children:= "Licencing"???

bails87

I think the Mail should be licensed. Only to be administered in small doses under the close supervision of a psychiatric nurse.

Pross

cakewalk wrote:

Jez mon wrote:

Personally I would prefer forced sterilization for the poor

Lets hope your parents would not have fallen below the threshold.

Did you fail to obtain the irony and sarcasm licence brought about by Mail readers :roll:

Homer J

Just put bromide in carlsberg special brew, that'll sort it.

Ben6899

The OP is akin to: "Hitler? Now he had some good ideas."

FFS.

Pross

mr_poll wrote:

If we can ignore the Daily Mail angle of benefit scrounger on the take for a second.

Given we live on a finite sized planet with diminishing resources, a population explosion which will only get worse as the developing nations develop thus increasing family size and living longer and with no prospect of getting off this third rock from the Sun - surely it will come a time when population is limited by licence or sterilisation.

I would argue that as countries develop families tend to have less children. I haven't researched the numbers but I suspect that in the developed world family sizes have decreased as people have become less poor. The bigger issue for population size in developed countries is that we are living longer so surely the best policy would be to save the tax payer money by not giving medical treatment to those over 75 or to introduce compulsory euthanasia at 75 which would have the added benefit of surety for pension funds

rake

markyboy2005 wrote:

Graeme_S wrote:

Basically if the parents cant afford to support more than their first child then we should just let them starve to save the rest of us a few quid. Perhaps we could have "kick a poor baby to death" nights on Wednesday's in town centres uo and down the country? Would save us a couple of quid in income tax. Seems a fair trade.

You are onto something here. Not only would it reduce the number of poor babies in the country, it would give exercise to the overweight children from "better" families, further saving the country money in not looking after their fat asses when they have type 2 at the age of 12.

Also, it would bring back that national pride thing that's missing. " hey kids there is going to be a baby kicking tonight"....woohoo, "let's get our kicking boots on" team spirit and all that.

Tally ho.

I like it....kind of like chop chop square in Saudi.

what do you suggest. how do other countries stack up against our system? what kind of a deterrant would you impose.
no one would rot, just theyd have to cut down on takeaways and maybe not to make do with an out of date tv etc and give up smoking.
what about then, getting day nurserys staffed by these parents to earn their support, thus freeing up the others to have time to hold a job, then there is no high cost of child care to stop them and everyones a winner.

sfichele

Given we live on a finite sized planet with diminishing resources, a population explosion which will only get worse as the developing nations develop thus increasing family size and living longer and with no prospect of getting off this third rock from the Sun - surely it will come a time when population is limited by licence or sterilisation.

+1

We all need to cut back on how many kids we have regardless of you class/status nationality etc. The world population is spiralling out of control, and I think we will see the effects of this within our lifetimes, with more pressure on resources and the loss of many rare species.

If you halved the current population, by having less sprogs, we massively reduce the effect of climate change, and the destruction of wildlife habitats etc. The only question is how to do it without resorting to fascism.

Instead we keep kicking out sprogs and chopping down rainforests to plant palm oil so we can feed ever more obese kids.
[/b]

Pross

If we cut back on how many kids we have who will pay the taxes for the services we need when we retire? It's the length of time we live that is the problem, not the numbers that are born - humans have always had lots of offspring although survival rates would have been low. Four or five children surviving to adulthood would have been commonplace up until half a century ago.

Cressers

If the question is one of conserving resources then surely tit's the 'Hard Pressed Middle Classes' and the rich who should be sterilised as they are the ones who consume the most and whose overconsumption has led us into the economic state we're in.

And you never hear of the proponents of such ideas being the first to volunteer themselves for sterilisation...

mr_poll

Pross wrote:

mr_poll wrote:

If we can ignore the Daily Mail angle of benefit scrounger on the take for a second.

Given we live on a finite sized planet with diminishing resources, a population explosion which will only get worse as the developing nations develop thus increasing family size and living longer and with no prospect of getting off this third rock from the Sun - surely it will come a time when population is limited by licence or sterilisation.

I would argue that as countries develop families tend to have less children. I haven't researched the numbers but I suspect that in the developed world family sizes have decreased as people have become less poor. The bigger issue for population size in developed countries is that we are living longer so surely the best policy would be to save the tax payer money by not giving medical treatment to those over 75 or to introduce compulsory euthanasia at 75 which would have the added benefit of surety for pension funds

Good comment on the family size, some developing countries do tend to have more children mainly due to mortality rates - but I did comment on the living longer part. However some developing countries have small families - there are studies that have shown that some women's fertility cycles has been evolved to ensure that pregnancy is unlikely until their youngest is 4/5 as she does all the work and therefore cannot afford to be constantly preganant.

I agree that in some form a Logans Run society may exist as population will have to be controlled somehow - however the pension scheme wont matter - your not exactly going to contribute to something you cannot spend if your dead.

Pross

They are the ones who provide the taxes to look after the less priveledged though so without them who supports those that can't provide for themselves? Plus (again with no evidence other than my own experience) there are more large families among those on lower incomes (I'm happy to be proved wrong if anyone has statistics).

Cressers

So working class people don't work and pay taxes? Even those on benefit pay VAT.

sfichele

If the question is one of conserving resources then surely tit's the 'Hard Pressed Middle Classes' and the rich who should be sterilised as they are the ones who consume the most and whose overconsumption has led us into the economic state we're in.

I suggested we should _all_ cut back regardless of class

But yeah, the middle classes are living beyond their means - its taken ages for governments to get off their asses and start developing recycling schemes, and renewable energy source. And a lot of people live in a "throw-away" society, where they reuse f*ck all, buy/consume endless tat, and go through mountains of clothing etc, etc, etc...

The other sad point is reducing a population causes an economic down turn and pension problems - so basically we're fooked

markyboy2005

rake wrote:

markyboy2005 wrote:

Graeme_S wrote:

Basically if the parents cant afford to support more than their first child then we should just let them starve to save the rest of us a few quid. Perhaps we could have "kick a poor baby to death" nights on Wednesday's in town centres uo and down the country? Would save us a couple of quid in income tax. Seems a fair trade.

You are onto something here. Not only would it reduce the number of poor babies in the country, it would give exercise to the overweight children from "better" families, further saving the country money in not looking after their fat asses when they have type 2 at the age of 12.

Also, it would bring back that national pride thing that's missing. " hey kids there is going to be a baby kicking tonight"....woohoo, "let's get our kicking boots on" team spirit and all that.

Tally ho.

I like it....kind of like chop chop square in Saudi.

what do you suggest. how do other countries stack up against our system? what kind of a deterrant would you impose.
no one would rot, just theyd have to cut down on takeaways and maybe not to make do with an out of date tv etc and give up smoking.
what about then, getting day nurserys staffed by these parents to earn their support, thus freeing up the others to have time to hold a job, then there is no high cost of child care to stop them and everyones a winner.

I'm not sure why you are quoting me...I was having a bit of a tongue in cheek post about the absurdity of the OP's Daily Mail fuelled rant.....but since you ask.....
For a start, I’d stop believing everything I read in the newspapers, they are designed to appeal to a demographic and will as a rule skew the reality of what they report to emphasise that appeal.

Also, this is by no means a new phenomenon. Growing up in Glasgow (1970’s/80’s at the rougher end) I can still remember some of the neds in the street getting way more than I did, not just at Christmas, but all year round….part paid for by tax payers (which both my parents were) and part of it by their more inventive street based economical adventures. To be honest it never bothered me at the time and it does not bother me now. I also had plenty of friends who got nothing (literally), I don’t think the Daily Mail runs stories on them though. It always seemed to me that it was the people with a bit of money in the bank that got excited about these things, in general the people around the situation just took it all in their stride and realized that it was probably masking something less positive in the background.
Whilst we are at the culling of some of your stereotypical statements lets clear up the following:

1. Not all claimants smoke
2. Or eat takeaway food often
3. Or have flash TV’s

I know it makes it easier for you to imagine them as some sort of social service rapists, living off the tax payer and enjoying a happy go lucky life style, but trust me, that is far from the truth for the large majority of people living on benefits.

Do you have children? I am guessing not (in fact I am guessing you are quite young). The reason I ask, is because if you do, you tend not to think having unqualified Parents staffing a daycare centre as something desirable when thinking about where you leave your kids whilst you work. So I don’t really think that is a workable solution. Also, let’s assume these people are trained first and then put in charge of children at a day care centre, are you suggesting they do this for free for the good of the country/working class? If not, then what you are describing is a trained motivated staff working at a day care centre paid for by parents who work…..and that already exists. I might be confused, so if I’ve got that wrong, let me know.

How do we stack up against other countries – I’m no expert, but I have seen extremes of not looking after the population of a country (Indonesia for 4 years), Communist Europe (For 3 years), Pure capitalization (USA for 2 years) and more recently UAE (6 months so far). I’d say, none of the systems are perfect and there are people abusing whatever systems are in place in all of these environments…..I don’t live in the UK anymore, so my opinions on how well the country is run or how we look after our population are pretty moot and they differ greatly from my parents who still live there….but if you ask me, it’s not that bad, it needs tightened up and people will abuse it, but what we really need is an educated public that don’t get their knickers in a twist with every silly story coming from the newspapers, left, middle or right.

Have a very merry Christmas!

guinea

Jeebus you people are thick. Here's some facts:

The official DWP figure for benefit fraud is £1.1bn which represents less than 1% of all benefit claims.

Tax evasion costs £15.2bn a year.

£850bn given to the banks.

So hey, let's ignore the rich thieves and beat up those on benefits. You idiots. Your wrath should be aimed at those people not paying their taxes. They steal 15 times more than the benefits cheats. As for the banks...

Kids should not be forced to grow up in poverty because you've decided their parents aren't worthy of a decent living allowance. It's not their fault. I was the oldest son of a single mother (dad was alchoholic, parents split when I was 3) growing up in the Highlands under Thatcher. My mum was a benefits cheat. As a single parent she used to knit jumpers to sell. She'd make an additional £12 a week to look after my brother and I. We needed that to pay the heating. We had no phone, no tv, nothing.

markyboy2005

guinea wrote:

Jeebus you people are thick.

.

What? All of us?

Ben6899

You make some valid points guinea, but you probably lost half your audience with your opening sentence.

rake

i thought the quote was in response to my first comment, maybe you were joking at the article i couldnt tell.
how have you culled my stereotypical statements.
i was led to believe via someone who worked in a chipshop and who knew of many of his customers that he couldnt help but notice how often people frequented the place, sometimes even twice a day which caused him to speculate on how much it must be costing each week to keep them in takeaways.
maybe things have changed since you left the country, but if you have 6 or 7 kids while on the social you can demand housing in a large property and be drawing the equivalent of someone on a very good wage. i just think its a little bit excessive with not much in the way of throttling them back a bit.
i did think when i typed it that the daycare idea could have these pitfalls. but surely some decent trustworthy people could be found amongst them if my stereotypes are on the whole wrong, you kind of reinforced them youself admitting you wouldnt leave your kids in their care.

guinea

Ben6899 wrote:

You make some valid points guinea, but you probably lost half your audience with your opening sentence.

I doubt it. Most probably read on to see which side I was on

The frothing at the mouth over benefits cheats is crazy. People are lapping up this crap like cream.

Pross

guinea wrote:

Jeebus you people are thick. Here's some facts:

The official DWP figure for benefit fraud is £1.1bn which represents less than 1% of all benefit claims.

Tax evasion costs £15.2bn a year.

£850bn given to the banks.

So hey, let's ignore the rich thieves and beat up those on benefits. You idiots. Your wrath should be aimed at those people not paying their taxes. They steal 15 times more than the benefits cheats. As for the banks...

Kids should not be forced to grow up in poverty because you've decided their parents aren't worthy of a decent living allowance. It's not their fault. I was the oldest son of a single mother (dad was alchoholic, parents split when I was 3) growing up in the Highlands under Thatcher. My mum was a benefits cheat. As a single parent she used to knit jumpers to sell. She'd make an additional £12 a week to look after my brother and I. We needed that to pay the heating. We had no phone, no tv, nothing.

Are we? Other than the OP hardly anyone has made the point about benefit claimants so slightly unfair to tar us all surely? As for the argument that we should go after the tax avoiders (most is avoidance not evasion and therefore legal so not rich 'thieves') of course that would be great but in reality it just won't work. The whole bank things has been done to death on here and explained by people with far more knowledge than me but ultimately the alternative was financial meltdown which would have helped no-one, rich or poor, and most will be repaid. I find it as frustrating as anyone that many of those involved are getting large bonuses whilst many of us are struggling by as a result of the chaos they were involved in but that's the way of the capitalist world.

Ben6899

guinea wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

You make some valid points guinea, but you probably lost half your audience with your opening sentence.

I doubt it. Most probably read on to see which side I was on

I think you'd be surprised.

rake

guinea wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

You make some valid points guinea, but you probably lost half your audience with your opening sentence.

markyboy2005

rake wrote:

i thought the quote was in response to my first comment, maybe you were joking at the article i couldnt tell.
how have you culled my stereotypical statements.
i was led to believe via someone who worked in a chipshop and who knew of many of his customers that he couldnt help but notice how often people frequented the place, sometimes even twice a day which caused him to speculate on how much it must be costing each week to keep them in takeaways.
maybe things have changed since you left the country, but if you have 6 or 7 kids while on the social you can demand housing in a large property and be drawing the equivalent of someone on a very good wage. i just think its a little bit excessive with not much in the way of throttling them back a bit.
i did think when i typed it that the daycare idea could have these pitfalls. but surely some decent trustworthy people could be found amongst them if my stereotypes are on the whole wrong, you kind of reinforced them youself admitting you wouldnt leave your kids in their care.

Not getting into it with you as I think it won't go anywhere.

But just to clarify, I did not reinforce your sterotype regarding daycare being done by benefits cheats, I stated, I would only leave my children with qualified trained child carers....hardly the same thing.

Cheers

guinea

Pross wrote:

As for the argument that we should go after the tax avoiders (most is avoidance not evasion and therefore legal so not rich 'thieves') of course that would be great but in reality it just won't work.

I only talked about evasion. Avoidance figures are far higher. All figures are available on the DWP and ONS websites.

The fact is, the people actually stealing from us are the wealthy people. Those of us who have saved and worked hard are now screwed. The whole country is now geared towards ZIRP to bail out banks and mortgage owners while those of us prudent enough to save and not 'invest' in an overpriced asset class get humped. With inflation the way it is, my savings are eroding at several thousand a year.

The only saving grace is the prospect of interest rates getting back to normal over the next year or three.

The bottom 98% of earners in this country have been robbed blind and nobody's noticed. As long as they can queue for a new iPhone the proleteriat is kept happy.

Here's my other half's university prof. explaining why http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akVL7QY0S8A

rake

it hasnt gone anywhere. It was an ill thought out idea.

rhext

Cressers wrote:

If the question is one of conserving resources then surely tit's the 'Hard Pressed Middle Classes' and the rich who should be sterilised as they are the ones who consume the most and whose overconsumption has led us into the economic state we're in.

And you never hear of the proponents of such ideas being the first to volunteer themselves for sterilisation...

I'm middle class and I volunteered myself for sterilisation!

dodgy

Enforced sterilisation for Daily Mail readers sounds more plausible. And we've already got at least one candidate on this thread it seems.

Ben6899

rhext wrote:

I'm middle class...

People still say things like this?

Pross

I can't watch You Tube in work Guinea so sorry in the professor is explaining this but how are the rich robbing us exactly? If someone is earning £1M per year then from income tax they would put £400,000 per year into the country's coffers. Now, OK that is over simplistic and if they have any sense they will be putting the maximum possible into a pension to avoid paying tax and probably plenty of other legal schemes to ensure they don't pay too much to the Revenue. So let's say they are "only" paying £100k in tax, that's still more than most people pay in 10 years and on top they are probably taking less out as they will likely have private health care and private education for their kids. In addition the money going into their pension funds is potentially investing in companies that provide jobs and income to us mere mortals. Where exactly is the robbery in this? OK you were talking about the tax evasion and it is obviously great if we could get all that money into the system instead of it being stolen but I don't seriously believe that any Government has stood idly by and let that go ahead, if they can catch those involved then I'm sure they would and a jail sentence would follow but the people are too clever.

At the end of the day the argument that the rich are stealing through tax evasion is as much of a generalisation as the argument that all benefit claimants are on the fiddle. The truth is that there are small numbers breaking the law at both ends of the spectrum and they are both equally bad in my eyes. Also, tax evasion isn't the preserve of the rich. How many hairdressers / jobbing builders etc. who get paid in cash declare it all to the tax man? OK the amounts are relatively small but it is the same crime. It isn't a rich or poor argument, that is just a byproduct of which media organisation you rely on for opinion forming, it is a right or wrong argument

rhext

Ben6899 wrote:

rhext wrote:

I'm middle class...

People still say things like this?

The irony wouldn't work otherwise. I'm actually part of the Big Society. Which is classless. Probably!