UK propose to limit benefits to 2 children per family

Run_to_da_hills

Iain Duncan Smith targets families of more than two children for benefit cuts Work and pensions secretary warns that parents on benefits should not expect more cash if they have more children

This would certainly keep the abortion clinics busy.

Shocking, here's the link.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/oct/25/iain-duncan-smith-benefit-cuts

kraggy

You and your ****ng thread titles.

Lingua Franca

Aye, you've certainly represented the story fairly and accurately. :pac:

Father Damo

What about the pension and care crisis one child families will create for the government 60 years from now.

Clearly the Tories are taking the Homer Simpson "I'll be dead by then" attitude to it :pac:

maximoose

Ridiculous thread title (although it is you)

Perfectly valid proposal.

ASOT

Rabble rabble rabble conspiracy theories rabble rabble rabble Obama rabble rabble rabble

golden lane

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Iain Duncan Smith targets families of more than two children for benefit cuts Work and pensions secretary warns that parents on benefits should not expect more cash if they have more children

This would certainly keep the abortion clinics busy.

Shocking, here's the link.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/oct/25/iain-duncan-smith-benefit-cuts[/QUOTE]

great idea, people are fed up keeping other peoples kids.....

hurry up Ian....

Fratton Fred

Good.

Maybe it will stop the professional unemployed breeding so they can get a bigger house and more money for the pub.

Drakares

Misleading title is misleading.

Mr Simpson

Run_to_da_hills in misleading thread title shocker :eek:

CruelCoin

Choice is between 2 kids limit or this: http://02varvara.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/fr-nikolais-large-family.jpg

Fook that.

squod

golden lane wrote: »

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Iain Duncan Smith targets families of more than two children for benefit cuts Work and pensions secretary warns that parents on benefits should not expect more cash if they have more children

This would certainly keep the abortion clinics busy.

Shocking, here's the link.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/oct/25/iain-duncan-smith-benefit-cuts[/QUOTE]

great idea, people are fed up keeping other peoples kids.....

hurry up Ian....

Great idea??? Whats next gassing the unemployed while the country goes through a recession?

Satan is alive and well in some people.

CruelCoin

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Iain Duncan Smith targets families of more than two children for benefit cuts Work and pensions secretary warns that parents on benefits should not expect more cash if they have more children

This would certainly keep the abortion clinics busy.

Shocking, here's the link.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/oct/25/iain-duncan-smith-benefit-cuts

For the love of god, one, please just one post/thread from you absent conspiracy theory / indignant outrage crap....

Piliger

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Iain Duncan Smith targets families of more than two children for benefit cuts Work and pensions secretary warns that parents on benefits should not expect more cash if they have more children

This would certainly keep the abortion clinics busy.

Shocking, here's the link.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/oct/25/iain-duncan-smith-benefit-cuts

Brilliant new policy. I hope they implement it there and here.

woodchuck

Excellent idea.

Pity it will probably never come in over here though.

All families should budget and plan for how many children they can afford, including the unemployed. If you can't afford them, don't have them!

(very misleading title though :P)

Gumbi

Misleading thread title. Edit or close thread, please.

Kintarō Hattori

Benefits limited to two children, they aren't proposing that families limited themselves to two children. You have been intentionally misleading.

golden lane

squod wrote: »

golden lane wrote: »

Great idea??? Whats next gassing the unemployed while the country goes through a recession?

Satan is alive and well in some people.

stop watching too many movies.........switch the lights on and look around....

who the fug

squod wrote: »

golden lane wrote: »

Great idea??? Whats next gassing the unemployed while the country goes through a recession?

Satan is alive and well in some people.

Health & Safety put a stop to the gas, spoilsports



The welfare system is a basket to catch you, not a fuking lifestyle option

kowloon

Why would the lizard people restrict their own food supply?

My name is URL

Not sure if anyone else has noticed, but the thread title is a bit misleading.

VinLieger

Jesus what a horrificly missleading thread title, good trolling

Duggy747

With the way you name threads and attract people to them, RTDH, you should set up a YouTube channel and make money from it.

Post up a video of a cuddly kitty playing with a yarn ball and title it "KITTEN CRUSHED BY NEW WORLD ORDER DEVICE!!"

martingriff

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Iain Duncan Smith targets families of more than two children for benefit cuts Work and pensions secretary warns that parents on benefits should not expect more cash if they have more children

This would certainly keep the abortion clinics busy.

Shocking, here's the link.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/oct/25/iain-duncan-smith-benefit-cuts

Seriously RTDH do you not even read the story before you decided to write up this thread title this aint a CT thread. He has said those on welfare should not expect more cash if they have more kids and I agree. Its called living within your means.

who the fug

kowloon wrote: »

Why would the lizard people restrict their own food supply?

They are going organic , less stocking levels should mean better meat

martingriff

Duggy747 wrote: »

With the way you name threads and attract people to them, RTDH, you should set up a YouTube channel and make money from it.

Post up a video of a cuddly kitty playing with a yarn ball and title it "KITTEN CRUSHED BY NEW WORLD ORDER DEVICE!!"

Oh god please dont give ideas will ya

martingriff

squod wrote: »

golden lane wrote: »

Great idea??? Whats next gassing the unemployed while the country goes through a recession?

Satan is alive and well in some people.

Did you actally go in a read the story or just read the OP. Its says if you are on welfare dont expect more money if you have another child. A good proposal if you ask me.

Akrasia

I think the real conspiracy is that the price it costs to buy children for medical experiments has been skyrocketing due to government intervention through the welfare system.

In comes Big pharma to pressure the tories to get the prices back to their pre-welfare state levels.

Korvanica

Threat title.... gah...

OP please disregard the OP warning in my sig...

GarIT

I think its a good idea but think it could be structured better. I think they should pay child benifit for all children but because costs go down as the number of chuldren increases, you only need one roof, heating etc they should reduce it by 50% for every child. i.e. 1st child 100%, second child 50%, thirch child 25%, fourth child 12.5%, etc

wexie

It's a perfectly sound and rational proposal.

Be interesting to see how they're going to implement it though with regards to the large families that are already enjoying the fruits of other people's labour.

Not that I'm a big fan of Ian Duncan Smith but it'd be refreshing to see a politician with balls like that here.

Or any kind of balls really (other than the blueballs they all get from humping Angela Merkels leg)

Faith+1

He's my idol.

Run_to_da_hills

The noose is getting tighter

A few months ago it was proposed at a limit of three children, now its two.

Next year it will be down to just one child. :eek:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2164124/Benefit-curb-bigger-families-Payouts-stop-children-PMs-welfare-vision.html

My name is URL

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

The noose is getting tighter

A few months ago it was proposed three children, now its two.

Next year it will be down to just one child. :eek:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2164124/Benefit-curb-bigger-families-Payouts-stop-children-PMs-welfare-vision.html

It should be 0 children. People shouldn't just be handed money (regardless of need) simply for having a kid.

golden lane

if you misrepresent every other country......it makes your own country look good....

a very sad way to look at life.....?????

M cebee

would be shocking if it happened here
same with that guy that got tasered in a uk tesco branch

hooradiation

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

The noose is getting tighter

A few months ago it was proposed at a limit of three children, now its two.

Next year it will be down to just one child. [Citation needed]

Any time you're ready....

Wossack

hooradiation wrote: »

Any time you're ready....

in fairness, he's only looking at the current trend

in a few more years it'll be minus numbers, and women will have to murder a number of babies to get enough quota to be allowed give birth to their own

hooradiation

Wossack wrote: »

in fairness, he's only looking at the current trend

in a few more years it'll be minus numbers, and women will have to murder a number of babies to get enough quota to be allowed give birth to their own

I am ok with this.

because children are terrible.

bbam

My name is URL wrote: »

It should be 0 children. People shouldn't just be handed money (regardless of need) simply for having a kid.

in fairness thats a huge generalisation and just wrong..
People on SW get money to support their children not just to have them...

I'm all against those breeding just to claim more SW, but there are genuine families on SW who deserve the supports they get.. Its important to differentiate between them when we get the pitchforks outand sharpened.

Thread title amended

golden lane

money to spend on your own kids.........what a brilliant idea.....

loveisdivine

Personally I dont think anyone should get money for having kids. If you cant afford kids without government hand outs then you shouldnt be having them. Nobody needs children, especially multiple children, its a lifestyle choice, why should other people pay for it?

If your situation changes and you become unemployed, then it would be fair to give more social welfare to make sure the childs needs are met. but only whilst unemployed.

Scioch

My name is URL wrote: »

It should be 0 children. People shouldn't just be handed money (regardless of need) simply for having a kid.

If you cant afford a kid then dont have kids, simple as. If you have one you cant afford to take care of then you clearly cant be an ideal person to be raising a child in the first place.

But if a person is struggling and needs assistance then it should be given but there shouldnt be an automatic payment made to every tom dick and harry who pop one out.

M cebee

Scioch wrote: »

If you cant afford a kid then dont have kids, simple as. If you have one you cant afford to take care of then you clearly cant be an ideal person to be raising a child in the first place.

But if a person is struggling and needs assistance then it should be given but there shouldnt be an automatic payment made to every tom dick and harry who pop one out.

what's your solution then?
if a child pops out as you put it?

martingriff

M cebee wrote: »

what's your solution then?
if a child pops out as you put it?

Close your legs 9 months previously wear protection it is not rocket science. By all means if a couple have a child give help for the child but maybe it should be done in such a way it goes for what the kid needs. A card or something

hooradiation

martingriff wrote: »

Close your legs 9 months previously wear protection it is not rocket science. By all means if a couple have a child give help for the child but maybe it should be done in such a way it goes for what the kid needs. A card or something

Somebody who doesn't understand how reproduction works oughtn't to be giving advice to anyone on the subject.

Lingua Franca

Is the government providing these time machines? Please answer, this is important.

brummytom

I'm sure my postcode's British, not Chinese.


How about raising income tax, rather than constantly going for things that will hit the poorest hardest like welfare and VAT? Not a chance.

who the fug

brummytom wrote: »

I'm sure my postcode's British, not Chinese.


How about raising income tax, rather than constantly going for things that will hit the poorest hardest like welfare and VAT? Not a chance.

Lets not, my tax is high enough thank you

marcsignal

If you can't afford to give a child the best possible start at life, you should be discouraged form having one (or 6).