b3ta.com board
You are not logged in. Login or Signup
Home » Messageboard » XXX » Message 10905579 (Thread)

# I don't see how people on £50k need child benefit.
I rather subscribe to the idea that if you can't feed them, you shouldn't have them.
(I helped save b3ta! Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Wed 9 Jan 2013, 11:05, archived)
# If you can't afford food for the second child, feed it the first one.
(I helped save b3ta! drimble he'd been white, he'd been black, Wed 9 Jan 2013, 11:12, archived)
# Or sell it.
(I helped save b3ta! Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Wed 9 Jan 2013, 11:23, archived)
# To the local butcher.
(I helped save b3ta! drimble he'd been white, he'd been black, Wed 9 Jan 2013, 11:28, archived)
# UR Jonathan Swift
AICMFP
(SnowyTheWereRabbit the Leporid from Hell, Wed 9 Jan 2013, 13:06, archived)
# Yes,
because people's circumstances *never* change after they've had children. No one's ever lost a job or got ill or anything.

Note: I'm not particularly against cutting benefit for high earners, though not sure if this one's been done right. Afaict, a household with two people earning 49k don't lose anything, but a single parent earning 50k does?
(I helped save b3ta! FridgeBadger, Wed 9 Jan 2013, 12:18, archived)
# Oh sure - if a parent loses a job then help them - like JSA, but it shouldn't be mandatory.
Particularly if the household has a £50k+ earner in it.
(I helped save b3ta! Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Wed 9 Jan 2013, 12:31, archived)
# there's something like:
if one person earns x they have their benefits cut...
but if two people both earning over x/2 will be fine...

I think.
(likeajackhammer, Wed 9 Jan 2013, 12:36, archived)
# and what would you do with the children born to people who cant afford to feed them?
workhouses perhaps?
(benito vaselini no not that one, Wed 9 Jan 2013, 11:45, archived)
#
Merry Christmas
(I helped save b3ta! drimble he'd been white, he'd been black, Wed 9 Jan 2013, 11:51, archived)
# Good call! Tell your local representative =)
(macroscian (1 like), Wed 9 Jan 2013, 11:51, archived)
# sausages and bacon
(I helped save b3ta! boris the spider, Wed 9 Jan 2013, 11:52, archived)
# If they can't afford to feed them, then abort.
It's pretty simple. Having a baby in the UK is a choice, not a right or an obligation.
(I helped save b3ta! Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Wed 9 Jan 2013, 11:56, archived)
# A choice, quite right.
And what about the women who choose to have a baby regardless of their financial circumstances? Presumably the state steps in at that point, removes their choice, and forces them kicking and screaming to terminate their pregnancy.
(benito vaselini no not that one, Wed 9 Jan 2013, 12:36, archived)
# if someone thinks they can put a solution to a problem like this into one sentence,
they haven't thought it through, or is a fucking spastic
(likeajackhammer, Wed 9 Jan 2013, 12:38, archived)
# A little from column A, and a little from column B ...
(I helped save b3ta! Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Wed 9 Jan 2013, 12:47, archived)
# get some Nigerian pop stars to adopt them
(I helped save b3ta! Mighty Nibus who dares gins | @nibus, Wed 9 Jan 2013, 11:57, archived)
# For me the issue is that, until this development, child benefit was a universal entitlement.
Based not on need, but in recognition of the societal benefit that parents deliver in raising the next generation of taxpayers, and generally to support that activity.

There's a school of thought that believes that this is the thin end of the wedge, and that once universal entitlements such as this start getting eroded, it's only a matter of time before people start asking questions like "well why should healthcare and education be free to all as well?.
(I helped save b3ta! barryheadwound Mul-ti-pass? Multipass!, Wed 9 Jan 2013, 12:00, archived)
# they aren't free, we pay taxes to cover healthcare and education
I don't have kids, so I'd rather the money I pay for other peoples went to the more deserving ones. (Jeez I sound like some kind of Daily mail nutjob now)
(I helped save b3ta! HappyToast Groat froth, Wed 9 Jan 2013, 12:05, archived)
# It's hard to get into this topic without finding yourself boxed more and more into an extreme position.
It's definitely off my list for "appropriate discussion topics when beer is involved" after a particular incident where a mate and I almost came to blows having found ourselves getting more and more polarised as what started out as a pretty amiable and abstract discussion went on.
(I helped save b3ta! barryheadwound Mul-ti-pass? Multipass!, Wed 9 Jan 2013, 12:20, archived)
# Yes.
Considering how many people take absolute advantage of the NHS, and don't contribute, I'm starting to think that maybe healthcare shouldn't be FAPOD either.

As for education - that I do think the state should provide.

But as for children - nah. You choose to have them, you pay for them until they can pay and contribute financially for themselves.

The old have already paid.
(I helped save b3ta! Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Wed 9 Jan 2013, 12:05, archived)
# I think this is rubbish.
Children aren't a luxury commodity, like pets, for rich people. They are people and are valuable in themselves.
(I helped save b3ta! Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Wed 9 Jan 2013, 12:35, archived)
# No no. They are a luxury commodity.
You don't need them; they're a lifestyle choice.

I don't expect the state to pick up the tab for my liver.
(I helped save b3ta! Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Wed 9 Jan 2013, 12:49, archived)
# They are not a commodity, let alone a luxury one.
They are PEOPLE. Children have a right to exist for their own sake, as individuals, not for their parents' sake. They are not objects, or items of property.
(I helped save b3ta! Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Wed 9 Jan 2013, 12:54, archived)
# And anyway we DO need them,
or humanity would die out. Actually, NOT having children is a luxury.
(I helped save b3ta! Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Wed 9 Jan 2013, 13:01, archived)
# We can but hope.
(I helped save b3ta! Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Wed 9 Jan 2013, 13:08, archived)
# Yes, but you don't have to have them. There are all sorts of birth control methods available now.
You CHOOSE to have children, in which case, you should pay for them.
(I helped save b3ta! Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Wed 9 Jan 2013, 13:08, archived)
# No you choose NOT to have children,
Ever noticed how it tends to be the more well off people in developed countries who choose to have fewer children, and leave it later in life? Because they are a major lifestyle/career inconvenience, even though it is necessary for the continuation of society.

Anyone who has children purely as a "lifestyle choice" is in for a big fucking shock.

(I helped save b3ta! Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Wed 9 Jan 2013, 13:12, archived)
# A girl I went to school with had a kid a year later purely so she'd get moved up the council house list.
Not the best of reasons, perhaps. She's not worked since because, apparently, child care costs more than she'd make working the same number of hours.
(I helped save b3ta! drimble he'd been white, he'd been black, Wed 9 Jan 2013, 13:18, archived)
# Yeah I can believe that.
I wouldn't want to be in her shoes, that's for sure.
(I helped save b3ta! Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Wed 9 Jan 2013, 13:23, archived)
# she'll get £20 a week for it in child benefit, wowzers.
do you know you can get paid £150 a week or more to foster a child? So if that kid got taken into care and rehomed, some middle class family could get paid more than the kid's own mum. In fact £150 a week was more than I got paid in my first job.
(I helped save b3ta! Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Wed 9 Jan 2013, 13:34, archived)
# Well, plus her rent paid and her unemployment benefit and all her medical and dental care, free prescriptions and glasses, yes.
(I helped save b3ta! Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Wed 9 Jan 2013, 13:37, archived)
# yes but those things are for those things.
also you don't get free dental care or glasses when you're on the dole.
(I helped save b3ta! Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Wed 9 Jan 2013, 13:42, archived)
#
I'm on the dole and I get free dental care, free eye tests and a voucher towards glasses. I can get free glasses if i want the jarvis cocker nhs style ones.
(I helped save b3ta! quackpipe swings like a pendulum do, Wed 9 Jan 2013, 20:49, archived)
# So parents get paid more to live apart than they would to be married and kids will be better provided for if they don't live with their natural parents?
Hey, who says the nuclear family is dead?
(I helped save b3ta! drimble he'd been white, he'd been black, Wed 9 Jan 2013, 13:51, archived)
# The nuclear family was always a con,
it was only ever a stepping stone between the traditional extended family and Aldous Huxley's dystopian nightmare.

I didn't even get paid £150 a week in my first job.
(I helped save b3ta! Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Wed 9 Jan 2013, 14:02, archived)
# Oh, sorry - I thought we were on about the UK, since the post is about the UK.
In the UK it's a lifestyle choice to have children, and should therefore only have them if you can pay for them.
(I helped save b3ta! Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Wed 9 Jan 2013, 13:35, archived)
# The UK is a developed country last I checked.
It's not a lifestyle choice unless you are a fucking moron. If you are going to treat your children like fashion accessories then frankly they should be taken away from you no matter you can afford them or not.
(I helped save b3ta! Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Wed 9 Jan 2013, 13:41, archived)
# It IS a lifestyle choice.
You don't NEED to have children, you CHOOSE to, for the lifestyle - whether that's for them to look after you in your old age, or to see their little faces when you buy them Christmas presents, or just because the house feels so big and empty.

It's a lifestyle choice.
(I helped save b3ta! Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Wed 9 Jan 2013, 13:53, archived)
# Are you really incapable of conceiving of the idea
of doing something for somebody else's sake instead of your own?

Are you incapable of understanding that, given that having children is necessary for the survival of humanity, it is an IMPERATIVE that people do it?

Nobody but the pathologically vain or emotionally crippled have children for any of the reasons you stated.
(I helped save b3ta! Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Wed 9 Jan 2013, 13:59, archived)
# Not really, no. Everyone's entirely selfish (Dawkins' Selfish Gene and all that).
I'm not too fond of humanity as it is, particularly people who breed and can't afford to support their own offspring, and particularly particularly those who whine that it's all so unfair that they're not receiving child benefit any more, despite the fact that they're on £50k pa and regularly take said fucking spawn to the pub.

People should not have kids unless they can guarantee they won't impact on anyone else's life unrequested.
(I helped save b3ta! Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Wed 9 Jan 2013, 14:08, archived)
# Have you actually read The Selfish Gene?
Because it doesn't say what you just said. At all.

Selfish genes do not equal selfish people. That's actually the entire point of the book - how altruistic tendencies evolved.
(I helped save b3ta! Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Wed 9 Jan 2013, 14:11, archived)
# Altruism doesn't negate the selfishness of procreation.
... and it also doesn't even mention "Children Welcome" signs on pubs.
(I helped save b3ta! Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Wed 9 Jan 2013, 14:14, archived)
# Procreation isn't selfish, you numpty,
it is the creation of other people, at your own personal expense.

But I see where you're coming from now. You're the worst sort of misanthropist. A petty one.
(I helped save b3ta! Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Wed 9 Jan 2013, 14:16, archived)
# Procreation isn't selfish?!
It's the reproduction of yourself, to satisfy your own ego, and meet your own ends, at the expense of others.

That's pretty selfish, in my book.

You numpty DUMPTY.
(I helped save b3ta! Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Wed 9 Jan 2013, 14:20, archived)
# Of course it isn't selfish.
Your offspring will be competing with you for resources. That's why selfish people hold off for the sake of their careers. It's not at the expense of others, it's an investment for the future of the whole of society, which couldn't continue to function without it. People who spend their whole lives accumulating wealth and not looking after children, or indeed anybody else, they are the selfish ones.

Nobody procreates to satisfy their own egos and meet their own ends. I don't know why I should have to repeat this. Maybe that's why you do everything you do. In which case you fail at humanity.
(I helped save b3ta! Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Wed 9 Jan 2013, 14:24, archived)
# "Nobody procreates to satisfy their own egos and meet their own ends."
Absolute nonsense. That's exactly why people (in the UK) procreate.

Of course, many try to dress it up with all sorts of pretentiousness, but that's the root cause.

That's why people breed instead of adopt, and have IVF treatment.

"Because it's different when it's your own."

Of course it is - you have a vested (ie selfish) interest in it.
(I helped save b3ta! Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Wed 9 Jan 2013, 14:30, archived)
# If nobody bred, there'd be nobody TO adopt.
To suggest that selfishness is the root cause of procreation is nothing short of absurdity. The root cause is a natural drive that we now have the intellectual ability to subvert, which is done for selfish reasons such as careers, social life etc..

There's nothing pretentious in saying that by having children, you are playing a part in the creation of the next generation, because that is exactly what you are doing. Sadly we are encouraged these days to try to think up a "what's in it for me" style justification for absolutely everything.

Sometimes the IVF thing does irk me when there are babies wanting adoption. But how is there a vested interest in bringing up "your own" child over somebody else's? What actual practical difference would it make? It's the child that stands to gain, not yourself. They might have your genes, but they don't carry on your ego. There might be "selfish gene" work going on here but "selfish gene" is nothing more than the provocative title of a book. A gene can't be selfish because it doesn't have a sense of self. It's ultimately an irrational, instinctive thing, not the "rational self-interest" of Homo Economicus.
(I helped save b3ta! Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Wed 9 Jan 2013, 14:45, archived)
# "The root cause is a natural drive"
Yes. Procreation of the self.

It's OK - everyone's selfish.
(I helped save b3ta! Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Wed 9 Jan 2013, 14:59, archived)
# NO, NO, NO.
It isn't procreation of the SELF. It is procreation of your genes - well, HALF of your genes (and half of your partner's). Your baby is not YOU. Your genes are not you. Genes do not have a "self". Even a pair of identical twins is still two individuals.

It's a natural drive, which means it doesn't have a conscious, selfish reason such as "so that they will look after me in my old age." These things are post-rationalisations. The truth is, when someone knows they want kids, they don't know why. They just do. It's way beyond the scope of the ego. It's NOT having children that is a conscious decision, that people make for selfish, egotistical reasons such as "career".

Everyone is NOT SELFISH. Maybe you should read The Selfish Gene. It explains why.
(I helped save b3ta! Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Wed 9 Jan 2013, 15:06, archived)
# No, it's not the self, but the drive behind it is of the self.
So it's selfish.

"The truth is, when someone knows they want kids, they don't know why".

Which is why I'm providing this rather wonderful elucidation. I'm telling you why - because they're selfish. It's because they want them.

Like I want a threesome with Natalie Portman and Scarlett Johanssen. I don't need one; I just want one.

It's done (in the UK) because people are that shallow, their lives that empty, and their relationships that fragile that they think having a kid will fulfil them. It also provides the parent with someone utterly dependent on them.

It's all me, me, me. Of course - as you point out, many are unaware of this; many try to disguise this intention, but it's the root.

MINE. ME.

"im not a vilent man but i swer eny1 goes near my dauter an ill do time"
(I helped save b3ta! Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Wed 9 Jan 2013, 15:25, archived)
# I'm still trying to decide whether this is some kind of spectacular trolling or these are all your genuine opinions.
I really hope the former.
(I helped save b3ta! drimble he'd been white, he'd been black, Wed 9 Jan 2013, 15:35, archived)
# No the drive behind it
is to the genes. Drives have no awareness of self. Even insects have this drive. Even ants, who sacrifice their own lives without thought for the sake of the nest.

Because "they want them" isn't any kind of answer. It's practically tautologous. WHY do they want them? That's the question. I can see why people want NOT to have them. It's because they know how it will affect their careers, their social lives, their sex lives. All conscious, selfish reasons. A reason really has to be conscious to be selfish, because the self is the conscious.

You seem to be hung up on this kind of selfishness dogma. Maybe you are aware that you are selfish and you are trying to save face. Yes, we all are, to a degree, but that doesn't mean it is the only motivation for anything. It's hard to admit, but sometimes we just don't know why we do things. That's why we invented the meaningless word "want".
(I helped save b3ta! Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Wed 9 Jan 2013, 15:36, archived)
# They want them ...
because they're selfish.

"They just do"/"Because it's different when they're your own."

"Yes, we all are, to a degree" - not to a degree, entirely. Of the self. Me. All of us. Nothing - charity, philanthropy, helping others is done without some at least hope of reward - whether that's money, self satisfaction, feeling smug, or the chance of being a sanctimonious prick.
(I helped save b3ta! Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Wed 9 Jan 2013, 15:41, archived)
# DOGMA
(I helped save b3ta! Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Wed 9 Jan 2013, 15:49, archived)
# JAY AND SILENT BOB STRIKE BACK
(I helped save b3ta! Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Wed 9 Jan 2013, 15:54, archived)
# p.s. side of screen
end of discussion. Or start a new thread somewhere.
(I helped save b3ta! Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Wed 9 Jan 2013, 15:37, archived)
# You should try this on 800 by 600! I get so far down the thread and reopen it, I have 4 tabs open so far! ;-)
(The invisable man Is having a long lazy soak in search, Wed 9 Jan 2013, 16:39, archived)
# That's pretty cold :(
(I helped save b3ta! drimble he'd been white, he'd been black, Wed 9 Jan 2013, 14:21, archived)
# And parents have a responsibility to provide for their children.
It's not as simple as just a universal right to reproduce willy-nilly.
(I helped save b3ta! joefish It's hard for thee to kick against the pricks, Wed 9 Jan 2013, 12:51, archived)
# They do, true,
as you say down there, benefits for up to maybe 3 children, fair enough. Rich people tend to have fewer children anyway, for whatever reason.
(I helped save b3ta! Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Wed 9 Jan 2013, 12:55, archived)
# I see the NHS as a sort of universal insurance for anyone who may need it.
So it annoys me that things like Dental care, even on the NHS, still costs me for a check-up.

If child benefit is for society, then I think it shouldn't be paid for more than three children.

I can see it shouldn't be too harsh to take it away from high earners; just a bit pathetic that they can't determine joint income for a household.
(I helped save b3ta! joefish It's hard for thee to kick against the pricks, Wed 9 Jan 2013, 12:41, archived)
# the Fabian strategy
where politicians look like they're doing something though most people think they're doing nothing - but they're actually doing something else, then before you know it, SHARIA LAW, DEATHCAMPS and MANDATORY CELINE DION
(I helped save b3ta! Mighty Nibus who dares gins | @nibus, Wed 9 Jan 2013, 12:06, archived)
# Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo...
not sealion dion, won't somebody think of the children?
(I helped save b3ta! Thor_sonofodin has done things, terrible things on, Wed 9 Jan 2013, 12:21, archived)
# Nobody thinks of the children now Savile is dead
(I helped save b3ta! Mighty Nibus who dares gins | @nibus, Wed 9 Jan 2013, 12:26, archived)
# hahaha
that reminds me of what dara o'brien said on star gazing LIVE last night when they had K9 on doing a mini quiz section.

"K9 the only TV star from the 70's you safely book on the BBC".
(I helped save b3ta! Thor_sonofodin has done things, terrible things on, Wed 9 Jan 2013, 12:30, archived)
# Haha!
(I helped save b3ta! drimble he'd been white, he'd been black, Wed 9 Jan 2013, 12:42, archived)
# That sounds AWESOME!
(I helped save b3ta! Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Wed 9 Jan 2013, 12:30, archived)
# they were only introduced after WWII
because of the number of children suddenly without fathers.
(I helped save b3ta! Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Wed 9 Jan 2013, 12:30, archived)
# they don't need it
but ensuring everyone in society feels the benefits of there being a welfare state means that support for the system is maintained.

This is the real reason they want to be rid of a universal benefit, as once the noisy middle classes stop receiving it, cutting it for the needy becomes much simpler and quieter.
(I helped save b3ta! Pootle, Wed 9 Jan 2013, 12:35, archived)
# ^this
Sadly, ^this.
(MrCanoehead Marzipaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan!, Wed 9 Jan 2013, 13:28, archived)
# Ooh, insidious.
I hadn't thought of it like that.
(EvilTerran rearranged his letters on, Wed 9 Jan 2013, 13:44, archived)