Trash!

[Worthy4England]

INCOMING!!!!!!!


http://thesun.mobi/thescottishsun/news/ ... html?mob=1

They've just been a bit unlucky...

It's only right that we should feel a little sorry for them and happily foot the bill.

What we should do is

1) To not use sources like the Sun that put a particular slant on a story like that.

2) Try to ensure we have a society where folk feel that they want to make a contribution rather than live off the state, but also one where people are properly supported when required.

3) Realise that for every story like that, there are hundreds of untold ones of folk who genuinely need support who don't get enough and as a result live truly miserable lives you wouldn't wish on your worst enemies.

I agree, pretty much with 1-3, you just missed out 4) what we should do about "serial shagging" on the State's tab?

[Bruce Rioja]

INCOMING!!!!!!!


http://thesun.mobi/thescottishsun/news/ ... html?mob=1

They've just been a bit unlucky...

It's only right that we should feel a little sorry for them and happily foot the bill.

What we should do is

1) To not use sources like the Sun that put a particular slant on a story like that.

2) Try to ensure we have a society where folk feel that they want to make a contribution rather than live off the state, but also one where people are properly supported when required.

3) Realise that for every story like that, there are hundreds of untold ones of folk who genuinely need support who don't get enough and as a result live truly miserable lives you wouldn't wish on your worst enemies.

That's all well and good, but these are scrounging bastards!!!

[thebish]

INCOMING!!!!!!!


http://thesun.mobi/thescottishsun/news/ ... html?mob=1

They've just been a bit unlucky...

It's only right that we should feel a little sorry for them and happily foot the bill.

I won't "happily" foot the bill - and I'm not sure anyone here has said they'd be "happy" to.

I would "grumpily" foot the bill in preference to your final solution....

nowt wrong with having stuff to be grumpy about.

[Worthy4England]

INCOMING!!!!!!!


http://thesun.mobi/thescottishsun/news/ ... html?mob=1

They've just been a bit unlucky...

It's only right that we should feel a little sorry for them and happily foot the bill.

I won't "happily" foot the bill - and I'm not sure anyone here has said they'd be "happy" to.

I would "grumpily" foot the bill in preference to your final solution....

nowt wrong with having stuff to be grumpy about.

Bloody bedwetting liberal.

I knew it wouldn't be long before it reconfirmed it's applicability.

They're taking the piss and need a slap.

[Hoboh]

Castation and steriliaztion! that'll teach them.
They were p*ss taking after 3 or four!

[Bruce Rioja]

Castation and steriliaztion! that'll teach them.

Teach them what?

[thebish]

Castation and steriliaztion! that'll teach them.

Teach them what?

reedin and rytin?

[Worthy4England]

Castation and steriliaztion! that'll teach them.

Teach them what?

reedin and rytin?

They already know all that.

From what others would have us believe, they all from hardworking families who all went to Oxbridge, have degrees as brain surgeons and just happened across hard times temporarily. During this small hiatus in their working lives, they somehow accidently managed to bring into the world 12 kids.

I've set up a group on Facebook for donations.

[Prufrock]

Or instead of going all Third Reich we could sort out a benefits system that is geared towards being a second chance, and getting people back into work, and not a way of life. I actually think despite what the tabloid mentalists would have you think for the most part it does that quite well. Of course there can always be tweaks made, especially if there are genuinley folk dossing about paying for twelve kids and a nice house off the state. As Bish says, I'm not sure any bedwetter is 'happy' to piss money away, it's just sometimes there are more important issues than just cost. What's that Freakonomics argument...something along the lines of if you took all the black people out of America then crime would go down, however that isn't a sufficient argument for doing it, there are other factors. The state not being insane is, for me, one of those other factors.

[BWFC_Insane]

Or instead of going all Third Reich we could sort out a benefits system that is geared towards being a second chance, and getting people back into work, and not a way of life. I actually think despite what the tabloid mentalists would have you think for the most part it does that quite well. Of course there can always be tweaks made, especially if there are genuinley folk dossing about paying for twelve kids and a nice house off the state. As Bish says, I'm not sure any bedwetter is 'happy' to piss money away, it's just sometimes there are more important issues than just cost. What's that Freakonomics argument...something along the lines of if you took all the black people out of America then crime would go down, however that isn't a sufficient argument for doing it, there are other factors. The state not being insane is, for me, one of those other factors.

Yep and also this notion of taxpayers paying into a pot like its "their own personal pot to piss in how they want" is also to me complete nonsense.

We pay tax to support the country and society as a whole. Some of the resources we provide will go to folk you personally don't want it to.

But hey I imagine there are plenty of people out there who don't think "hooligan football fans" like us lot on here deserve anything.

I know people who don't think smokers, drinkers and binge eaters should be treated at the tax-payers expense on the NHS. And that case is JUST as compelling as saying folk who have lots of kids.

Same goes for those involved in accidents where they've broken the speed limit....You could go on and on saying they should get nowt from the taxpayer.

But once you go down that route you very quickly arrive at the trailer parks and projects of the good old USA and possibly worse!

A line of course must be drawn somewhere but I rather feel like Pru says that we're not doing too badly as it is.

[Worthy4England]

Still out in Third Reich land? I'm surprised the word cavemen hasn't been thrown into the mix for good effect too.

I agree that the route to all of this is to get the benefits system sorted out (along with any marginal tax issues that would create).

Once we've done that, and got the system sorted out, I assume we can then start to castrate the people that are left, still taking the piss?

[Worthy4England]

Or instead of going all Third Reich we could sort out a benefits system that is geared towards being a second chance, and getting people back into work, and not a way of life. I actually think despite what the tabloid mentalists would have you think for the most part it does that quite well. Of course there can always be tweaks made, especially if there are genuinley folk dossing about paying for twelve kids and a nice house off the state. As Bish says, I'm not sure any bedwetter is 'happy' to piss money away, it's just sometimes there are more important issues than just cost. What's that Freakonomics argument...something along the lines of if you took all the black people out of America then crime would go down, however that isn't a sufficient argument for doing it, there are other factors. The state not being insane is, for me, one of those other factors.

Yep and also this notion of taxpayers paying into a pot like its "their own personal pot to piss in how they want" is also to me complete nonsense.

We pay tax to support the country and society as a whole. Some of the resources we provide will go to folk you personally don't want it to.

But hey I imagine there are plenty of people out there who don't think "hooligan football fans" like us lot on here deserve anything.

I know people who don't think smokers, drinkers and binge eaters should be treated at the tax-payers expense on the NHS. And that case is JUST as compelling as saying folk who have lots of kids.

Same goes for those involved in accidents where they've broken the speed limit....You could go on and on saying they should get nowt from the taxpayer.

But once you go down that route you very quickly arrive at the trailer parks and projects of the good old USA and possibly worse!

A line of course must be drawn somewhere but I rather feel like Pru says that we're not doing too badly as it is.

The difference between smoking, drinking and binge eating is that they all contribute tax.

Are you suggesting we should have a shagging tax to equalize that side of the equation?

[BWFC_Insane]

Or instead of going all Third Reich we could sort out a benefits system that is geared towards being a second chance, and getting people back into work, and not a way of life. I actually think despite what the tabloid mentalists would have you think for the most part it does that quite well. Of course there can always be tweaks made, especially if there are genuinley folk dossing about paying for twelve kids and a nice house off the state. As Bish says, I'm not sure any bedwetter is 'happy' to piss money away, it's just sometimes there are more important issues than just cost. What's that Freakonomics argument...something along the lines of if you took all the black people out of America then crime would go down, however that isn't a sufficient argument for doing it, there are other factors. The state not being insane is, for me, one of those other factors.

Yep and also this notion of taxpayers paying into a pot like its "their own personal pot to piss in how they want" is also to me complete nonsense.

We pay tax to support the country and society as a whole. Some of the resources we provide will go to folk you personally don't want it to.

But hey I imagine there are plenty of people out there who don't think "hooligan football fans" like us lot on here deserve anything.

I know people who don't think smokers, drinkers and binge eaters should be treated at the tax-payers expense on the NHS. And that case is JUST as compelling as saying folk who have lots of kids.

Same goes for those involved in accidents where they've broken the speed limit....You could go on and on saying they should get nowt from the taxpayer.

But once you go down that route you very quickly arrive at the trailer parks and projects of the good old USA and possibly worse!

A line of course must be drawn somewhere but I rather feel like Pru says that we're not doing too badly as it is.

The difference between smoking, drinking and binge eating is that they all contribute tax.

Are you suggesting we should have a shagging tax to equalize that side of the equation?

They do but it all comes out of the same pot.

So say there is someone who has never worked. But legitimately buys and smokes 40 a day, but never needs any NHS treatment.

Can they have a child on the state as they've paid for it through ciggies?

Thats simply not how tax systems work. It isn't, we've put in and you haven't so you can't have. Its everyone who contributes does so on the basis that the collective pot is used as the government/law/policy dictates.

[Worthy4England]

They do but it all comes out of the same pot.

So say there is someone who has never worked. But legitimately buys and smokes 40 a day, but never needs any NHS treatment.

Can they have a child on the state as they've paid for it through ciggies?

Thats simply not how tax systems work. It isn't, we've put in and you haven't so you can't have. Its everyone who contributes does so on the basis that the collective pot is used as the government/law/policy dictates.

No, because if they've never worked, they aren't paying for their ciggies. We are.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

They do but it all comes out of the same pot.

So say there is someone who has never worked. But legitimately buys and smokes 40 a day, but never needs any NHS treatment.

Can they have a child on the state as they've paid for it through ciggies?

Thats simply not how tax systems work. It isn't, we've put in and you haven't so you can't have. Its everyone who contributes does so on the basis that the collective pot is used as the government/law/policy dictates.

No, because if they've never worked, they aren't paying for their ciggies. We are.

[Prufrock]

Still out in Third Reich land? I'm surprised the word cavemen hasn't been thrown into the mix for good effect too.

I agree that the route to all of this is to get the benefits system sorted out (along with any marginal tax issues that would create).

Once we've done that, and got the system sorted out, I assume we can then start to castrate the people that are left, still taking the piss?

I don't think it's melodramatic in this instance. Your proposal isn't a financial one, it isn't a utalitarian idea to save money, as you have said you would have no problem in the state paying for the kids of people who do work properly but cannot afford kids on this wage. You are making a moral distinction between those who are designated 'deserving' to have kids and and those who are not; it's dressed up eugenics. Now of course there are good people who have believed in the principles of eugenics, but where a moral line is crossed is when the state tries to force it with barbaric practices such as forced abortions and castrations. I think there are direct parallels between this idea and the idea of the master race. Of course the concept of a master race and the final solution are the far extremes of this line of thinking, and I'm not for a second comparing you to Hitler, but it is the same line of thinking, and I think it's a valid comparison here. A moral decision on who is allowed to have kids, or in your proposal more accurately who isn't allowed to have kids is in my opinion wrong.

EDIT: To clarify, this post is meant as a defence of why the Third Reich comment isn't melodramatic. Hyperbolic, certainly, but, I think, relevant.

[Lord Kangana]

At the risk of repeating myself, David Attenborough was talking on the radio a while ago about population growth, and he said there was conclusive proof that significant investment in education, healthcare etc etc etc leads to lower birthrates (and amongst the poor and all that jazz etc).

So, now we're stuck in yet another Daily Mail infinite irony loop, because all the evidence to hand suggests that investing our taxes in the very people who you propose not to is actually a more effective way of tackling this problem. I'd hate to see the birth rate in this country if it wasn't the way it is, I think some on here would spontaneously combust.

[BWFC_Insane]

They do but it all comes out of the same pot.

So say there is someone who has never worked. But legitimately buys and smokes 40 a day, but never needs any NHS treatment.

Can they have a child on the state as they've paid for it through ciggies?

Thats simply not how tax systems work. It isn't, we've put in and you haven't so you can't have. Its everyone who contributes does so on the basis that the collective pot is used as the government/law/policy dictates.

No, because if they've never worked, they aren't paying for their ciggies. We are.

But that comes back to the central point I'm making.

Tax isn't some pensions fund, you WILL always be supporting some folk who aren't paying tax.

Thats the nature of it.

If you can't accept that then I doubt many Western societies are really for you!

[Worthy4England]

Still out in Third Reich land? I'm surprised the word cavemen hasn't been thrown into the mix for good effect too.

I agree that the route to all of this is to get the benefits system sorted out (along with any marginal tax issues that would create).

Once we've done that, and got the system sorted out, I assume we can then start to castrate the people that are left, still taking the piss?

I don't think it's melodramatic in this instance. Your proposal isn't a financial one, it isn't a utalitarian idea to save money, as you have said you would have no problem in the state paying for the kids of people who do work properly but cannot afford kids on this wage. You are making a moral distinction between those who are designated 'deserving' to have kids and and those who are not; it's dressed up eugenics. Now of course there are good people who have believed in the principles of eugenics, but where a moral line is crossed is when the state tries to force it with barbaric practices such as forced abortions and castrations. I think there are direct parallels between this idea and the idea of the master race. Of course the concept of a master race and the final solution are the far extremes of this line of thinking, and I'm not for a second comparing you to Hitler, but it is the same line of thinking, and I think it's a valid comparison here. A moral decision on who is allowed to have kids, or in your proposal more accurately who isn't allowed to have kids is in my opinion wrong.

EDIT: To clarify, this post is meant as a defence of why the Third Reich comment isn't melodramatic. Hyperbolic, certainly, but, I think, relevant.

I'm glad you've added to your hyperbole with more hyperbole.

Eugenics is all about improving the gene pool. I'm suggesting no such thing.

Third Reich and Eugenics all in the same post, regarding whether people should be allowed to breed and expect that the taxpayer foots the bill.

I'd scrap the House of Commons idea and send your CV into the Daily Mail.

[Worthy4England]

They do but it all comes out of the same pot.

So say there is someone who has never worked. But legitimately buys and smokes 40 a day, but never needs any NHS treatment.

Can they have a child on the state as they've paid for it through ciggies?

Thats simply not how tax systems work. It isn't, we've put in and you haven't so you can't have. Its everyone who contributes does so on the basis that the collective pot is used as the government/law/policy dictates.

No, because if they've never worked, they aren't paying for their ciggies. We are.

But that comes back to the central point I'm making.

Tax isn't some pensions fund, you WILL always be supporting some folk who aren't paying tax.

Thats the nature of it.

If you can't accept that then I doubt many Western societies are really for you!

I'm happy to support people not paying tax. That's part of what a welfare state is about. I wouldn't be happy if we bought them all cars to make them more mobile and able to get into work. There isn't any state "requirement" that everyone has X amount of kids, so they're getting a benefit to which they shouldn't be entitled.