Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Poor people shouldn't have more than two kids?

Options
1246789

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    starbelgrade
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,739 ✭✭✭✭starbelgrade


    Sticky_Fingers wrote: »
    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.

    It's one thing discussing the pros & cons of keeping the population within maintainable levels.

    It's an entirely different thing however, to use wealth as a basis for selection.


  • Options
    #93
    King Felix
    Closed Accounts Posts: 532 ✭✭✭King Felix


    whiteman19 wrote: »
    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:

    What's love got to do, got to do with it?


  • Options
    #94
    SugarHigh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,265 ✭✭✭SugarHigh


    http://xkcd.com/603/


  • Options
    #95
    OldNotWIse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭OldNotWIse


    dlofnep wrote: »
    Did you ever consider that these children might grow up to be high earners, and contribute back to society?

    What do you suggest if a poor family has 3 kids? That they be fined? That they have their kid taken off of them? What exactly do you suggest?

    Erm..no because these kids tend to follow their parent's shining example!


  • Options
    #96
    strobe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,872 ✭✭✭strobe


    dvpower wrote: »
    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.

    Ahh but what you're forgetting is all these mothers don't feed thier children anything but saw dust and they dress them in the clothes roma gypsy kids throw away. So it's all big profits really.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    Sykk
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,327 ✭✭✭Sykk


    Or... OR! Stop the South Africans from having 15 kids each?


  • Options
    #98
    Leonard Shy Fencing
    Posts: 0 ✭ Leonard Shy Fencing


    starbelgrade wrote: »
    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.

    Having them is a right. Expecting someone else to pay for them isn't.


  • Options
    #99
    OldNotWIse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭OldNotWIse


    Pherekydes wrote: »
    The govt could give it to Anglo-Irish.
    hmmm bailing someone out even though you didnt create the problem - they did... I can see how you draw parallels between welfare scroungers and anglo, well done


  • Options
    #100
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    strobe wrote: »
    Ahh but what you're forgetting is all these mothers don't feed thier children anything but saw dust and they dress them in the clothes roma gypsy kids throw away. So it's all big profits really.

    ... and when they're nice and big they can sell them to the soylent green factory.


  • Options
    #101
    iPlop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,822 ✭✭✭iPlop


    King Felix wrote: »
    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.

    €2574 pm then you get help with clothes ,school books etc....because your "disadvantaged"

    total annual income €33048 -€1144 yearly rent =€31904 TAX FREE ,thats a tidy sum indeed ;)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    OldNotWIse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭OldNotWIse


    starbelgrade wrote: »
    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.

    Er sorry where in the constitution does it state that having children is a basic human right? Does this mean that women who are infertile can sue the state? And the thing about children is it's one thing to actually PRODUCE them, but why should others be expected to pay for their upbringing?
    The premise of the argument is not that the wealthy have more RIGHTS, its that the wealthy have more MEANS to bring up a child and so will not be a burden on society if they procreate for a hobby. This, however is unlikely as ironically it seems the LESS well off people are the MORE inclined they are to have kids.


  • Options
    #103
    OldNotWIse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭OldNotWIse


    Septic Leper wrote: »
    €2754 pm then you get help with clothes ,school books etc....because your "disadvantaged"
    Not to mention the fact that as soon as you have your baby you can avail of free housing


  • Options
    #104
    clived2
    Registered Users Posts: 546 ✭✭✭clived2


    The world has changed, from when our parents came from big families

    Contraception is widely availabe
    Most people lived on farms, where more children envolked economies of scale,
    We work more and spend more time away from home/family
    We have been educated to understand the social implications of an incorrect upbringing of a child.

    These are just a few reasons as to why we should have less children and why you shouldn`t compare them to older generations.


  • Options
    #105
    gleep
    Registered Users Posts: 692 ✭✭✭gleep


    Leonard Shy Fencing wrote: »
    Having them is a right. Expecting someone else to pay for them isn't.


    = No child benefit etc for new kids if your unemployed > 1 year. You can't afford it, and if you can, you shouldn't be on benefits.


  • Options
    #106
    OldNotWIse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭OldNotWIse


    dvpower wrote: »
    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.

    thats just the dole increase. what about the extra childrens allowance


  • Options
    #107
    OldNotWIse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭OldNotWIse


    gleep wrote: »
    = No child benefit etc for new kids if your unemployed > 1 year. You can't afford it, and if you can, you shouldn't be on benefits.

    Though we cant be punishing the kids because of the idiocy of their skanger parents so maybe take the additional kids away and give them to well off families who cant have babies? At least then they would be fed!


  • Options
    #108
    iPlop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,822 ✭✭✭iPlop


    OldNotWIse wrote: »
    Though we cant be punishing the kids because of the idiocy of their skanger parents so maybe take the additional kids away and give them to well off families who cant have babies? At least then they would be fed!


    Or forced sterilisation as punshment! after all it's not the kids fault:)


  • Options
    #109
    Sticky_Fingers
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,379 ✭✭✭Sticky_Fingers


    starbelgrade wrote: »
    It's one thing discussing the pros & cons of keeping the population within maintainable levels.

    It's an entirely different thing however, to use wealth as a basis for selection.

    Everyone should be limited to two kids, from Bill Gates to the poor unfortunate living in some rat infected hellhole in Africa. We are discussing (relatively) poor people in Ireland because it is a problem that we can relate to as a country.

    Having kids you can't afford to take care of is the height of irresponsibility, if you are trying for a kid and cannot support it without the money given to you by the government then I'm sorry you cannot afford children. If you take precautions and fall preggers I'd have some sympathy but this practice of choosing to be a single mother as a career path has to stop, it's unfair to society and more importantly its unfair to the child.


  • Options
    #110
    Zombienosh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,911 ✭✭✭Zombienosh


    I see what you're saying there, there does seem to be a lot of young girls who see being a mother as a career choice, "are u goin to college after school?" "nah, im just gonna squirt out a load of babies and get a council house"

    I don't remember seeing up the duff on the CAO form.


  • Options
    #111
    Kazvixen
    Registered Users Posts: 27 ✭Kazvixen


    I agree with the idea that procreation should be limited to 2 per couple.
    Anybody ever see that movie Idiocracy? I think its a prediction of the future.....


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    Sticky_Fingers wrote: »
    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.

    We aren't China. In Europe, we've having problems sustaining our population.

    Its a right winger's dilemma. We can't have the skangers having too many kids, but we need to sustain the population to pay future pensions, so its either more skanger kids or more immigration. What to pick?:eek:


  • Options
    #113
    OldNotWIse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭OldNotWIse


    the thing that people seem to be forgetting aswell is that the worlds population has exploded. We dont actually NEED millions more babies. Look at the problems being caused already by overpopulation, using up resources etc and yet people keep adding to the problem. One child to satisfy the maternal itch and let that be it lol


  • Options
    #114
    Terry
    Registered Users Posts: 26,061 ✭✭✭✭Terry


    OldNotWIse wrote: »
    Though we cant be punishing the kids because of the idiocy of their skanger parents so maybe take the additional kids away and give them to well off families who cant have babies? At least then they would be fed!
    Who exactly are these skanger parents?


  • Options
    #115
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    OldNotWIse wrote: »
    thats just the dole increase. what about the extra childrens allowance

    You mean Child Benefit (CHB)? I did mention it in my post.


  • Options
    #116
    OldNotWIse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭OldNotWIse


    dvpower wrote: »
    We aren't China. In Europe, we've having problems sustaining our population.

    Its a right winger's dilemma. We can't have the skangers having too many kids, but we need to sustain the population to pay future pensions, so its either more skanger kids or more immigration. What to pick?:eek:

    well the skangers kids will more than likely grow up to be skangers so how much will they actually contribute towards the pension funds?


  • Options
    #117
    Zombienosh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,911 ✭✭✭Zombienosh


    dvpower wrote: »
    We aren't China. In Europe, we've having problems sustaining our population.

    Its a right winger's dilemma. We can't have the skangers having too many kids, but we need to sustain the population to pay future pensions, so its either more skanger kids or more immigration. What to pick?:eek:

    How do skanger kids pay future pensions? they'll more than likely spend most of their lives on the scratcher or in jail?


  • Options
    #118
    iPlop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,822 ✭✭✭iPlop


    OldNotWIse wrote: »
    the thing that people seem to be forgetting aswell is that the worlds population has exploded. We dont actually NEED millions more babies. Look at the problems being caused already by overpopulation, using up resources etc and yet people keep adding to the problem. One child to satisfy the maternal itch and let that be it lol

    I have two and thats enough! I can't afford three.I can give so much more two my two kids than I could three..I.e holidays are based on two adults and two kids.If I had three I wouldn't be able to go as I would have to fork out extra couple if K on an extra room etc... ;)


  • Options
    #119
    clived2
    Registered Users Posts: 546 ✭✭✭clived2


    Terry wrote: »
    Who exactly are these skanger parents?

    Yore ma


  • Options
    #120
    OldNotWIse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭OldNotWIse


    dvpower wrote: »
    You mean Child Benefit (CHB)? I did mention it in my post.
    You did, my apologies


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    Terry
    Registered Users Posts: 26,061 ✭✭✭✭Terry


    clived2 wrote: »
    Yore ma
    My mother died 27 years ago today.

    So who are these skangers?


Advertisement