people having kids just to get more benefits.