Loki Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 Perhaps an IQ style test? I mean, while we're trying to solve overpopulation, we might as well try strengthening the gene pool a little. We could also start to eliminate some of the weaker genetic disorders that would previously have been suppressed by survival of the fittest, like sickle cell anaemia, cystic fibrosis, spinal muscular atrophy, or red hair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happ Hazzard Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 If you concentrate on getting children out of poverty, you just provide an incentive for poor people to have children. Because no-one really cares if childless people are poor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soretooth Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 I'm not in favour of withdrawing benefits for many people, but I could see an argument for single people or childless couples paying less tax, on the basis that they use less. That could work as an incentive not to have children. I don't get this idea of incentivising people not to have children. That was the great thing about child benefit, before the coalition decided to put an upper earnings limit on it - it was a universal benefit, a recognition of our society's need for people to have children. Where would we be if everyone decided not to have any kids? Our population is aging, we are all living longer, it's simple common sense. Don't try and stop people having children, it will never happen. We need to invest in our children, not try and prevent them from ever existing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happ Hazzard Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 We need to look at the demographics of people, and identify which socio-economic groups contribute the most, which contribute a fair amount, and which contribute the least. Then we should create policies which encourage the former to have many children, the middle group to have some children and the latter group to have few or no children. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Psygnosis Posted February 24, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted February 24, 2011 http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/...e-benefits.html  Yikes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loki Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 We need to look at the demographics of people, and identify which socio-economic groups contribute the most, which contribute a fair amount, and which contribute the least. Then we should create policies which encourage the former to have many children, the middle group to have some children and the latter group to have few or no children. Â Definitely. Gypsies for example. They should be encouraged not to breed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soretooth Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 We need to look at the demographics of people, and identify which socio-economic groups contribute the most, which contribute a fair amount, and which contribute the least. Then we should create policies which encourage the former to have many children, the middle group to have some children and the latter group to have few or no children. That is mad. What are these socio-economic groups? White people, black people, rich people, poor people, Jews, Muslims, Christians, people who work in shops, people who work in offices, gingers, albinos? Who is going to say that one person's child is less worthy of being born than another person's child? You can't really believe that. Â Â Definitely. Gypsies for example. They should be encouraged not to breed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gary v1 Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 You may think that disincentivising poor people not to have children will help reduce the tax burden but the more the make up of the population shifts from young to old the more the ratio of pensioners to non-pensioners will beeven higher than it is now. State Pensions are a huge part of the welfare state and all we'd be doing is increasing the burden of workers to pay for an ever growing pensioner population. We're just storing up further problems for ourselves. Â I think the education route for the children is the best thing to do really. High quality education for a child isn't really an incentive to the parent to have the child as they don't get any direct benefits. Make sure they have the basics for life though: food and shelter mainly and every possible opportunity to improve themselves through education or training or help with childminding etc. Let's actually tackle some root problems rather than just make all young families homeless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happ Hazzard Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 You may think that disincentivising poor people not to have children will help reduce the tax burden but the more the make up of the population shifts from young to old the more the ratio of pensioners to non-pensioners will beeven higher than it is now. State Pensions are a huge part of the welfare state and all we'd be doing is increasing the burden of workers to pay for an ever growing pensioner population. We're just storing up further problems for ourselves.t But most people are a net liability on the state over the full course of their life. We need to ensure that we have the same, or more, of the people that are net contributors over their lifetime, and less of the people that are net recipients, and preferably none of the people who contribute next to nothing and take everything they can get. We can do this by closely analysing the data and formulating public policy using the information gleaned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soretooth Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 But most people are a net liability on the state over the full course of their life. We need to ensure that we have the same, or more, of the people that are net contributors over their lifetime, and less of the people that are net recipients, and preferably none of the people who contribute next to nothing and take everything they can get. We can do this by closely analysing the data and formulating public policy using the information gleaned. That's just such a simplistic view. Aside from the worrying idea that you can divide people into those you deem worthy to reproduce and those who should be wiped out, how would you measure it? Tax paid vs benefit claimed? People contribute to society in so many other ways apart from money, for example by helping others, doing charity work, creating art, raising their children well, and all sorts of other intangible things. I don't believe that most people take out more than they put in either, what is your source for that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted February 24, 2011 Author Share Posted February 24, 2011 Soretooth, if you've read this thread regularly over the past few months you should should surely know that arguing with someone like Happ isn't going to get you anywhere. Â He has his Daily Mail subscription and nothing will ever change that. He can't be reasoned with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patiirc Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 He can't be reasoned with.  "David" pictured earlier    "Happ" pictured earlier   Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted February 24, 2011 Author Share Posted February 24, 2011 There you are Pat! I was wondering where you've been recently! Not seen you on here too much. Â Hope all is well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patiirc Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 There you are Pat! I was wondering where you've been recently! Not seen you on here too much. Hope all is well.  I'm about just 'lurk' a bit more these days, plus dont keep up with things as much as I did, politically, hence why Iam not around so often Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted February 24, 2011 Author Share Posted February 24, 2011 Well, get back up to speed. It's just not the same in this thread without you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts