EPTUK Politics Mega-thread - Page 393
| Forum Index > General Forum |
In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note. Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon. All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting. https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
MoonfireSpam
United Kingdom1153 Posts
There are more barriers to buying and owning a pedigree dog than to have a child. edit: Hmm that came off stronger than I thought, but dealing with non accidental injuries every now and then does hit a nerve with me. | ||
KwarK
United States42866 Posts
On October 03 2017 06:59 sc-darkness wrote: Yeah, it's really bad. I'm not sure what could be done about it, but it doesn't seem nice for a top5 economy to continue this... I think priority needs to change though. Some people make *a lot* of children and they don't work, yet they still receive benefits. I think such people should be cut short after N-th child, then remaining money could be spent on beggars to start a proper life? I just think Manchester's city centre seems to have too many of these guys. I think all of us pay quite a lot of council tax, yet streets could be improved. People living in poverty are not engaging in complex cost benefit analysis for maximizing their benefits before having children. Therefore any mechanism to encourage them to have fewer children through changing the outcome of that analysis will fail. Your argument goes 1) Assume this mechanism exists and is an important part of decision making 2) Therefore logically we can exploit that mechanism to change the decisions that are made 2) is perfectly rational but there is zero evidence for 1). | ||
|
KwarK
United States42866 Posts
On October 04 2017 02:21 Plansix wrote: Also, very few poor people breed like rabbits. Most of them do not want lots of kids, because it makes like hard. That breeding like rabbits myth is the US welfare queen myth taken across the sea. I would be amazed if there wasn't a correlation between socioeconomic status and number of children. Additionally your imposition of your own cultural baggage upon the UK is unwanted and arrogant. We've been insisting that the poor breed like rabbits since before you've had a country. Doubly so for the Irish. | ||
|
MoonfireSpam
United Kingdom1153 Posts
People generally prove that every time they get a voting slip and then try and say why they voted for what they did. I suppose the best way to try and reverse the situation is to reduce the proportion of income spent on housing across the board and especially getting people into a position to own homes and build equity rather than burn money on renting. Knowing nothing about economics, I assume any measure to reduce housing prices would ruin everything for a while. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On October 04 2017 02:47 KwarK wrote: I would be amazed if there wasn't a correlation between socioeconomic status and number of children. Additionally your imposition of your own cultural baggage upon the UK is unwanted and arrogant. We've been insisting that the poor breed like rabbits since before you've had a country. Doubly so for the Irish. I am fully aware. You forget that my wife worked with the poor, helping them find services and classes for basic life skills. Like how not to have a baby and that bank accounts are for everyone. The whole breed like rabbits comment makes it seem like they want to have more children, which most of the time they do not. And imposing my cultural bullshit onto other cultures is the peak of arrogance. Which we learned from the British. We learned it from watching you. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42866 Posts
| ||
|
Deleuze
United Kingdom2102 Posts
On October 04 2017 02:03 sc-darkness wrote: Let's say for the sake of argument 3 children is reasonable. Let's say there's a law that goes into effect on October 2018, which is 12 months and would be fine because no woman is pregnant now and will give birth then. Obviously. Now with this law if you make 4th child or more, you won't get ANY benefits for the new children if you're unemployed. I think that's fair because being a lazy bastard who makes more children at the expense of government isn't nice, is it? What kind of example do you give to these kids? Also, why would such people deserve benefits more than some poor beggar in the streets? At the cost of 4th child in terms of tax payer's money, you can sponsor one beggar in the streets to start a new life. That doesn't have to be lifetime support. It has to be time limited and it has to ensure they get a job. That's the point of welfare programs. It's to give them just enough help so they can sort themselves out. It's not to support leeches. You've forgotten the idea behind welfare programs. Also, no one says never have 4th kid. Obviously, if you want more, you have to earn more. It's part of your responsibility. It's not government's problem. It's not tax payer's problem either. If you disagree, please come up with constructive criticism. Civilised debate as what is expected here. This limit is already in force in the UK. You won’t be paid an additional amount for more than 2 children, unless the children are born before 6 April 2017 (on or before 6 April for Income Support) or special circumstances apply. Yet homelessness isn't decreasing. So ipso facto I guess. | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9663 Posts
A better way would be to force governments to think about how webs of policy will affect people differently. Every social and domestic economic policy the tories have enforced have worked together to create a perfect storm of homelessness and drug use. The cutbacks which disproportionately targeted the mental health aspect of the NHS; cuts to council budgets which were responsible for so much which helped drug users and gave some semblance of quality of life to the homeless; drug laws that have pushed relatively harmless drug production into the hands of opportunistic criminals; encouraging landlords to rip people off as much as legally possible while deregulating the financial markets which encourages people to get into debt. All of these policies and so many more have been going on for far too long. These measures are usually needed for a short time but the streets are reaching crisis point so something's gotta give. | ||
|
sc-darkness
856 Posts
On October 04 2017 03:01 Plansix wrote: I am fully aware. You forget that my wife worked with the poor, helping them find services and classes for basic life skills. Like how not to have a baby and that bank accounts are for everyone. The whole breed like rabbits comment makes it seem like they want to have more children, which most of the time they do not. And imposing my cultural bullshit onto other cultures is the peak of arrogance. Which we learned from the British. We learned it from watching you. I don't know who you learnt it from, but British people weren't and aren't gods. I'm sure this rabbit thing was started before the British Empire ever existed. :D | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On October 04 2017 04:27 sc-darkness wrote: I don't know who you learnt it from, but British people weren't and aren't gods. I'm sure this rabbit thing was started before the British Empire ever existed. :D Kwark and I both like to make bad history jokes about the US learning all the shitty things it does from the UK, and then making them shittier. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42866 Posts
On October 04 2017 04:32 Plansix wrote: Kwark and I both like to make bad history jokes about the US learning all the shitty things it does from the UK, and then making them shittier. Additionally for sc-darkness, he's referencing this. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
sc-darkness
856 Posts
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41484206 | ||
|
Sent.
Poland9204 Posts
Couldn't stop myself + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](https://s.faketrumptweet.com/j8c8xn8s_8c8s23_n26i1r.png) | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9663 Posts
| ||
|
Artisreal
Germany9235 Posts
| ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9663 Posts
On October 05 2017 00:59 Artisreal wrote: Is the speech in any way noteworthy or just in the news due to the hiccups cited in the Tweet? Its only noteworthy because its probably her biggest domestic speech of the year at the tory party conference. That it was such a disaster is noteworthy because it is such a perfect metaphor for her entire time as PM so far. | ||
|
kollin
United Kingdom8380 Posts
| ||
| ||
