Turn on thread page Beta

Should the rich pay more tax to help te poor? watch

Announcements
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fishpaste)
    [random ethical dilemma] what if the condom failed, and they weren't willing to abort? [/red]
    Apologies for going off on this slight tangent. There's always a possibility. I'm talking about people with more than 1 or 2. It's really not fair on the children.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by an Siarach)
    Oh right enough, in this case yes it would but such a situation is their own fault and noone elses. Just to cover the specifics, i would have a system whereby they recieve treatment as they would normally but they have to pay for it either whenever theyre able or gradually (as a type of tax even.)
    What ive been saying is that a home should be provided for all, good food for all and good education for all - what else can anyone shamelessly ask for? When it comes to self inflicted illnesses such as those suffered by drunks and smokers then they have a moral responsibility to pay for it themselves. Im not saying leave them to die, im just saying make them pay for it as soon as they can.
    The products you're referring to - alcohol and cigarettes - are taxed very heavily anyway so, in a sense, one could say these people have already 'paid their dues'.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pencil Queen)
    So poor people are bad parents?
    Not that they have bad parenting skills. Just that they can't afford to give the children what they need for a truely balanced life?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pencil Queen)
    So poor people are bad parents?
    Is it my imagination or do quite a few people on this forum judge others solely on the basis of their economic productivity?

    <shakes head> No, it simply must be my imagination. Such clever people couldn't possibly be so narrow minded and devoid of empathy......could they?
    • Very Important Poster
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by Amb1)
    Not that they have bad parenting skills. Just that they can't afford to give the children what they need for a truely balanced life?
    Given that the main requirement children have for a truely balanced life is love and attention I don't see why people with not much money are incapable of giving this to their children.

    In fact it's arguable that parents who stay at home (even if that means a cut in income and/or having to claim benefits) give their children more of what they need for a truely balanced life than people who work all hours of the day and hardly see their children so they can afford a better house/car/holidays/healthcare/education *for their children* of course.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Amb1)
    Not that they have bad parenting skills. Just that they can't afford to give the children what they need for a truely balanced life?
    There's more to being a good parent than money. Some people are emotionally incapable of being parents no matter how wealthy they are. I have a good friend whose parents are incredibly wealthy. She was sexually abused by her grandfather and her parents are in complete denial. She'll be in and out of psychiatric hospitals for the rest of her life.

    Having a child is the most important decision one will ever make and it makes me angry that so many people (rich and poor) take it so casually but it takes more than 'material wealth' to make you a 'good parent'.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pencil Queen)
    Given that the main requirement children have for a truely balanced life is love and attention I don't see why people with not much money are incapable of giving this to their children.

    In fact it's arguable that parents who stay at home (even if that means a cut in income and/or having to claim benefits) give their children more of what they need for a truely balanced life than people who work all hours of the day and hardly see their children so they can afford a better house/car/holidays/healthcare/education *for their children* of course.
    I see what you're saying (and agree that love, affection & attention are the most important things) but the child will be disadvantaged if it's parents can't afford to buy books and toys and can't afford to give the child experiences of different things and places.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bratcat)
    There's more to being a good parent than money. Some people are emotionally incapable of being parents no matter how wealthy they are. I have a good friend whose parents are incredibly wealthy. She was sexually abused by her grandfather and her parents are in complete denial. She'll be in and out of psychiatric hospitals for the rest of her life.

    Having a child is the most important decision one will ever make and it makes me angry that so many people (rich and poor) take it so casually but it takes more than 'material wealth' to make you a 'good parent'.
    Aaargh! I didn't say that if you've got money you must be a good parent!! Neither did I say that if you haven't you must be a bad parent!!

    I have the same views about time. If you can't afford the time to give to a child then don't have one. I know that it isn't all about money. But this is the same as people who say "money can't buy happiness". Maybe not, but it can make life easier and less stressful and this in turn would impact on happiness/quality of life.
    • Very Important Poster
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by Amb1)
    I see what you're saying (and agree that love, affection & attention are the most important things) but the child will be disadvantaged if it's parents can't afford to buy books and toys and can't afford to give the child experiences of different things and places.
    Books and toys can be bought second hand, and there's always the library. You're more likely to learn about places from a cheap holiday camping or from daytrips using public transport than lying on a beach for a fortnight and never leaving a resort or travelling everywhere in a car.

    It's been shown time and time again in studies that the factor that has the most influence on a child's academic success (and by proxy their liklihood to succeed in other areas...a dodgy proxy I know but there isn't much to work with) is the amount of interest and encouragement they recieve from their parents/family.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    PQ for PM!
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Amb1)
    Not that they have bad parenting skills. Just that they can't afford to give the children what they need for a truely balanced life?
    Exactly the reply i would have given had you not beaten me to it.
    (Original post by bratcat)
    The products you're referring to - alcohol and cigarettes - are taxed very heavily anyway so, in a sense, one could say these people have already 'paid their dues'.
    Thats a fair point, but id make them pay again anyway - once for the pleasure and once for the pain.
    (Original post by Pencil Queen)
    Given that the main requirement children have for a truely balanced life is love and attention I don't see why people with not much money are incapable of giving this to their children.
    Nobody was stating that they were incapable of this and I wasnt proposing that their parents be denied all access to their kids, merely that the kids be given a healthier place to live(with pretty much free parental access to them) until the parents sort themselves out to an extent where they can actually afford kids.
    (Original post by bratcat)
    Is it my imagination or do quite a few people on this forum judge others solely on the basis of their economic productivity?
    Seeing as nobody has been putting forward such opinions in this thread i would put it down to your imagination.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by an Siarach)

    Nobody was stating that they were incapable of this and I wasnt proposing that their parents be denied all access to their kids, merely that the kids be given a healthier place to live(with pretty much free parental access to them) until the parents sort themselves out to an extent where they can actually afford kids.
    Do you understand how traumatic it is to be taken away from your parents!? You cant take kids away from parents unless the relationship is detrimntal to teir safety.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by frost105)
    Do you understand how traumatic it is to be taken away from your parents!? You cant take kids away from parents unless the relationship is detrimntal to teir safety.
    Were not talking about taking a 8-12 year old kid away from their parents, should you have read the post which gave rise to this current topic youd realise that the discussion arose out of the scenario of a 'condom malfunction' which results in a child being born to a couple who cannot afford it. Its also interesting that you quote my post which clearly states that the children would not be 'taken away' as you seem to interpret it :

    (Original post by an Siarach)
    I wasnt proposing that their parents be denied all access to their kids, merely that the kids be given a healthier place to live(with pretty much free parental access to them)
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Alot of the intial posters on this thread refered to "spongers", this seems a very loose term chucked around by those on the right for those who suposely abuse the benifits system, yet I am wondering which people they are talking about. Whether they mean those who claim beniifts they are not entitled by law to or those who claim benifits that the posters think they should not be given.

    It is my impression that the benifits system is abused in the first case very little so their points on this seem a little pointless.

    On the 2nd case, would they like to suggest why benifits do they think are over the top and unnecessary.

    If you do not understand the point I am making please say as I am more than happy to explain.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by an Siarach)
    Were not talking about taking a 8-12 year old kid away from their parents, should you have read the post which gave rise to this current topic youd realise that the discussion arose out of the scenario of a 'condom malfunction' which results in a child being born to a couple who cannot afford it. Its also interesting that you quote my post which clearly states that the children would not be 'taken away' as you seem to interpret it :
    At any developmental stage a child needs to identify parental figures, you seem to be suggesting that you take a baby to live with foster parents and let the parents see the child whenever they want untill the government says they have enough money to raise a child? How much money would they need? A baby doesnt have to be expensive. I think its unjust to take a child away from someone who happens to live on benefits and is seeking work.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by frost105)
    At any developmental stage a child needs to identify parental figures, you seem to be suggesting that you take a baby to live with foster parents and let the parents see the child whenever they want untill the government says they have enough money to raise a child? How much money would they need? A baby doesnt have to be expensive. I think its unjust to take a child away from someone who happens to live on benefits and is seeking work.
    It is unjust to expect other people to pay for your lifestyle and its consequences (such as children.) If the parents cannot afford children then the kids they have will live in poverty - what i am proposing is that they be given a proper home where they can enjoy healthy lives with their parents able to see them whenever they can until they have found work and can then afford their own children.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Incomplete)
    Alot of the intial posters on this thread refered to "spongers", this seems a very loose term chucked around by those on the right for those who suposely abuse the benifits system, yet I am wondering which people they are talking about. Whether they mean those who claim beniifts they are not entitled by law to or those who claim benifits that the posters think they should not be given.
    Both to an extent, although nobody has said that benefits should not be given, only that they should be far more tightly regulated.
    (Original post by Incomplete)
    It is my impression that the benifits system is abused in the first case very little so their points on this seem a little pointless.
    Define abuse. I would consider a family living on welfare who buy themselves the latest football top (at £50 each) live off fast food and buy any 'luxuries' such as alcohol and cigarettes to be an abuse of my money if not technically the welfare system. I believe the system should be altered to prevent those who use it wasting money on such nonsense which I am not willing to provide for them.
    (Original post by Incomplete)
    On the 2nd case, would they like to suggest why benifits do they think are over the top and unnecessary.
    The welfare system should not be there to allow luxuries, it should be there to provide a 'safety net' which stops people becoming homeless and starving to death. As has been said previously i am quite happy to pay considerable taxes which are used to keep people in good housing, in good food and provide good education but i am not willing to pay for peoples petty addictions and wasteful dress sense - Should anyone wish to indulge in expensive clothing and tastes for alcohol etc they can get their own bloody job.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by an Siarach)
    It is unjust to expect other people to pay for your lifestyle and its consequences (such as children.) If the parents cannot afford children then the kids they have will live in poverty - what i am proposing is that they be given a proper home where they can enjoy healthy lives with their parents able to see them whenever they can until they have found work and can then afford their own children.
    It just isnt feasible. How many people are going to be willling to take in babies that they will love and help to grow knowing that they will be leaving to go back home. There is a shortage of foster homes as it is. And we would have to pay the foster families to help support the child so surely you'd be wasting more money.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by frost105)
    It just isnt feasible. How many people are going to be willling to take in babies that they will love and help to grow knowing that they will be leaving to go back home. There is a shortage of foster homes as it is. And we would have to pay the foster families to help support the child so surely you'd be wasting more money.
    You were the first to mention foster families, i was thinking more along the lines of a considerably large nursery. As to your statement regarding it being a waste of money to support the child :eek: what happened to our moral responsibility to ensure a decent standard of life?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by an Siarach)
    You were the first to mention foster families, i was thinking more along the lines of a considerably large nursery. As to your statement regarding it being a waste of money to support the child :eek: what happened to our moral responsibility to ensure a decent standard of life?
    State nurseries! Excellent! So no one-to-one care! It just isnt even feasible. You'd do more damage to the children and damage to the parent child bond. I think its a waste to take a child away from their parents and would be much happier to support children who were with their parents than a state nursery.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you like exams?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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.