Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    I would rather my tax money go to supporting married couples than to teenage single mothers getting council flats. From what I see in my neighborhood, this nation could certainly do with more of the former.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Or maybe your tax money could go into the education system, reducing the amount of single teenage mothers and instead enabling them to live happy, normal lives... not everyone comes from a privelaged enough background that they can just settle down at the age of 30 in a nice house and get married and all that ****... My parents arent married but theyve been together for over 20 years and have 2 children - are you saying they are less deserving of support from the government because they havent formalised their relationship in the manner that religious tradition dictates?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shady lane)
    I would rather my tax money go to supporting married couples than to teenage single mothers getting council flats. From what I see in my neighborhood, this nation could certainly do with more of the former.
    Why? Its a very snobby attitude to have- why should everyone conform to what society deems as the "ideal" couple? And who needs the money more? A married couple with a double income, or a single mother with no income? Why would you have the children of that single mother suffer economically because of its parents bad decisions, just to spite them because you don't like that way of life? People need to start thinking about the CHILDREN in these situations, rather than letting their own prejudices get in the way.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    I would like a monetary incentive to encourage people to have stable, long-term relationships, rather than a monetary incentive for them to get pregnant as teenagers because it's cheaper to get a flat that way. I'd be happier if single women didn't get pregnant when they can't afford to pay for the upbringing of their children. And I believe that children are best raised in a two-parent household.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cottonmouth)
    And who needs the money more? A married couple with a double income, or a single mother with no income?
    If you can't feed'em don't breed'em.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shady lane)
    I would like a monetary incentive to encourage people to have stable, long-term relationships, rather than a monetary incentive for them to get pregnant as teenagers because it's cheaper to get a flat that way. I'd be happier if single women didn't get pregnant when they can't afford to pay for the upbringing of their children. And I believe that children are best raised in a two-parent household.
    My goodness SL. I had no idea you were so conservative - slightly to the right of Atilla the Hun.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    If you can't feed'em don't breed'em.
    Send them up the chimneys.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by _jackofdiamonds)
    Send them up the chimneys.
    Or to the poorhouse.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    My goodness SL. I had no idea you were so conservative - slightly to the right of Atilla the Hun.
    All I know is, I don't think being a teenage mother is a lifestyle choice to be encouraged. People on TSR are complaining that people get £30/week to continue in education to the age of 18, and that married couples get financial benefits. Surely education and marriage (or stable, long-term relationship--I'd be fine if it includes cohabitating couples who have been together for several years or gay couples) are positive things.

    I don't believe in social welfare that encourages people to make poor decisions. The fact that the UK has the highest rate of teen pregnancy in Europe should be enough to call into question how beneficial the current benefits system is.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cpj1987)
    But surely the childs welfare, not financially obviously, but in other ways, should take into account the emotional welfare?
    Even at a young age, a child can be affected by being in a situation where the parents are together yet don't love each other? For many, the better option for their children would surely be to seperate?
    yes, but the seperation often results unhappily, with the mom off galivanting with new boyfriends, and the dad deciding he can't be arsed with his kid. stable homes, even if lacking in love, are better than unstable homes lacking in love surely. and while many seperations end happily, step-families and stuff can wreak emotional havoc upon a child by making him/her feel an outsider in her own home, sub-class to this new family.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shady lane)
    All I know is, I don't think being a teenage mother is a lifestyle choice to be encouraged. People on TSR are complaining that people get £30/week to continue in education to the age of 18, and that married couples get financial benefits. Surely education and marriage (or stable, long-term relationship--I'd be fine if it includes cohabitating couples who have been together for several years or gay couples) are positive things.

    I don't believe in social welfare that encourages people to make poor decisions. The fact that the UK has the highest rate of teen pregnancy in Europe should be enough to call into question how beneficial the current benefits system is.
    That's a fair point. Most people's objection to financial incentives for married couples seems to stem from an objection to social engineering (via bribery/incentive) and yet the very same philosophy, further down the food chain, does little to discourage the making of very poor choices on a mass scale and changing the face of society.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    My goodness SL. I had no idea you were so conservative - slightly to the right of Atilla the Hun.
    Don't be so assumptive; Atilla the Hun was well known for his progressive social welfare policy.

    After all, he kept well supplied his hoardes with spears, tents and horses did he not?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    regardless of all this 'im not religious' or 'it costs too much' crap, which are hardly arguments, from my expierence, and from my mum's expierence as a dinner lady in a ghetto school, marraige, or at least a staple relationship, is better for the kid than unstable ones or single parent families by and large, regardless of what causailty theories sociologists think up.

    My mum sees some kids dropped off at school by serveral different 'latest boyfriends' per month. How is that good for the kid, especially when they're like 7? Now i can see the argument that there is no need to get married if your in a stable relationship, and that probably is a fine way to bring up a kid, but i cant see the downside to just tying the knot as well. IF your that convinced you love them, you can have a civil partnership (if your not religious/dont want to get married in a church) that costs next to nothing. Wedding costs dont have to be high, people just choose for them to be. On the religious argument anyway, the vast majority of people who get married in churches arent proper Christians, they're not even lax Christians - their stag do before the church ceremony probably involved strip teases and prostitutes in an eastern European country, it just that the church looks nice and its a tradition, its always been like that. You dont have to do it in one if your that principled about it, but most people arent really bothered.

    I might be biased becasue I'm one of the few people in my peer group whose parents are still married, and where married when I was born, but I honestly think, looking at my mates who have married parents or at least parents in sable relationships, that they turned out better. There's also the issue that the Tories arent being really old school Tory and saying married couples should get more benefits. I think, as someone pointed out, that they're trying to level the playing field. Anything that encourges, or at least negates the disadvantages, of one of the ways in which a stable relationship can be achieved (i.e. marraige in this isntance), is only a good idea.

    I have no problem with stable relationships, I just cant really see why people who have been togeather for e.g. a decade dont want to be married - they are in all but name anyway and marraige can cost next to nothing if you want it to. Also, in my opinion, marraige may sometimes protect you from yourself in that you're less likely to just walk out and call it a day through a bad patch if there is a prospect of divorce. Just becasue a relationship has bad patches doesnt mean its 'loveless' and henceforth unviable, its just ebs and flows.

    This makes me sound so right wing. To pull it back, what im saying is marraige, one of the best tools for achieveing a stable relationship, is a good way of maintaining a liberal society .

    My goodness SL. I had no idea you were so conservative - slightly to the right of Atilla the Hun.
    I got this one levied at me the other day. Since when were Attila the Hun comparisons in fashion?

    Ive got a feeling the OP came from a single parent family and has a chip on her shoulder. *waits for bombardment of neg rep*
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cpj1987)
    It's only positive once they make it that way by offering benefits that can't otherwise be acheived.
    you mean like there used to be until family-friendly labour got rid of them?

    i read they're thinking of possibly bringing something similar back:
    http://timesonline.typepad.com/comme...ge-works-.html
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by _jackofdiamonds)
    Well if you're a woman you get to nag lots.
    We dont need a piece of paper to do that bud
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shady lane)
    I would rather my tax money go to supporting married couples than to teenage single mothers getting council flats. From what I see in my neighborhood, this nation could certainly do with more of the former.
    Could not agree more. Lets start supporting marriage and stop throwing money at single parents. Everyone knows that children are brought up much better by a man and a woman who are in a stable relationship. The current policies of the Labout Government which provide a financial incentive for couples to split up have just resulted in fragmenting society even further. Now we have more single parents not bringing up their children properly and the result is a large increase in crime and anti-social behaviour.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: July 16, 2007
Poll
Have you ever experienced bullying?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.