Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dartanoir)
    Are people some sort of animals that cannot control their 'urges' and rationalise?
    You have a lot to learn about people if you think we are always in rational control.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kibalchich)
    You have a lot to learn about people if you think we are always in rational control.
    The simplest solution is to start cutting benefits. If you look at countries where there is little financial support given to families you will see where the problem stems from.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tomctutor)
    Why is the welfare bill unsustainable, so is tax giveaways, nuclear submarines, foreign aid, MPs expenses, education and a zillion other national budgetary expenses, what's so different about the welfare bill that its gotta be chopped- in fact there is good economic sense to increase it - to put money into peoples pockets so they can raise their living standards and get the country back on an even economic keel!
    The welfare bill is unsustainable compared to the other bills because it and the NHS are the two largest money-sinks by a long way. Talking about cutting foreign aid and protecting welfare is silly. It's like trying to sort out your debts by turning down the heating rather than selling your Ferrari.

    I've never bought that idea - give government money to people so they have something to spend in order to boost the economy. It makes no sense - you take money away from the public and give it back to the public; the net result is not positive, it is in fact negative as no process is 100% efficient.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dartanoir)
    The simplest solution is to start cutting benefits. If you look at countries where there is little financial support given to families you will see where the problem stems from.
    You'll find that they actually have more children.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paddyman4)
    The welfare bill is unsustainable compared to the other bills because it and the NHS are the two largest money-sinks by a long way. Talking about cutting foreign aid and protecting welfare is silly. It's like trying to sort out your debts by turning down the heating rather than selling your Ferrari.

    I've never bought that idea - give government money to people so they have something to spend in order to boost the economy. It makes no sense - you take money away from the public and give it back to the public; the net result is not positive, it is in fact negative as no process is 100% efficient.
    You're very ignorant of economics then.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kibalchich)
    You're also making an inherently individualist and selfish argument. "I'm allowed kids due to my life circumstances, but they're not.". No conception that poor people work bloody hard too. No realisation of the fact that kids growing up in poverty is detrimental to everybody. No, just me me me and grasping self enrichment. Sickening.
    Is she? From what I can gather, she is saying that people should plan ahead for childbirth so that they can be in the right circumstances to give the child the best possible life it can have, which if anything, is inherently altruistic. Why does income have any relevance to this?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by biggie)
    Is she? From what I can gather, she is saying that people should plan ahead for childbirth so that they can be in the right circumstances to give the child the best possible life it can have, which if anything, is inherently altruistic. Why does income have any relevance to this?
    Read her post.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kibalchich)
    Read her post.
    I did:

    (Original post by dartanoir)
    One that will be paying taxes for the rest of my life and working my ass off through university and then (hopefully) as a lawyer to pay for my own expenses and possible future children.

    If we're talking about life - well it's all nice and great to want children but if you can't pay for them don't have them. They should not be the liability for the government and the taxpayers. THAT is the reality and life. You can't always have what you want.
    I can understand how you may have reached the conclusion you did, due to the mention of a future law career, but I don't see anything that explicitly suggests 'poor people shouldn't breed'. Of course it is right and fair that one should ensure they can finance a comfortable upbringing for their child, whether you're a cleaner or an executive. A life just above the breadline (and I include in that definition richer parents who continue to spend frivolously while neglecting the needs of their child), or surviving on meagre benefits is no life at all for a child, despite what the scumbags in government and the press would have you believe.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paddyman4)
    The welfare bill is unsustainable compared to the other bills because it and the NHS are the two largest money-sinks by a long way. Talking about cutting foreign aid and protecting welfare is silly. It's like trying to sort out your debts by turning down the heating rather than selling your Ferrari...
    Welfare is maybe rising due to unemployment - so sort out unemployment give people worthwhile and properly paid jobs- even me a left wing fanatic agrees with you - a right wing fanatic - amazing agreement at last on something. Let IDS know there is another way.


    (Original post by paddyman4)
    I've never bought that idea - give government money to people so they have something to spend in order to boost the economy. It makes no sense - you take money away from the public and give it back to the public; the net result is not positive, it is in fact negative as no process is 100% efficient.
    So why the raft of tax reduction measures in GO's budget the other week, was it not to put more money into peoples pocket and boost the economy - or did I miss his speech - wait a minute - yes I did- agh well anyway you are right to suspect such economic policies - doomed to fail anyhow.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by biggie)
    I did:


    I can understand how you may have reached the conclusion you did, due to the mention of a future law career, but I don't see anything that explicitly suggests 'poor people shouldn't breed'. Of course it is right and fair that one should ensure they can finance a comfortable upbringing for their child, whether you're a cleaner or an executive. A life just above the breadline (and I include in that definition richer parents who continue to spend frivolously while neglecting the needs of their child), or surviving on meagre benefits is no life at all for a child, despite what the scumbags in government and the press would have you believe.
    I suggest you read the posts leading up to that.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dartanoir)
    The simplest solution is to start cutting benefits. If you look at countries where there is little financial support given to families you will see where the problem stems from.
    No increase benefits to help the poorest amongst us.
    The problem stems from skewed economic policy to benefit the super-rich 1% minority at the expense of the other 99% majority.
    (Here in the UK top 1% have 20% of the wealth and getting more polarized by the minute).

    As I said before earlier British companies are sitting on £700 billion (7x10 power 11) in foreign cash deposits - rotting away most likely in Cyprus and such places. Use just a few % of that would go a long way to alleviating the austerity misery here.
    Also I did mention there are nearly 1 million empty properties in the UK a substantial proportion of which could be used to house needy families.
    So there simply scrap the Welfare Reforms - no need really for them.
    But the right-wing won't subscribe to logic simply nasty ideology at any cost.
    Come on the national strike - make it for a week not just a day- make it hurt the capitalists- every union not just the UNITE.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tomctutor)
    Welfare is maybe rising due to unemployment - so sort out unemployment give people worthwhile and properly paid jobs- even me a left wing fanatic agrees with you - a right wing fanatic - amazing agreement at last on something. Let IDS know there is another way.




    So why the raft of tax reduction measures in GO's budget the other week, was it not to put more money into peoples pocket and boost the economy - or did I miss his speech - wait a minute - yes I did- agh well anyway you are right to suspect such economic policies - doomed to fail anyhow.
    The welfare bill has been consistently huge. It did not just become too big during the recession - it was too big when we were at our most prosperous.

    George Osborne reduced taxes - he's not giving us money or 'putting it in people's pockets' as he loves to say - he's just taking less of our money away. That's not the same as taking money from taxpayers and then giving it back to some taxpayers - such a process is just going to leak money for no reason. It's better to just not take it in tax in the first place.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tomctutor)
    No increase benefits to help the poorest amongst us.
    The problem stems from skewed economic policy to benefit the super-rich 1% minority at the expense of the other 99% majority.
    (Here in the UK top 1% have 20% of the wealth and getting more polarized by the minute).

    As I said before earlier British companies are sitting on £700 billion (7x10 power 11) in foreign cash deposits - rotting away most likely in Cyprus and such places. Use just a few % of that would go a long way to alleviating the austerity misery here.
    Also I did mention there are nearly 1 million empty properties in the UK a substantial proportion of which could be used to house needy families.
    So there simply scrap the Welfare Reforms - no need really for them.
    But the right-wing won't subscribe to logic simply nasty ideology at any cost.
    Come on the national strike - make it for a week not just a day- make it hurt the capitalists- every union not just the UNITE.
    The irony is that a strike would harm the working poor who aren't in a union- if they miss a week's pay they might not be able to afford to eat

    Silly man- to say the least- trying to turn the clock back to 1970s

    Raising the minimum wage is one thing- effectively legally stealing wealth from people by making up taxes - a bit like Cyprus with its savings tax- will have unintended consequences

    Giving people free money makes people dependant on government.
    It should be avoided if possible- stimulating employment is a better solution

    Encouraging people to donate to charity could help too
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by a729)
    The irony is that a strike would harm the working poor who aren't in a union- if they miss a week's pay they might not be able to afford to eat

    Silly man- to say the least- trying to turn the clock back to 1970s

    Raising the minimum wage is one thing- effectively legally stealing wealth from people by making up taxes - a bit like Cyprus with its savings tax- will have unintended consequences

    Giving people free money makes people dependant on government.
    It should be avoided if possible- stimulating employment is a better solution

    Encouraging people to donate to charity could help too
    Indeed, Unions don't care about the poor or the working class, they only care about their own members. When I worked at the train place non-members had to leave the room when it came to discussing things like pay and working conditions etc because we weren't part of the club. I'm sorry, but there's no way I'm handing money over to a New Labour subsidiary before I can have a say over my terms of employment! Not happening. They loved it when we had to leave too, it made them feel important. Cretins!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by penniroyaltea)
    Hmmm having kids isn't a right you know. It's a responsibility. Everyone should AIM to be in a financially secure position when they have kids. Planning to have kids when you're on an extremely low income isn't very sensible to me.
    That's pretty good
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tomctutor)
    If you mortgage a house you don't own it either as the lender can evict you!
    Unless of course you manage miraculously to pay off your mortgage completely, which for most of us is a pipe dream rich or poor.
    Correction- you own the deeds of the property
    But you owe the bank a big debt
    The bank will repossess the property if you default on the debt
    Most people do pay of their mortgage throughout their lifetime
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    Indeed, Unions don't care about the poor or the working class, they only care about their own members. When I worked at the train place non-members had to leave the room when it came to discussing things like pay and working conditions etc because we weren't part of the club. I'm sorry, but there's no way I'm handing money over to a New Labour subsidiary before I can have a say over my terms of employment! Not happening. They loved it when we had to leave too, it made them feel important. Cretins!
    Plus you have to fund the pensions and relatively high salaries of the likes of Bob Crow!

    That doesn't make total sense- they are ignoring potentially good ideas from nob-members , who will also be affected by any future industrial action or negotiations!

    I think unions should accept pay cuts rather than job losses in a recession- that's real unity!

    While tube drivers got massive pay rises, s lot of their other colleagues were made redundant at TfL during the last couple of years!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kibalchich)
    You'll find that they actually have more children.
    The culture is also different
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kibalchich)
    I'm very tempted to just fling an insult at you again for being so thick.

    *deep breath*

    I was talking about the basic drive to have kids. Birth control would be rather self defeating.
    I'm not being thick- people should choose a good time to have kids
    Preferably a time when they can financially support their children and to not bring their children into severe poverty

    Not everyone wants to have children btw

    Birth control isn't self-defeating it can allow people the chance to plan their family well
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by a729)
    I'm not being thick- people should choose a good time to have kids
    Preferably a time when they can financially support their children and to not bring their children into severe poverty

    Not everyone wants to have children btw

    Birth control isn't self-defeating it can allow people the chance to plan their family well
    *woooosh*
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brexit voters: Do you stand by your vote?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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.