Poor people shouldn't have more than two kids?

Zombienosh

Amanda Craig, the British novelist, says the Coalition Government should ban 'poor' people from having more than two children, to help save the environment.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/booknews/7962125/Author-Amanda-Craig-calls-for-two-child-limit-for-the-poor.html

"Those who work and pay taxes have to consider very carefully the number of children they have. Most stop at two. Why should those on benefits be any different?"

What do you think about this?

PeterIanStaker

She'd probably be the first to get on her high horse and give out about China.

King Felix

Nobody should have more than two kids.

Two adults, two kids. Zero population growth.

landsleaving

Her pictire is brilliant. Absolutely hilarious. The low resolution is great as well, must be the only photo they could find of her. Its as if she's telling the photographer 'I'm mental! Look at me! This is gonna be on my facebook!'

SV

She's right, of course.

Fighting Irish

Take away the child allowance from everybody, that would solve the mess

sensibleken

Bloody oiks! populating our green and pleasant land with their hoodies and sooty faces!

A burberry cap never buttered a parsnip dont you know

triseke

wow her picture makes her look like she's insane.

RobbieTheRobber

I think its some bored housewives fantasy about wanting a third child but now her womb is barren.
So instead to make herself feel better she picks on the current hot topic in british tabloid life which is benefits.

The most amazing thing about this story is that it was reported on a website for a major enough news publication

The second most amazing thing is that someone else wants peoples opinion on lazy journalism

Donkey Oaty

Most people I know become poor after they have the kids.

evercloserunion

From the article:

Craig, 50, who was educated at Bedales School, has written in the past about how much she would have liked a third child. "To have had one when we first became a couple would have been the end of our relationship, but, by the time we could afford a baby, I was too old to have more than two," she said.

That's it then. If crazy menopause lady can't have kids, no one can.

nachoman

Makes sense.

Plug

DNA results!

Well well well, you ARE the child's biology father!

BASTARD:(

dlofnep

Is this communist China we live in, or the free world?

Handsome Bob

It's a shame that she didn't mention how exactly she expects the British Government to implement her fine policy suggestion.

Schism

Ridiculous suggestion, will be disregarded swiftly.

RobbieTheRobber

LZ5by5 wrote: »

It's a shame that she didn't mention how exactly she expects the British Government to implement her fine policy suggestion.

Its shame the whole article isnt more than just a headline really

landsleaving

dlofnep wrote: »

Is this communist China we live in, or the free world?

部重傷的18歲港人梁頌學，醫護人員小心翼翼自醫療專機將梁頌學搬運至救護車，歷時二十多分鐘，救護車剛關上車門，在警車開路下移送梁頌學至屯門醫院

Zombienosh

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

Most people I know become poor after they have the kids.

This is true.

stovelid

Some truth in it. Less children means less chance of them becoming Fianna Fail minsters, bank executives or property developers.

flyton5

Free sterilisation for all...or compulsory marriage...put a stop to this "unmarried mothers situation". And bring back work houses for the children who cant afford to be kept....

syklops

Im amazed at this thread so far. Every second day there is a thread giving out about social welfare scroungers, a british woman has an idea to cut down on the cost of them, and suddenly AH is up in arms about it.

I'm assuming the phrase "poor people" refers to long term unemployed on benefits, a problem both the UK and Ireland have in common.

Also, bear in mind that this is the Telegraph. Or Daily Mail lite, as I call it.

OldNotWIse

dlofnep wrote: »

Is this communist China we live in, or the free world?

It's not "free" for the taxpayers who have to foot the social welfare bill

Schism

OldNotWIse wrote: »

It's not "free" for the taxpayers who have to foot the social welfare bill

If there were less people on social welfare do you really think you'd be paying less tax?

Chuchoter

Personally, even though the one child policy offends our PC western sensibilities, China is doing more for the environment with it than any of our stupid recycling. I would fully support an enforced 2 child policy for all countries and all people.

PeterIanStaker

should get Jeremy Kyle to sort it out once and for all.

--Kaiser--

She shouldn't be allowed to have any kids, she looks like she'd eat them

Ogre lady

admiralofthefleet

she just needs a good ride

bleg

Instead of controlling the environment to benefit the population, maybe we should control the population to benefit the environment. David Attenborough.

Notorious97

That’s a stupid idea, why ban people to make up for an inefficient welfare system? People are always going to cheat the system and try get more, there needs to be a more efficient system in place to ensure it doesn’t happen.

Poor people arent the only ones who fiddle the system, there are plenty of tax dodging and welfare cheating twats outside of working class Ireland. Higher tax bands for people earning over 100K, more efficient welfare system, properly means tested, things like this will generate more revenue and cut down on waste.

You cannot remove a person’s right to give birth as many times as they see fit. Like another poster said it is not china we live in! I wouldn’t be surprised if a conservative government in the UK bring this in, party for the elite by the elite.

PeterIanStaker

landsleaving wrote: »

He's roysh you know.

Loike, ohmygod, totally. :rolleyes:

iPlop

King Felix wrote: »

Agreed.

Nobody should have more than two kids.

Two adults, two kids. Zero population growth.

In todays environment if you and your partner/wife are not working and are on benefits ,you should be banned from having children ,because it's not fair on them to be brought up in a poor household and not fair on the tax payer.But if you gain employment the ban would be lifted!

stovelid

Septic Leper wrote: »

Ibecause it's not fair on them to be brought up in a poor household

Do you think everybody that posts on here were brought up in wealth?

What if you're in the 30s and you lose your job. Do you stop trying to have kids until you attain a certain income again?

Notorious97

Notorious97 wrote: »

You cannot remove a person’s right to give birth as many times as they see fit. Like another poster said it is not china we live in! I wouldn’t be surprised if a conservative government in the UK bring this in, party for the elite by the elite.

She's arguing that the taxpayer should not fund poor people to have as many kids as they feel like. God forbid we ever have to live in a world where people actually take responsibility for their own decisions, eh? Once you're relying on benefits to support the children you have, why on earth would should you have the right to have more?

clived2

Schism wrote: »

If there were less people on social welfare do you really think you'd be paying less tax?

Thats a very poor argument, We might not be paying less tax, however
that money could be used for education, etc



How about everybody is allowed to have as many children as you want,
However you only get all allowances/welfare for the first 2,
This seems very fair to me,

stovelid

clived2 wrote: »

that money could be used for education, etc

Like the gigantic budget surpluses of the boom years?

Under governments like ours, the reason that people want to save money on social spending is because surplus money (see above) ends up back in pay-packets in the form of lower taxes.

iPlop

stovelid wrote: »

Do you think everybody that posts on here were brought up in wealth?

What if you're in the 30s and you lose your job. Do you stop trying to have kids until you attain a certain income again?

Yes you should! look at the state of the country ,why bring kids into a situation that you cannot really afford to have them when your living on the bread line?

henryporter

By allowing everyone (rich and poor and inbetween) to have all the childer they want it makes people take life for granted - look at those kids in the Kerry car crash for instance. Point is that as the world resources become more depleted it is becoming necessary to regulate resource users in the same way that other things are regulated by those we elect to lead us. The elephant in the room is that poor people have loads of babbies as an income provider because of our ridiculous social welfare system, and also because they don't know any better.

youcancallmeal

You should only be allowed to have one child, if you break this law then you should be locked up for 30 years in a high tech maximum security underground prison. In this prison you wouldn't be allowed dream and there would be massive overcrowding. Anyone stepping out of line would be punished by activating a device implanted in their stomach which causes pain, in extreme situations of misbehavior this device will explode causing death. Also the prison director would be a cyborg that looks a little bit like Marty Morrissey. Any questions just ask

Tordelback

henryporter wrote: »

By allowing everyone (rich and poor and inbetween) to have all the childer they want it makes people take life for granted - look at those kids in the Kerry car crash for instance.

WTF?

smokedeels

"If we don't halt population growth with justice and compassion, it will be done for us by nature, brutally and without pity - and will leave a ravaged world." - Dr. Henry W. Kendall

Yes, we need to halt population growth, but population control shouldn't be based on class.

Notorious97

Leonard Shy Fencing wrote: »

She's arguing that the taxpayer should not fund poor people to have as many kids as they feel like. God forbid we ever have to live in a world where people actually take responsibility for their own decisions, eh? Once you're relying on benefits to support the children you have, why on earth would should you have the right to have more?

I know that, common sense should obviously prevail if you cannot afford kids, use the withdrawal method before she gets knocked up :pac:

bleg

smokedeels wrote: »

"If we don't halt population growth with justice and compassion, it will be done for us by nature, brutally and without pity - and will leave a ravaged world." - Dr. Henry W. Kendall

Yes, we need to halt population growth, but population control shouldn't be based on class.

Poorer people tend to have more kids.

dlofnep

OldNotWIse wrote: »

It's not "free" for the taxpayers who have to foot the social welfare bill

Did you ever consider that these children might grow up to be high earners, and contribute back to society?

What do you suggest if a poor family has 3 kids? That they be fined? That they have their kid taken off of them? What exactly do you suggest?

King Felix

Notorious97 wrote: »

I know that, common sense should obviously prevail if you cannot afford kids, use the withdrawal method before she gets knocked up :pac:

As Billy Connolly said of the withdrawal method...

"At the point of ejaculation, there isn't a herd of wild horses that could make my arse go in that direction."

Donkey Oaty

landsleaving wrote: »

部重傷的18歲港人梁頌學，醫護人員小心翼翼自醫療專機將梁頌學搬運至救護車，歷時二十多分鐘，救護車剛關上車門，在警車開路下移送梁頌學至屯門醫院

WorldLingo translates that as: "Severe wound 18 year old people of Hong Kong Liang Song studies, the medical care personnel studies cautiously from the medical special plane Liang Song the transporting to the ambulance, the lasted more than 20 minutes, the ambulance just closed the vehicle door, transferred Liang Song under the police vehicle opening to study to Tunmen Hospital."

Not sure what to make of that, but I wish Liang Song a swift recovery/fair trial/happy graduation.

Pherekydes

King Felix wrote: »

Agreed.

Nobody should have more than two kids.

Two adults, two kids. Zero population growth.

Equals population decline. The replacement rate is about 2.1 children, but you probably knew that.

Hence, the minimum number of children to have is 3.

Schism

clived2 wrote: »

Thats a very poor argument, We might not be paying less tax, however
that money could be used for education

Very true and I agree, in an ideal world of course.

However I was simply making the point that if a certain area of tax expenditure were to decline significantly it most certainly wouldn't lower your taxes.

PeterIanStaker

Notorious97 wrote: »

I know that, common sense should obviously prevail if you cannot afford kids, use the withdrawal method before she gets knocked up :pac:

Ever heard of condoms or the pill?
Bit more effective than the withdrawal method, as the great Billy Connolly mentions above.

Having better sex education for schools (not in Ireland of course, because sex is evil and dorty) and greater availability of contraceptives would help.

Homer

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

Most people I know become poor after they have the kids.

Why don't they feckin stop so I'll never understand the mentality of people who cannot afford to properly raise one child let alone a small football team.

macgrub

She fits right in to our 'problem solving' right wing media .
Even if she is right, does she suggest how we do it?
Make men/women sterile? If they did have a child, Moses basket-river ?

Etonian-scum more like.