Trash!

[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!

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.

Ok so should people out of work be allowed to buy alcohol and fast food and ciggies? End of the day they're wasting our money on luxuries, when they could be investing the money in trying to get themselves a job?

[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.

Ok so should people out of work be allowed to buy alcohol and fast food and ciggies? End of the day they're wasting our money on luxuries, when they could be investing the money in trying to get themselves a job?

Circular argument, but all of the above put money back into the tax system...

Maybe the different approach to the one I'm suggesting is that we give people a fixed benefit regardless of how many kids they have, and it's up to them to ensure that the number of kids they have are adequately catered for. As they're all allegedly very sensible folk, they would make the determination that ciggies and alcohol would have to go, otherwise the kids might be hungry.

Not in favour of that approach?

Thought not.

[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.

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.

No it isn't. If it was about improving the gene pool it would be 'eugenetics'. Eugenics is about improving the species, and that can be through social means as well as genetic. You're proposal doesn't work on a financial basis, you are making a decision on who gets to breed with the criteria of who deserves it, it is a moral quality. It's selective breeding, and it's for the idea of improving society, it's eugenics. That doesn't automatically mean it is pure evil. I'd suggest that I wouldn't be the only one who'd fit in at the Daily Racist since you seem to have lost the ability to disiguish between somebody saying these two examples share certain qualities, though one is a far extreme of the idea, and one is much more moderate, and somebody saying these two are exactly the SAME!

One of the principles why I find the Nazi ideas of eugenics utterly morally reprehensible is the same principle why I think your proposal crosses a line of what is, and what is not morally acceptable. I'm not saying they are the same thing. I wouldn't have you in my Channel 4 list of the top 100 bastards of all time, and I don't think you could kill a style of moustache just by it becoming associated with you. I do think your idea crosses a line of what is ok and what is not in society.

[Lord Kangana]

Eugenics wasn't invented by the Nazi's, nor was genocide, nor as many will know, concentration camps. We can discuss these things without recourse to the Germans, and we can discuss them legitimately and in context, because they are not isolated to one time and one belief, nor indeed to one place.

[Worthy4England]

Eugenics is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as the science of improving the (especially human) population by controlled breeding for desirable inheritable characteristics.

I read that as being genetic....

I am making no decision on who deserves to breed. I am saying that anyone who breeds should be prepared to take responsibility for the upbringing of their kids and that Society should expect that they do.

I'm sure that bringing kids into a world with no means to feed them is grossly negligent.

[Prufrock]

Eugenics is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as the science of improving the (especially human) population by controlled breeding for desirable inheritable characteristics.

I read that as being genetic....

I am making no decision on who deserves to breed. I am saying that anyone who breeds should be prepared to take responsibility for the upbringing of their kids and that Society should expect that they do.

I'm sure that bringing kids into a world with no means to feed them is grossly negligent.

You will find definitions that do not include the word inheritable. Even including the word, many characteristics that are inherited are not genetic. They are mimicry. Eugenics does not have to be genetic. This however is all semantics, and the reason I object isn't because I think what you are proposing is eugenics, as LK has said the Nazis didn't invent the idea, and as I have said many stand up people from history have believed in eugenics. The reason I object is because I think your idea takes the concept too far and in my opinion state sanctioned forced abortions and castrations are a small step along the path that ends in a final solution. The rest of your argument I don't find morally wrong, the ideas of financial penalties and cut or standardised benefits are ideas I disagree with, but don't think are objectionable or too far, I just don't think they are the best way forward. It's all education education education, innit?

[Worthy4England]

There's only you confusing the plan with the mention of Eugenics and/or Nazis. (Other than when Bish threw in a Godwin).

I'm more than happy to consider alternatives that don't go as far as castration/abortion if someone would like to propose such an alternative, that would solve the problem.

You disagree with the ultimate sanction (mind I don't think I threatened to have anyone shot), you disagree with standardised benefits/financial penalties - so maybe we set benefits equal to a maximum 2 adults and 2 kids worth, which I understand is still just about average family size. But basically you seem to agree with the status quo, plus some education? So professionally dropping half a dozen sprogs is fine.

I don't have any issues with education being part of the solution, but I think you have some views, that may not be correct, on how far some people want to be educated or want to work at the end of it, when there's a perfectly fine alternative that means you don't have to and you can improve the house you live in and amount of money the state will give you, for being part of a professional baby factory. It's only some of the real stupid ones that make the Sun.

I also think you under-estimate the problem. Having worked in plenty of pubs when I was a student, the problem was fairly endemic from the people I saw/knew..

[BWFC_Insane]

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.

Ok so should people out of work be allowed to buy alcohol and fast food and ciggies? End of the day they're wasting our money on luxuries, when they could be investing the money in trying to get themselves a job?

Circular argument, but all of the above put money back into the tax system...

Maybe the different approach to the one I'm suggesting is that we give people a fixed benefit regardless of how many kids they have, and it's up to them to ensure that the number of kids they have are adequately catered for. As they're all allegedly very sensible folk, they would make the determination that ciggies and alcohol would have to go, otherwise the kids might be hungry.

Not in favour of that approach?

Thought not.

Not saying I'm massively in favour of it, but certainly its a far better solution (if a solution is needed) to the previous ones in this thread!

[Prufrock]

There's only you confusing the plan with the mention of Eugenics and/or Nazis. (Other than when Bish threw in a Godwin).

I'm more than happy to consider alternatives that don't go as far as castration/abortion if someone would like to propose such an alternative, that would solve the problem.

You disagree with the ultimate sanction (mind I don't think I threatened to have anyone shot), you disagree with standardised benefits/financial penalties - so maybe we set benefits equal to a maximum 2 adults and 2 kids worth, which I understand is still just about average family size. But basically you seem to agree with the status quo, plus some education? So professionally dropping half a dozen sprogs is fine.

I don't have any issues with education being part of the solution, but I think you have some views, that may not be correct, on how far some people want to be educated or want to work at the end of it, when there's a perfectly fine alternative that means you don't have to and you can improve the house you live in and amount of money the state will give you, for being part of a professional baby factory. It's only some of the real stupid ones that make the Sun.

I also think you under-estimate the problem. Having worked in plenty of pubs when I was a student, the problem was fairly endemic from the people I saw/knew..

I haven't confused them, I have compared them, and indeed for balance, contrasted them. The law of Godwin doesn't mean that references to the Nazis and hitler are never relevant. There are enough points of contact IMO between your plan and the Nazi interpretation of eugenics to warrant a comparison. They aren't equal, as you say, you don't want to have anybody killed, but they share some characteristics. That said I think we should move away from that argument.

When we come to the argument concerning other solutions. As ever, I tend to favour incentives over penalties, I believe in most cases they work better. You say I underestimate the problem, I think you along with the tabloids overestimate it. I don't really think there are that many famillies out there with several kids no job and no intention of working. For the ones there are I really do think the best solution is education; would you swap your life with theirs? Would anyone with an average sized familly and even an poorly paid job actually swap with these families? There's a difference between grumbling they aren't paying their way and actually envying them. Educate folk that they're better off working and being more responsible with regards to how many kids they have. That to me seems to suit society much better.

[Worthy4England]

There's 4.8 million people of working age in "workless households".

The number of workless households is 3.3 million.

There's 10.7 million households with one or more people in work.

The number of children in workless households is 1.9 million. At that sort of level, we're going to need some much bigger schools to do all this education, because the ones we have aren't getting the message across.

The last Labour Force Survey, found that 75% of the economically inactive didn't want a job, compared with 25% that did.

I don't believe I'm underestimating the current problem.

Figures are all in and around here

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/StatBase/S ... 6&Btn.y=14

It's not about whether I would swap my life with theirs. They seem quite happy with theirs, otherwise they'd want a job to try and improve it. As getting a job would only maybe improve it marginally they'd rather sit at home on handouts.

Of course it would suit society to have them all working and not have to cough up and I'd be delighted for them if this were so. But if this bit of society is doesn't want to work, then something different needs to occur. What you are advocating is that society has norms - that people try to the best of their ability to contribute where they are able - we help them out when this doesn't occur, but if they just choose to not give a feck, then that's absolutely fine too, we just grin and give them handouts.

[thebish]

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.

twas just a little poke at hoboh's spelling, 'tis all! keep your worthy pants on!

[thebish]

There's only you confusing the plan with the mention of Eugenics and/or Nazis. (Other than when Bish threw in a Godwin).

and there was a good reason I did it!

[Worthy4England]

There's only you confusing the plan with the mention of Eugenics and/or Nazis. (Other than when Bish threw in a Godwin).

and there was a good reason I did it!

But we're just about to get to the interesting bit where we cut off the water supply and start smashing all the shop windows. Pru said so.

[Hoboh]

There's only you confusing the plan with the mention of Eugenics and/or Nazis. (Other than when Bish threw in a Godwin).

and there was a good reason I did it!

But we're just about to get to the interesting bit where we cut off the water supply and start smashing all the shop windows. Pru said so.

I'll make the ministry of justice lend you a couple of amoured trucks with water cannon, think they woud happily agree to be honest

[Prufrock]

There's 4.8 million people of working age in "workless households".

The number of workless households is 3.3 million.

There's 10.7 million households with one or more people in work.

The number of children in workless households is 1.9 million. At that sort of level, we're going to need some much bigger schools to do all this education, because the ones we have aren't getting the message across.

The last Labour Force Survey, found that 75% of the economically inactive didn't want a job, compared with 25% that did.

I don't believe I'm underestimating the current problem.

Figures are all in and around here

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/StatBase/S ... 6&Btn.y=14

It's not about whether I would swap my life with theirs. They seem quite happy with theirs, otherwise they'd want a job to try and improve it. As getting a job would only maybe improve it marginally they'd rather sit at home on handouts.

Of course it would suit society to have them all working and not have to cough up and I'd be delighted for them if this were so. But if this bit of society is doesn't want to work, then something different needs to occur. What you are advocating is that society has norms - that people try to the best of their ability to contribute where they are able - we help them out when this doesn't occur, but if they just choose to not give a feck, then that's absolutely fine too, we just grin and give them handouts.

That's not at all what I'm suggesting. The key questions for me are why are people not working, and how do we sort that.

Those statistics are irrelevant, economically inactive isn't the same as 'workless' households, if you are going off the same 2003 report as I am, and your 75%/25% divide would indicate you are, 35% of women not looking for a job (overall there are 74% of economically inactive women who 'don't want a job') don't want a job because they are housewives! That survey gives no indication whether or not they don't want a job because they look after their kids because their husband works and they don't need to! They aren't the people we are talking about, Tango's dodgers. I can't find any information on how many of those 4.8million in workless households aren't looking for a job, not because they are a students, or disabled, or caring for a familly, but because they can't be arsed.

Even of those people in workless households who answer do not want to work- reason: Other (ie just don't want a job), many will be people who can only find jobs where it isn't worth their working. I'm not suggesting the benefits system is perfect, but equally I don't think it needs root and branch overhaul, or more importantly, it needs anymore perjorative measures and rhetoric. It does need measures in some cases that mean the benefits system is, as I said, a second chance and not a way of life, I think we would both agree on that, we just differ on how big a problem it is, and how to solve it? I know people for whom it isn't economically worth it to take jobs they have been offered, the loss in benefits, council tax help, child benefits and tax credits is less than they would earn, this surely is not desirable. Now how do we sort that, do we cut benefits as seems to be one vocal section of society's point, or do we try to incentivise taking those jobs, allow a top up payment to people taking small hours jobs? The latter seems preferrable to me. What do you think happens if we cut the benefits of these people? THey aren't going to go away, they're going to be on our streets, in our hospitals. For these families we have to make working worth it, we don't do this by clampdowns and attack.

[Prufrock]

There's only you confusing the plan with the mention of Eugenics and/or Nazis. (Other than when Bish threw in a Godwin).

and there was a good reason I did it!

But we're just about to get to the interesting bit where we cut off the water supply and start smashing all the shop windows. Pru said so.

No he didn't. Not even nearly. Not even once.

[Worthy4England]

There's only you confusing the plan with the mention of Eugenics and/or Nazis. (Other than when Bish threw in a Godwin).

and there was a good reason I did it!

But we're just about to get to the interesting bit where we cut off the water supply and start smashing all the shop windows. Pru said so.

No he didn't. Not even nearly. Not even once.

[Worthy4England]

There's only you confusing the plan with the mention of Eugenics and/or Nazis. (Other than when Bish threw in a Godwin).

and there was a good reason I did it!

But we're just about to get to the interesting bit where we cut off the water supply and start smashing all the shop windows. Pru said so.

I'll make the ministry of justice lend you a couple of amoured trucks with water cannon, think they woud happily agree to be honest

Excellent, I assume the water cannon is in case any liberals turn up, so we can ensure they remain wet?

[Prufrock]

There's only you confusing the plan with the mention of Eugenics and/or Nazis. (Other than when Bish threw in a Godwin).

and there was a good reason I did it!

But we're just about to get to the interesting bit where we cut off the water supply and start smashing all the shop windows. Pru said so.

No he didn't. Not even nearly. Not even once.

[Hoboh]

There's 4.8 million people of working age in "workless households".

The number of workless households is 3.3 million.

There's 10.7 million households with one or more people in work.

The number of children in workless households is 1.9 million. At that sort of level, we're going to need some much bigger schools to do all this education, because the ones we have aren't getting the message across.

The last Labour Force Survey, found that 75% of the economically inactive didn't want a job, compared with 25% that did.

I don't believe I'm underestimating the current problem.

Figures are all in and around here

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/StatBase/S ... 6&Btn.y=14

It's not about whether I would swap my life with theirs. They seem quite happy with theirs, otherwise they'd want a job to try and improve it. As getting a job would only maybe improve it marginally they'd rather sit at home on handouts.

Of course it would suit society to have them all working and not have to cough up and I'd be delighted for them if this were so. But if this bit of society is doesn't want to work, then something different needs to occur. What you are advocating is that society has norms - that people try to the best of their ability to contribute where they are able - we help them out when this doesn't occur, but if they just choose to not give a feck, then that's absolutely fine too, we just grin and give them handouts.

That's not at all what I'm suggesting. The key questions for me are why are people not working, and how do we sort that.

Those statistics are irrelevant, economically inactive isn't the same as 'workless' households, if you are going off the same 2003 report as I am, and your 75%/25% divide would indicate you are, 35% of women not looking for a job (overall there are 74% of economically inactive women who 'don't want a job') don't want a job because they are housewives! That survey gives no indication whether or not they don't want a job because they look after their kids because their husband works and they don't need to! They aren't the people we are talking about, Tango's dodgers. I can't find any information on how many of those 4.8million in workless households aren't looking for a job, not because they are a students, or disabled, or caring for a familly, but because they can't be arsed.

Even of those people in workless households who answer do not want to work- reason: Other (ie just don't want a job), many will be people who can only find jobs where it isn't worth their working. I'm not suggesting the benefits system is perfect, but equally I don't think it needs root and branch overhaul, or more importantly, it needs anymore perjorative measures and rhetoric. It does need measures in some cases that mean the benefits system is, as I said, a second chance and not a way of life, I think we would both agree on that, we just differ on how big a problem it is, and how to solve it? I know people for whom it isn't economically worth it to take jobs they have been offered, the loss in benefits, council tax help, child benefits and tax credits is less than they would earn, this surely is not desirable. Now how do we sort that, do we cut benefits as seems to be one vocal section of society's point, or do we try to incentivise taking those jobs, allow a top up payment to people taking small hours jobs? The latter seems preferrable to me. What do you think happens if we cut the benefits of these people? THey aren't going to go away, they're going to be on our streets, in our hospitals. For these families we have to make working worth it, we don't do this by clampdowns and attack.

So you are happy to subsidise the big multinational companys employ folk? you know the ones that ruin the world etc etc