Fair to complain?
Comments
-
I never said it was a human right to get support. I said it was a human right to have as many children as you want.Rolf F wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Rolf F wrote:[t I'd be pretty piffed off with anyone who claimed they had a human right to state handouts to support large families.
That's not how the logic goes. It goes like this: I have a child. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, I can't support that child, so I need state support.
The state provides the bare minimum to avoid poverty for the child.
No issue with that.
You are missing my point. I'm not saying that the state shouldn't provide the support (I believe it should; I wouldn't want to live in a society that didn't) - what I am saying is that it is entirely misguided to say that you have a human right for the state to provide that support. If you are in that position. Rather than claiming that as a human right, you should be bloody grateful for the support you get.
Just as an aside, this reminds me of an idiot girl interviewed on TV. Never had a job or anything, never even tried. Lived on state support and never once earned a single penny of her own. She complained that her views weren't listened to. After all she did, as she said, pay taxes through the cigarettes she bought.........
As for the girl, who said you have to be a net financial contributor to the state to have your view heard?0 -
Nah, you ain't escaping it. I'm re-quoting and framing it for it's Internet e-battle epic genius.DonDaddyD wrote:DDD wrote:..those are mostly the same people who think (either or a combination) that if you rely on benefits you shouldn't have 'x' number of children.CyclingBantam wrote:Who are you speaking on behalf of there DDD? Why don't you name the people who you are talking about?Jeremyrundle wrote:as a SINGLE father on benefits raising THREE disabled sons for eighteen years...
...as a person whos only income is carers allowance
CyclingBantam wrote:If you can't afford children I don't think you should have them.
Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:Nah, you ain't escaping it. I'm re-quoting and framing it for it's Internet e-battle epic genius.DonDaddyD wrote:DDD wrote:..those are mostly the same people who think (either or a combination) that if you rely on benefits you shouldn't have 'x' number of children.CyclingBantam wrote:Who are you speaking on behalf of there DDD? Why don't you name the people who you are talking about?Jeremyrundle wrote:as a SINGLE father on benefits raising THREE disabled sons for eighteen years...
...as a person whos only income is carers allowance
CyclingBantam wrote:If you can't afford children I don't think you should have them.
That's some pretty flawed inference right there. Don't thing CB was commenting on JR at all. Carers allowance isn't in the same ballpark as child.0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:DDD wrote:..those are mostly the same people who think (either or a combination) that if you rely on benefits you shouldn't have 'x' number of children.CyclingBantam wrote:Who are you speaking on behalf of there DDD? Why don't you name the people who you are talking about?Jeremyrundle wrote:as a SINGLE father on benefits raising THREE disabled sons for eighteen years...
...as a person whos only income is carers allowance
CyclingBantam wrote:If you can't afford children I don't think you should have them.
Did you win on the Internet DDD? :roll: I really hope you punched the air when you posted that!
My point, and I have been totally clear throughout this thread is that if you are unable to provide for your children you shouldn't have more. I am guessing from your disagreement with this that you think if you can't afford children you shouldn't let that rule out having them. I guess we have to disagree there.
Thanks for pointing out who you were talking about as opposed to insinuating though. It isn't really great to selectively quote as my lines you quoted are not a response to your point but hey, at least you won.
I'm not sure if you will see this after you had flounced off earlier in the thread.
You really did enjoy that post though didn't you, maybe a little too much... 0 -
dhope wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:Nah, you ain't escaping it. I'm re-quoting and framing it for it's Internet e-battle epic genius.DonDaddyD wrote:DDD wrote:..those are mostly the same people who think (either or a combination) that if you rely on benefits you shouldn't have 'x' number of children.CyclingBantam wrote:Who are you speaking on behalf of there DDD? Why don't you name the people who you are talking about?Jeremyrundle wrote:as a SINGLE father on benefits raising THREE disabled sons for eighteen years...
...as a person whos only income is carers allowance
CyclingBantam wrote:If you can't afford children I don't think you should have them.
That's some pretty flawed inference right there. Don't thing CB was commenting on JR at all. Carers allowance isn't in the same ballpark as child.
It's there to see.
I said some people in this thread think that if you rely on 'benefits' - I never specified which - you should have 'x' number of children.
CB asked who I was speaking about.
CB answered his own question. JR's post is there to bring the point home. And what CB said does extend to JR's situation. J
Carer's allowance is a benefit and Direct.gov agrees with me:From: http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAnd ... G_10018705
Carer's Allowance is a benefit to help people who look after someone who is disabled. You don't have to be related to, or live with, the person you care for. Find out who can get Carer's Allowance and how to claim.
Fin.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:I never said it was a human right to get support. I said it was a human right to have as many children as you want.
So what are we disagreeing about then?
Rick Chasey wrote:As for the girl, who said you have to be a net financial contributor to the state to have your view heard?
Well, the point about her was that she believed that she was a net financial contibutor because she paid taxes on her fags - seemingly oblivious to the fact that the tax payer had paid for her to buy the fags in the first place. She was the one who seemed to believe that you need to be a net contributor to be heard - but she believed that the tax she paid made her a net contributor.Faster than a tent.......0 -
CiB wrote:
Err - yes I am. Unless your crystal ball is better than mine, there's no way that you can safely claim at some point that you're financially ok for the next 18 years or so.CyclingBantam wrote:CiB wrote:I agree with DDD; I was well into well thought out post on the subject but the power went off and it went away, and I can't be ar$ed to type it all again. Suffice to say that society is happy to pay out for families to have kids, we don't and never should differentiate between child #1 and child #12, and if a family takes a bit more advantage of that situation than others do, good for them.
I'm 1 of 6 BTW, so am naturally minded to side with big families. It shouldn't be encouraged but once a family gets to that size what can a govt reasonably do? Whatever your answer, think of it from the viewpoint of child #7, #8 or whatever. It's only money. People and esp little people, are more important than small amounts of govt spending.
Just so I am clear, and I am not trying to be funny, are you saying, when having children people shouldn't consider if they will be able to financially support them in the future? I believe that is what the discussion is about.
As a general principle I don't have a problem with the occasional family being larger than 'normal parameters', and in this case the concencus seems to be that they did their best but things have gone a little bit further out of their control than they expected. Well it has for a large number of other people / families / businesses too lately. I don't see any reason to punish the children for it, indirectly.
All you can do when you have kids is to hope that the current situation remains at least as favourable for as long as they're dependent. And if it goes pear-shaped, let's hope that society as a whole isn't mean spritied enough to force such people to resort to begging & theft to support themselves. We're better than that as a country.
Have to go - power cuts to terrible things to our system here.
Sorry but this argument technique really winds me up (not really directed at you CiB, just in general).
Because I said you should consider your future finances doesn't mean I you have to take it to the other extreme and make out I am saying you should have the cash up front.
I am saying you should consider it. Can you look ahead and think, should things change an amount either way positively or negatively could I still cope. These people have clearly been pushed over despite a relatively small change. I think they have made a poor judgement and could have made a much better one for the benefit of their children.
Bring it back to the finances, which this is really about. How do you plan ahead? Do you assume you will never lose any income so you will always be able to do everything you do now or do you accept there is a need to have some fall back?
If everyone had allowed for a little fall back and leway we wouldn't be in the shoot we are in now. Unfortunatley people don't and that is why the country is jacked up on credit all over the shop. Then when things go tits up, the ones who cause the problem are the first to complain. Despite the warning we have all had, take a look when interest rates go up, we will have people crying out all over the shop how much their cost of credit has gone up.0 -
Even if you said that, which you didn't as it's clear what you said above, you're still saying the same thing.CyclingBantam wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:DDD wrote:..those are mostly the same people who think (either or a combination) that if you rely on benefits you shouldn't have 'x' number of children.CyclingBantam wrote:Who are you speaking on behalf of there DDD? Why don't you name the people who you are talking about?Jeremyrundle wrote:as a SINGLE father on benefits raising THREE disabled sons for eighteen years...
...as a person whos only income is carers allowance
CyclingBantam wrote:If you can't afford children I don't think you should have them.
Did you win on the Internet DDD? :roll: I really hope you punched the air when you posted that!
My point, and I have been totally clear throughout this thread is that if you are unable to provide for your children you shouldn't have more.CyclingBantam wrote:If you can't afford children I don't think you should have them.[
But hey don't take that up with me. Say that to JR since that's your view and his life and its circumstances are in direct conflict with that view.
I'm not making it up, it's there to see above and no amount of weaseling you way out of it is going to change that fact.The only thing that matters wrote:at least you won.
Fin.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:dhope wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:Nah, you ain't escaping it. I'm re-quoting and framing it for it's Internet e-battle epic genius.DonDaddyD wrote:DDD wrote:..those are mostly the same people who think (either or a combination) that if you rely on benefits you shouldn't have 'x' number of children.CyclingBantam wrote:Who are you speaking on behalf of there DDD? Why don't you name the people who you are talking about?Jeremyrundle wrote:as a SINGLE father on benefits raising THREE disabled sons for eighteen years...
...as a person whos only income is carers allowance
CyclingBantam wrote:If you can't afford children I don't think you should have them.
That's some pretty flawed inference right there. Don't thing CB was commenting on JR at all. Carers allowance isn't in the same ballpark as child.
It's there to see.
I said some people in this thread think that if you rely on 'benefits' - I never specified - you should have 'x' number of children.
CB asked who I was speaking about.
CB answered his own question. JR's post is there to bring the point home. And what does CB said does extend to JR's situation.
Carer's allowance is a benefit and Direct.gov agrees with me:From: http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAnd ... G_10018705
Carer's Allowance is a benefit to help people who look after someone who is disabled. You don't have to be related to, or live with, the person you care for. Find out who can get Carer's Allowance and how to claim.
Fin.
No, far too lazy. Take the spirit rather than nitpicking over details.
Taking your example then nobody should have any children unless they're able to support them financially for the duration of their lives before they were conceived.
Have child, sadly child happens to require full time care.
Give up job to care.
Receive allowance.
Unable to work.
The topic has been entirely based on the child support benefit, just because JR mentions a carers allowance doesn't mean you can cherry pick 2 lines from 6 pages and infer that it was meant to relate to all forms of benefit. Lazy lazy lazy, poor show DDD, no Star Trek Online for you this evening.0 -
dhope wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:Nah, you ain't escaping it. I'm re-quoting and framing it for it's Internet e-battle epic genius.DonDaddyD wrote:DDD wrote:..those are mostly the same people who think (either or a combination) that if you rely on benefits you shouldn't have 'x' number of children.CyclingBantam wrote:Who are you speaking on behalf of there DDD? Why don't you name the people who you are talking about?Jeremyrundle wrote:as a SINGLE father on benefits raising THREE disabled sons for eighteen years...
...as a person whos only income is carers allowance
CyclingBantam wrote:If you can't afford children I don't think you should have them.
That's some pretty flawed inference right there. Don't thing CB was commenting on JR at all. Carers allowance isn't in the same ballpark as child.
You are right dhope, I wasn't. Unfortunately, DDD has no desire to have a reasonable discussion, simply he wants to win on the internet to prove how awesome he is.
It is a shame as it has been a pretty good discussion so far but I guess DDD does have form in this don't you DDD.0 -
dhope wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:dhope wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:Nah, you ain't escaping it. I'm re-quoting and framing it for it's Internet e-battle epic genius.DonDaddyD wrote:DDD wrote:..those are mostly the same people who think (either or a combination) that if you rely on benefits you shouldn't have 'x' number of children.CyclingBantam wrote:Who are you speaking on behalf of there DDD? Why don't you name the people who you are talking about?Jeremyrundle wrote:as a SINGLE father on benefits raising THREE disabled sons for eighteen years...
...as a person whos only income is carers allowance
CyclingBantam wrote:If you can't afford children I don't think you should have them.
That's some pretty flawed inference right there. Don't thing CB was commenting on JR at all. Carers allowance isn't in the same ballpark as child.
It's there to see.
I said some people in this thread think that if you rely on 'benefits' - I never specified - you should have 'x' number of children.
CB asked who I was speaking about.
CB answered his own question. JR's post is there to bring the point home. And what does CB said does extend to JR's situation.
Carer's allowance is a benefit and Direct.gov agrees with me:From: http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAnd ... G_10018705
Carer's Allowance is a benefit to help people who look after someone who is disabled. You don't have to be related to, or live with, the person you care for. Find out who can get Carer's Allowance and how to claim.
Fin.
No, far too lazy. Take the spirit rather than nitpicking over details.
Taking your example then nobody should have any children unless they're able to support them financially for the duration of their lives before they were conceived.
Have child, sadly child happens to require full time care.
Give up job to care.
Receive allowance.
Unable to work.
The topic has been entirely based on the child support benefit, just because JR mentions a carers allowance doesn't mean you can cherry pick 2 lines from 6 pages and infer that it was meant to relate to all forms of benefit. Lazy lazy lazy, poor show DDD, no Star Trek Online for you this evening.
OK lets put the quotes in chronological order and remove the non-linear memento approach:Jeremyrundle wrote:as a SINGLE father on benefits raising THREE disabled sons for eighteen years...
...as a person whos only income is carers allowanceDonDaddyD wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:"]..those are mostly the same people who think (either or a combination) that if you rely on benefits you shouldn't have 'x' number of children.CyclingBantam wrote:Who are you speaking on behalf of there DDD? Why don't you name the people who you are talking about?
CyclingBantam wrote:If you can't afford children I don't think you should have them.
Still the same point really, so what's yours? I can post the uncut version if you want?Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
No, you jumped from an implied single (child) benefit to all benefits just because JR mentioned his situation and someone posted after.DonDaddyD wrote:snip
I win teh internets.0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:
Even if you said that, which you didn't as it's clear what you said above, you're still saying the same thing.CyclingBantam wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:DDD wrote:..those are mostly the same people who think (either or a combination) that if you rely on benefits you shouldn't have 'x' number of children.CyclingBantam wrote:Who are you speaking on behalf of there DDD? Why don't you name the people who you are talking about?Jeremyrundle wrote:as a SINGLE father on benefits raising THREE disabled sons for eighteen years...
...as a person whos only income is carers allowance
CyclingBantam wrote:If you can't afford children I don't think you should have them.
Did you win on the Internet DDD? :roll: I really hope you punched the air when you posted that!
My point, and I have been totally clear throughout this thread is that if you are unable to provide for your children you shouldn't have more.CyclingBantam wrote:If you can't afford children I don't think you should have them.[
But hey don't take that up with me. Say that to JR since that's your view and his life and its circumstances are in direct conflict with that view.
I'm not making it up, it's there to see above and no amount of weaseling you way out of it is going to change that fact.The only thing that matters wrote:at least you won.
Fin.
I'm lost now. You said "Even where I said that which I didn't" then quoted where I said it.
I don't know what your point is or if you have one other than winning but yes, you have won. I don't know what but you still won it.
Like has been said you are cherry picking words out of context. I'm sure at some point throughout the numerous threads you post on I can find the words "I" "Like" whacking" "off " and "Monkey's". That doesn't mean I can slot them all together to get you banned from the local zoo.0 -
CyclingBantam wrote:
You are right dhope, I wasn't. Unfortunately, DDD has no desire to have a reasonable discussion, simply he wants to win on the internet to prove how awesome he is.
It is a shame as it has been a pretty good discussion so far but I guess DDD does have form in this don't you DDD.
Bullsh*t. You got showed up. You made a contradiction and you were pulled up on it taken to task and shown your ass. Man-up admit it or stand by your belief. But diversionary tactics are pathetic.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
I don't want to be drawn into this because as a rule some families having more kids than they can afford isn't the greatest problem facing society, and they make up for those that never get round to knocking kids out. I'm only responding to this CB because although your view is perfectly reasonable and fair just not in line with mine and there's no point us arguing till we're blue in the face about it, the bold bit above, I never claimed that. All I claimed is that it's not reasonable to delay children until you're confident that you can support them through to the end of their education. It's widely accepted that if everyone waited until they could reasonably afford to have kids, most of us probably wouldn't. And having them changes your financial priorities to such a huge degree that for most people it's not a reasonable prediction to attempt to make.CyclingBantam wrote:CiB wrote:
Err - yes I am. Unless your crystal ball is better than mine, there's no way that you can safely claim at some point that you're financially ok for the next 18 years or so.CyclingBantam wrote:CiB wrote:I agree with DDD; I was well into well thought out post on the subject but the power went off and it went away, and I can't be ar$ed to type it all again. Suffice to say that society is happy to pay out for families to have kids, we don't and never should differentiate between child #1 and child #12, and if a family takes a bit more advantage of that situation than others do, good for them.
I'm 1 of 6 BTW, so am naturally minded to side with big families. It shouldn't be encouraged but once a family gets to that size what can a govt reasonably do? Whatever your answer, think of it from the viewpoint of child #7, #8 or whatever. It's only money. People and esp little people, are more important than small amounts of govt spending.
Just so I am clear, and I am not trying to be funny, are you saying, when having children people shouldn't consider if they will be able to financially support them in the future? I believe that is what the discussion is about.
As a general principle I don't have a problem with the occasional family being larger than 'normal parameters', and in this case the concencus seems to be that they did their best but things have gone a little bit further out of their control than they expected. Well it has for a large number of other people / families / businesses too lately. I don't see any reason to punish the children for it, indirectly.
All you can do when you have kids is to hope that the current situation remains at least as favourable for as long as they're dependent. And if it goes pear-shaped, let's hope that society as a whole isn't mean spritied enough to force such people to resort to begging & theft to support themselves. We're better than that as a country.
Have to go - power cuts to terrible things to our system here.
Sorry but this argument technique really winds me up (not really directed at you CiB, just in general).
Because I said you should consider your future finances doesn't mean I you have to take it to the other extreme and make out I am saying you should have the cash up front.
I am saying you should consider it. Can you look ahead and think, should things change an amount either way positively or negatively could I still cope. These people have clearly been pushed over despite a relatively small change. I think they have made a poor judgement and could have made a much better one for the benefit of their children.
Bring it back to the finances, which this is really about. How do you plan ahead? Do you assume you will never lose any income so you will always be able to do everything you do now or do you accept there is a need to have some fall back?
If everyone had allowed for a little fall back and leway we wouldn't be in the shoot we are in now. Unfortunatley people don't and that is why the country is jacked up on credit all over the shop. Then when things go tits up, the ones who cause the problem are the first to complain. Despite the warning we have all had, take a look when interest rates go up, we will have people crying out all over the shop how much their cost of credit has gone up.
Your viewpoint is fine. Mine might not be but I don't see any reason to take this further, unless you fancy settling it in the car park, now.
0 -
dhope wrote:The topic has been entirely based on the child support benefit, just because JR mentions a carers allowance doesn't mean you can cherry pick 2 lines from 6 pages and infer that it was meant to relate to all forms of benefit. Lazy lazy lazy, poor show DDD, no Star Trek Online for you this evening.
Indeed. Embarassingly pathetic.
No-one is suggesting (regardless of how DDD wants to twist it) that everyone should consider the fact that they may have a severely disabled child (and thereby should have to consider whether they can afford the care required) before they consider having children. That's a risible spin on what's been argued.
But not considering - at all - the financial implications of children is irresponsible to both the child and larger society.0 -
DDD, you've rather lost the plot and are starting to embarrass yourself.0
-
DonDaddyD wrote:CyclingBantam wrote:
You are right dhope, I wasn't. Unfortunately, DDD has no desire to have a reasonable discussion, simply he wants to win on the internet to prove how awesome he is.
It is a shame as it has been a pretty good discussion so far but I guess DDD does have form in this don't you DDD.
Bullsh*t. You got showed up. You made a contradiction and you were pulled up on it taken to task and shown your ass. Man-up admit it or stand by your belief. But diversionary tactics are pathetic.
I can't say it any other way DDD as you will simply ignore it.
My point and it is clearly on this page let alone others is about people having children that they can't afford. I don't think that is reasonable. You do, I don't agree but I get it.
Benefits have been brought in to this (not by me particually but I my have commented on it, I can't remember. All I can do is give you my opinion on that as well so you can see if I have contradicted myself (which I won't have as this is my view). I don't think someone should have children if they can't afford to provide for them. I don't think they should just assume benefits will do this for them.
Finally, and I don't like talking directly about JR's circumstances as I don't know them but seeing as you are insistent and apologies for any offence JR, I don't think there is anything unreasonable at all in having children who then require care due to disability etc and the state having to help out.
I have little doubt you will argue that I am twisting or weaseling out of whatever you are trying to make out my view is and there is no point me arguing against you. You obviously know my opinion better than I do.
I don't expect you will conceed you were in any way mistaken.0 -
The full uncut version:Jeremyrundle wrote:GARBAGE, as a SINGLE father on benefits raising THREE disabled sons for eighteen years we have NEVER gone without, I don't smoke drink or gamble, I may watch the pennies but save for bills and buy good food, most who complain I see smoking, have credit cards and countless children, I have NO debt, my sons come first, and always will, we do NOT live in luxury but are comfortable thank you. I fully agree with the writer of this.
I remember one program, John Prescott asked an out of work "poor" single mum, four children, and under 19 Confused , "how do you class yourself ? "Middle class" she replied, "I aint working class, I aint got no job", That one comment says it all [emoticons]Jeremyrundle wrote:100% correct again, as a person whos only income is carers allowance and thanks to working people paying tax my income support, all three of my disabled sons have always had free school meals and help with travel and school clothes, and I NEVER fail to APPRCIATE the help I receive from the tax payers.
Thank you to all of you helping my sons as you have.CyclingBantam wrote:I don't follow that at all JR.
What part is Garbage? It was a series of questions.jeremyrundle wrote:
Oh poor explanation again :!:
I was agreeing with the fact that it is garbage that people can't afford to live etc and moan about feeding their 7 children............Dondaddyd wrote:Yes but those are mostly the same people who think (either or a combination) that if you rely on benefits you shouldn't have 'x' number of children.
These are mostly the same people that believe they have a right to judge your decision to have three children given that you receive and rely on state benefits (irrespective of the circumstances).
These are mostly the very same people that would frown on you because you decided to have a third, knowing you would need more state benefits as oppose to stopping with the first or second (again irrespective of the circumstances).
Just saying...CyclingBantam wrote:Who are you speaking on behalf of there DDD? Why don't you name the people who you are talking about?CyclingBantam wrote:If you can't afford children I don't think you should have them. I can't see anyone could reasonably suggest you should.
That is a very different thing to saying you CAN'T have them though. I think everyone should make their own choice.
Now I don't care what the f*ck you two say if you can't admit to things that's your own pathetic failings. Fact of the matter is CyclingBantam said what he said, it's clear to see and it does relate to Jeremyrundles circumstances.
Don't try to bullsh*t me with "oh he only meant one particular type of benefit" when we've been speaking about benefits in general. Presumably Jeremyrundle is entitled to child benefit as well, but still state benefit regardless of the benefit itself is essentially the same thing; State funded money given to people living in the Country who meet a certain criteria. So please, deny grumble bum all you want and try to play up to this whole DDD needs to be awesome crap. It's there to see, it'll be there tomorrow and it will still be there when you're man enough to admit it.
Given that he couldn't survive without benefits for all three kids Jeremyrundle should have stopped at kid number two (maybe even 1). That is what your saying. Now be a man and tell him that.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
CiB wrote:
I don't want to be drawn into this because as a rule some families having more kids than they can afford isn't the greatest problem facing society, and they make up for those that never get round to knocking kids out. I'm only responding to this CB because although your view is perfectly reasonable and fair just not in line with mine and there's no point us arguing till we're blue in the face about it, the bold bit above, I never claimed that. All I claimed is that it's not reasonable to delay children until you're confident that you can support them through to the end of their education. It's widely accepted that if everyone waited until they could reasonably afford to have kids, most of us probably wouldn't. And having them changes your financial priorities to such a huge degree that for most people it's not a reasonable prediction to attempt to make.CyclingBantam wrote:CiB wrote:
Err - yes I am. Unless your crystal ball is better than mine, there's no way that you can safely claim at some point that you're financially ok for the next 18 years or so.CyclingBantam wrote:CiB wrote:I agree with DDD; I was well into well thought out post on the subject but the power went off and it went away, and I can't be ar$ed to type it all again. Suffice to say that society is happy to pay out for families to have kids, we don't and never should differentiate between child #1 and child #12, and if a family takes a bit more advantage of that situation than others do, good for them.
I'm 1 of 6 BTW, so am naturally minded to side with big families. It shouldn't be encouraged but once a family gets to that size what can a govt reasonably do? Whatever your answer, think of it from the viewpoint of child #7, #8 or whatever. It's only money. People and esp little people, are more important than small amounts of govt spending.
Just so I am clear, and I am not trying to be funny, are you saying, when having children people shouldn't consider if they will be able to financially support them in the future? I believe that is what the discussion is about.
As a general principle I don't have a problem with the occasional family being larger than 'normal parameters', and in this case the concencus seems to be that they did their best but things have gone a little bit further out of their control than they expected. Well it has for a large number of other people / families / businesses too lately. I don't see any reason to punish the children for it, indirectly.
All you can do when you have kids is to hope that the current situation remains at least as favourable for as long as they're dependent. And if it goes pear-shaped, let's hope that society as a whole isn't mean spritied enough to force such people to resort to begging & theft to support themselves. We're better than that as a country.
Have to go - power cuts to terrible things to our system here.
Sorry but this argument technique really winds me up (not really directed at you CiB, just in general).
Because I said you should consider your future finances doesn't mean I you have to take it to the other extreme and make out I am saying you should have the cash up front.
I am saying you should consider it. Can you look ahead and think, should things change an amount either way positively or negatively could I still cope. These people have clearly been pushed over despite a relatively small change. I think they have made a poor judgement and could have made a much better one for the benefit of their children.
Bring it back to the finances, which this is really about. How do you plan ahead? Do you assume you will never lose any income so you will always be able to do everything you do now or do you accept there is a need to have some fall back?
If everyone had allowed for a little fall back and leway we wouldn't be in the shoot we are in now. Unfortunatley people don't and that is why the country is jacked up on credit all over the shop. Then when things go tits up, the ones who cause the problem are the first to complain. Despite the warning we have all had, take a look when interest rates go up, we will have people crying out all over the shop how much their cost of credit has gone up.
Your viewpoint is fine. Mine might not be but I don't see any reason to take this further, unless you fancy settling it in the car park, now.
If I am honest CiB I think I pretty much totally agree with you (I guess this is the dificulty having discussions via text, it is very hard to get your opinion across totally as you desire.
I am pleased we don't have to take it out to the carpark as, quite frankly I am scared that when I walk out of my office, DDD is going to be rampaging naked, but for a light smearing of grease, straight at me ready to cave my head in with an axe to prove he was right on the internet about me saying we should bomb the moon. 0 -
For what its worth I totally agree with DDD he seems to have read the exchanges accurately, and there does seem to be an undelying theme of benefit bashing on here, insecurities and petty social jealousies do not a good world make
So +100 DDD
And for what its worth this post has now reached the critical 8 pages which means it will self destruct into a barrage of weak insults and ill meaning smilies (and if you dont believe me go and look at the pro race bit). :shock: :?
The dissenter is every human being at those moments of his life when he resigns
momentarily from the herd and thinks for himself.0 -
Darn you lot. I had lots to do this afternoon.
Anyway, I'm off now for a ride on my bike... Road bike FCN 6
Hardtail Commuter FCN 11 (Apparently, but that may be due to the new beard...)0 -
No. We haven't. Not for the first 3/4 of the thread.DonDaddyD wrote:we've been speaking about benefits in general
It's been entirely based around the benefits required to cater for a child, i.e. child benefit. There's been no mention of job seekers allowance that I can remember, no disability benefit, no mention of scrounging pensioners, no modified allowances for married couples. Carers allowance didn't appear until JR rocked up.
Benefits for children. Child benefit.
And I'm not defending CBs viewpoint, I don't agree with it.
A wise person once said
Heed their words.DonDaddyD wrote:You got showed up. You made a contradiction and you were pulled up on it taken to task and shown your ass. Man-up admit it or stand by your belief. But diversionary tactics are pathetic.0 -
andyb78 wrote:Darn you lot. I had lots to do this afternoon.
Anyway, I'm off now for a ride on my bike...
we were all obviously busy at work "If you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what you've always got."
PX Kaffenback 2 = Work Horse
B-Twin Alur 700 = Sundays and Hills0 -
Do people really feel that out of pocket when they hear about stories like this? Or is it more of a principle thing?0
-
notsoblue wrote:Do people really feel that out of pocket when they hear about stories like this? Or is it more of a principle thing?
Oh, not out of pocket in the slightest purely a principle thing. Would just rather people felt more responsible for themselves as opposed to blaming external factors.
That is how I feel when I am not out and about torching the job centre and abusing the disabled and eating kittens of course.
If I am honest, I don't have particularly strong views about benefits, it is just the way this thread went, it was intended more about responsible parenting! 0 -
I just can't get indignant about irresponsible parenting putting a burden on the state because
a) We can't legislate against it without fundamentally changing our human rights
b) Ultimately it is the children that will suffer from any reduction in benefits
c) and this suffering would simply exasperate the problem for the next generation
I'm fine with having a minuscule proportion of my taxes go to providing a minimum standard of life for these kids. The more help they get from the state, the less they are likely to turn out like their parents.0 -
notsoblue wrote:I just can't get indignant about irresponsible parenting putting a burden on the state because
a) We can't legislate against it without fundamentally changing our human rights
b) Ultimately it is the children that will suffer from any reduction in benefits
c) and this suffering would simply exasperate the problem for the next generation
I'm fine with having a minuscule proportion of my taxes go to providing a minimum standard of life for these kids. The more help they get from the state, the less they are likely to turn out like their parents.
Absolutely, fully agree.
Still cross with the bad parents themselves though.
It's nice we are all happy now!0 -
CyclingBantam wrote:Still cross with the bad parents themselves though.
It's nice we are all happy now!
Hurrah! 0
