Happy Face 29 Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 To sum up my point: Why concentrate on getting the parents back into work? Thats just 2 taxpayers (assuming youd get them both back to work). Why not concentrate instead on the 12 potential future taxpayers? The odds are stacked against the kids making anything of themselves tbf, most of them will probably not be able to remember their parents ever being in employment which doesn't set a good example. Plus chances of the kids doing well educationally are also slim as I'm guessing the parents aren't the most gifted academically and they also couldn't possibly devote the time needed to help each child with their school work. Dregs of society. Let them rot. That's not what he was saying though. I'm struggling to see what anyone is saying here tbh. Other than demonising the parents there's no sensible alternatives to maintaining the status quo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 26345 Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 (edited) To sum up my point: Why concentrate on getting the parents back into work? Thats just 2 taxpayers (assuming youd get them both back to work). Why not concentrate instead on the 12 potential future taxpayers? The odds are stacked against the kids making anything of themselves tbf, most of them will probably not be able to remember their parents ever being in employment which doesn't set a good example. Plus chances of the kids doing well educationally are also slim as I'm guessing the parents aren't the most gifted academically and they also couldn't possibly devote the time needed to help each child with their school work. Bung them in a boarding school. Is that a serious suggestion btw? It would be a decent shout if it weren't so fucking expensive. Edited July 24, 2007 by ewerk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 26345 Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 To sum up my point: Why concentrate on getting the parents back into work? Thats just 2 taxpayers (assuming youd get them both back to work). Why not concentrate instead on the 12 potential future taxpayers? The odds are stacked against the kids making anything of themselves tbf, most of them will probably not be able to remember their parents ever being in employment which doesn't set a good example. Plus chances of the kids doing well educationally are also slim as I'm guessing the parents aren't the most gifted academically and they also couldn't possibly devote the time needed to help each child with their school work. Dregs of society. Let them rot. That's not what he was saying though. I'm struggling to see what anyone is saying here tbh. Other than demonising the parents there's no sensible alternatives to maintaining the status quo. The government needs to address the problem so it doesn't keep happening in the future, it's the same as the situation with the rest of the scum out there, many of them have kids and don't bring them up well and the cycle will just keep repeating itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 To sum up my point: Why concentrate on getting the parents back into work? Thats just 2 taxpayers (assuming youd get them both back to work). Why not concentrate instead on the 12 potential future taxpayers? The odds are stacked against the kids making anything of themselves tbf, most of them will probably not be able to remember their parents ever being in employment which doesn't set a good example. Plus chances of the kids doing well educationally are also slim as I'm guessing the parents aren't the most gifted academically and they also couldn't possibly devote the time needed to help each child with their school work. Bung them in a boarding school. Is that a serious suggestion btw? It would be a decent shout if it weren't so fucking expensive. That being the point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 To sum up my point: Why concentrate on getting the parents back into work? Thats just 2 taxpayers (assuming youd get them both back to work). Why not concentrate instead on the 12 potential future taxpayers? The odds are stacked against the kids making anything of themselves tbf, most of them will probably not be able to remember their parents ever being in employment which doesn't set a good example. Plus chances of the kids doing well educationally are also slim as I'm guessing the parents aren't the most gifted academically and they also couldn't possibly devote the time needed to help each child with their school work. Dregs of society. Let them rot. I'm not suggesting a solution to the situation, just pointing out the problems. Though in the long term clearly it shouldn't be as financially advantageous to have so many kids. That's the point I've argued throughout. It's not financially advantageous. They're coping on £33 a week per person. Less than a fiver a day for everyone in the house to live on. I'm sure every day is a struggle for them and has become moreso with every kid they have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 26345 Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 To sum up my point: Why concentrate on getting the parents back into work? Thats just 2 taxpayers (assuming youd get them both back to work). Why not concentrate instead on the 12 potential future taxpayers? The odds are stacked against the kids making anything of themselves tbf, most of them will probably not be able to remember their parents ever being in employment which doesn't set a good example. Plus chances of the kids doing well educationally are also slim as I'm guessing the parents aren't the most gifted academically and they also couldn't possibly devote the time needed to help each child with their school work. Bung them in a boarding school. Is that a serious suggestion btw? It would be a decent shout if it weren't so fucking expensive. That being the point. I thought your objection may have been to forcibly removing the kids from their parents, good to hear you're ok with that bit of the plan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 The government needs to address the problem so it doesn't keep happening in the future How? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 To sum up my point: Why concentrate on getting the parents back into work? Thats just 2 taxpayers (assuming youd get them both back to work). Why not concentrate instead on the 12 potential future taxpayers? The odds are stacked against the kids making anything of themselves tbf, most of them will probably not be able to remember their parents ever being in employment which doesn't set a good example. Plus chances of the kids doing well educationally are also slim as I'm guessing the parents aren't the most gifted academically and they also couldn't possibly devote the time needed to help each child with their school work. Dregs of society. Let them rot. That's not what he was saying though. I'm struggling to see what anyone is saying here tbh. Other than demonising the parents there's no sensible alternatives to maintaining the status quo. People are (quite rightly) criticising the parents. I don't think there are any straightforward solutions though. You're advocating doing nothing though so you're basically saying nothing, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 26345 Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 The government needs to address the problem so it doesn't keep happening in the future How? We elect politicians so we don't have to deal with those sort of details. Some sort of birth limit would be an idea but would never happen, can you imagine the Catholic's reaction to that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 To sum up my point: Why concentrate on getting the parents back into work? Thats just 2 taxpayers (assuming youd get them both back to work). Why not concentrate instead on the 12 potential future taxpayers? The odds are stacked against the kids making anything of themselves tbf, most of them will probably not be able to remember their parents ever being in employment which doesn't set a good example. Plus chances of the kids doing well educationally are also slim as I'm guessing the parents aren't the most gifted academically and they also couldn't possibly devote the time needed to help each child with their school work. Dregs of society. Let them rot. That's not what he was saying though. I'm struggling to see what anyone is saying here tbh. Other than demonising the parents there's no sensible alternatives to maintaining the status quo. People are (quite rightly) criticising the parents. I don't think there are any straightforward solutions though. You're advocating doing nothing though so you're basically saying nothing, right? I've criticised the parents too. I'm (quite rightly) standing up for the system as it stands, rather than saying something should be done without saying what. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 The government needs to address the problem so it doesn't keep happening in the future How? We elect politicians so we don't have to deal with those sort of details. Some sort of birth limit would be an idea but would never happen, can you imagine the Catholic's reaction to that? A birth limit for everyone or just for those on benefits? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 26345 Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 The government needs to address the problem so it doesn't keep happening in the future How? We elect politicians so we don't have to deal with those sort of details. Some sort of birth limit would be an idea but would never happen, can you imagine the Catholic's reaction to that? A birth limit for everyone or just for those on benefits? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geordieboyo 0 Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 The government needs to address the problem so it doesn't keep happening in the future How? We elect politicians so we don't have to deal with those sort of details. Some sort of birth limit would be an idea but would never happen, can you imagine the Catholic's reaction to that? A birth limit for everyone or just for those on benefits? Plenty of couples who can afford to look after a child are waiting to adopt (Just throwing it out there) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 To sum up my point: Why concentrate on getting the parents back into work? Thats just 2 taxpayers (assuming youd get them both back to work). Why not concentrate instead on the 12 potential future taxpayers? The odds are stacked against the kids making anything of themselves tbf, most of them will probably not be able to remember their parents ever being in employment which doesn't set a good example. Plus chances of the kids doing well educationally are also slim as I'm guessing the parents aren't the most gifted academically and they also couldn't possibly devote the time needed to help each child with their school work. Dregs of society. Let them rot. That's not what he was saying though. I'm struggling to see what anyone is saying here tbh. Other than demonising the parents there's no sensible alternatives to maintaining the status quo. People are (quite rightly) criticising the parents. I don't think there are any straightforward solutions though. You're advocating doing nothing though so you're basically saying nothing, right? I've criticised the parents too. I'm (quite rightly) standing up for the system as it stands, rather than saying something should be done without saying what. I think you're wrong in doing that then. I thought you'd criticised the system for making the father worse off by staying in work. That seems utterly preposterous to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 The government needs to address the problem so it doesn't keep happening in the future How? We elect politicians so we don't have to deal with those sort of details. Some sort of birth limit would be an idea but would never happen, can you imagine the Catholic's reaction to that? A birth limit for everyone or just for those on benefits? A limit on benefits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 26345 Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 To sum up my point: Why concentrate on getting the parents back into work? Thats just 2 taxpayers (assuming youd get them both back to work). Why not concentrate instead on the 12 potential future taxpayers? The odds are stacked against the kids making anything of themselves tbf, most of them will probably not be able to remember their parents ever being in employment which doesn't set a good example. Plus chances of the kids doing well educationally are also slim as I'm guessing the parents aren't the most gifted academically and they also couldn't possibly devote the time needed to help each child with their school work. Dregs of society. Let them rot. That's not what he was saying though. I'm struggling to see what anyone is saying here tbh. Other than demonising the parents there's no sensible alternatives to maintaining the status quo. People are (quite rightly) criticising the parents. I don't think there are any straightforward solutions though. You're advocating doing nothing though so you're basically saying nothing, right? I've criticised the parents too. I'm (quite rightly) standing up for the system as it stands, rather than saying something should be done without saying what. As I've said, the system is too generous at the minute. Another alternative to a birth limit is a refusal to pay any additional benefits for anything over four children. If that were the case then I'm fairly sure that those scroungers wouldn't be having 12 kids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lazarus 0 Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 To sum up my point: Why concentrate on getting the parents back into work? Thats just 2 taxpayers (assuming youd get them both back to work). Why not concentrate instead on the 12 potential future taxpayers? The odds are stacked against the kids making anything of themselves tbf, most of them will probably not be able to remember their parents ever being in employment which doesn't set a good example. Plus chances of the kids doing well educationally are also slim as I'm guessing the parents aren't the most gifted academically and they also couldn't possibly devote the time needed to help each child with their school work. Bung them in a boarding school. Is that a serious suggestion btw? Why not? Put the 6 eldest in a boarding school - the family can then move back into a 3 or 4 bed semi with corresponding decrease in benefits received. the 6 eldest children then grow up with a very good education and want to make something of themselves and contribute something back into society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 To sum up my point: Why concentrate on getting the parents back into work? Thats just 2 taxpayers (assuming youd get them both back to work). Why not concentrate instead on the 12 potential future taxpayers? The odds are stacked against the kids making anything of themselves tbf, most of them will probably not be able to remember their parents ever being in employment which doesn't set a good example. Plus chances of the kids doing well educationally are also slim as I'm guessing the parents aren't the most gifted academically and they also couldn't possibly devote the time needed to help each child with their school work. Bung them in a boarding school. Is that a serious suggestion btw? Why not? Because of the absolutely enormous cost it would entail, obviously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 26345 Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 To sum up my point: Why concentrate on getting the parents back into work? Thats just 2 taxpayers (assuming youd get them both back to work). Why not concentrate instead on the 12 potential future taxpayers? The odds are stacked against the kids making anything of themselves tbf, most of them will probably not be able to remember their parents ever being in employment which doesn't set a good example. Plus chances of the kids doing well educationally are also slim as I'm guessing the parents aren't the most gifted academically and they also couldn't possibly devote the time needed to help each child with their school work. Bung them in a boarding school. Is that a serious suggestion btw? Why not? Put the 6 eldest in a boarding school - the family can then move back into a 3 or 4 bed semi with corresponding decrease in benefits received. the 6 eldest children then grow up with a very good education and want to make something of themselves and contribute something back into society. Essentially what you're suggesting is a Borstal for kids whose parents are on benefits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lazarus 0 Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 To sum up my point: Why concentrate on getting the parents back into work? Thats just 2 taxpayers (assuming youd get them both back to work). Why not concentrate instead on the 12 potential future taxpayers? The odds are stacked against the kids making anything of themselves tbf, most of them will probably not be able to remember their parents ever being in employment which doesn't set a good example. Plus chances of the kids doing well educationally are also slim as I'm guessing the parents aren't the most gifted academically and they also couldn't possibly devote the time needed to help each child with their school work. Bung them in a boarding school. Is that a serious suggestion btw? Why not? Because of the absolutely enormous cost it would entail, obviously. As a family , theyre already costing an enormous amount. Why not invest in them as a future taxpayer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 I think you're wrong in doing that then. I thought you'd criticised the system for making the father worse off by staying in work. That seems utterly preposterous to me. When the system changed it robbed Peter to pay Paul. This individual was better off leaving work, but others would fall into a newly created bracket where their reduced benefit meant a job was now worth having. I was saying there's no perfect solution that covers all circumstances. The Daily Mail will have a story whatever tinkering is done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lazarus 0 Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 To sum up my point: Why concentrate on getting the parents back into work? Thats just 2 taxpayers (assuming youd get them both back to work). Why not concentrate instead on the 12 potential future taxpayers? The odds are stacked against the kids making anything of themselves tbf, most of them will probably not be able to remember their parents ever being in employment which doesn't set a good example. Plus chances of the kids doing well educationally are also slim as I'm guessing the parents aren't the most gifted academically and they also couldn't possibly devote the time needed to help each child with their school work. Bung them in a boarding school. Is that a serious suggestion btw? Why not? Put the 6 eldest in a boarding school - the family can then move back into a 3 or 4 bed semi with corresponding decrease in benefits received. the 6 eldest children then grow up with a very good education and want to make something of themselves and contribute something back into society. Essentially what you're suggesting is a Borstal for kids whose parents are on benefits. Well, maybe not quite something so 'institutional' but why not a regular boarding school? Invest in an education for the bairns and society will (hopefully) see a return on that investment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 To sum up my point: Why concentrate on getting the parents back into work? Thats just 2 taxpayers (assuming youd get them both back to work). Why not concentrate instead on the 12 potential future taxpayers? The odds are stacked against the kids making anything of themselves tbf, most of them will probably not be able to remember their parents ever being in employment which doesn't set a good example. Plus chances of the kids doing well educationally are also slim as I'm guessing the parents aren't the most gifted academically and they also couldn't possibly devote the time needed to help each child with their school work. Bung them in a boarding school. Is that a serious suggestion btw? Why not? Because of the absolutely enormous cost it would entail, obviously. As a family , theyre already costing an enormous amount. Why not invest in them as a future taxpayer? So, let's get this clear, you're saying families like thisshould get private education at the expense of the taxpayer? I honestly can't believe what I'm reading here. It would be way in excess of the £44k they already get btw. Why can't they just go to a state school? Or am I missing something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 To sum up my point: Why concentrate on getting the parents back into work? Thats just 2 taxpayers (assuming youd get them both back to work). Why not concentrate instead on the 12 potential future taxpayers? The odds are stacked against the kids making anything of themselves tbf, most of them will probably not be able to remember their parents ever being in employment which doesn't set a good example. Plus chances of the kids doing well educationally are also slim as I'm guessing the parents aren't the most gifted academically and they also couldn't possibly devote the time needed to help each child with their school work. Bung them in a boarding school. Is that a serious suggestion btw? Why not? Put the 6 eldest in a boarding school - the family can then move back into a 3 or 4 bed semi with corresponding decrease in benefits received. the 6 eldest children then grow up with a very good education and want to make something of themselves and contribute something back into society. Essentially what you're suggesting is a Borstal for kids whose parents are on benefits. Well, maybe not quite something so 'institutional' but why not a regular boarding school? Invest in an education for the bairns and society will (hopefully) see a return on that investment. The mail would have a field day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 Anyway, fuck this shit, bedtime. The parents are scum though imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now