Are you paternal?

Professor Moriarty

Sleepy wrote: »

Was waiting for these responses tbh. People often react badly to reality.

Every study that's ever been conducted on the topic shows that one of the key determining factors (if not the key determining factor) of a child growing into a successful adult is their socio-economic background.

Our current social welfare and taxation system incentivises those who can't or won't support themselves to have children while punishing those who earn a living and pay for the former group.

I'm not suggesting forced sterilisation, a one child policy, the removal of the social welfare state or anything punitive whatsover. Simply stating that any country that's facing such a pension crisis as we are should be pursuing policies that seek to encourage, rather than disincentivise, the middle classes to procreate.

That's seriously messed up thinking. We live in a democratic republic where the vast majority of people would laugh at your idea. You should move to North Korea where you would get a hero's welcome.

Professor Moriarty

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

The over riding goal of all animals is to ultimately reproduce. To not have that in your life is, of course, diminishing the human experience. People are quite entitled to make that choice but to think that you get the full human experience while ignoring the primary reason for our existence is absurd.

The primary motivation of human beings is to stay alive. Procreation is secondary to that motivation.

Pawwed Rig

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

That's seriously messed up thinking. We live in a democratic republic where the vast majority of people would laugh at your idea. You should move to North Korea where you would get a hero's welcome.

Seems like a reasonable enough point although maybe slightly controversial in some quarters. Which part do you think is 'messed up'?

Professor Moriarty

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Seems like a reasonable enough point although maybe slightly controversial in some quarters. Which part do you think is 'messed up'?

The idea that a government would incentivise one set of people to have children rather than another based on income. Do I really have to explain what is wrong with that?

Gravelly

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

The idea that a government would incentivise one set of people to have children rather than another based on income. Do I really have to explain what is wrong with that?

They already are - they incentivise those who don't work by giving them more money when they have more kids. Those of us who work have to either earn more, or make do with less when we have more kids.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

Professor Moriarty

Gravelly wrote: »

They already are - they incentivise those who don't work by giving them more money when they have more kids. Those of us who work have to either earn more, or make do with less when we have more kids.

People on social welfare get more money when they have another child because, as a citizen of the state, the child has an entitlement to food, shelter and education.

Gravelly

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

People on social welfare get more money when they have another child because, as a citizen of the state, the child has an entitlement to food, shelter and education.

Not disagreeing with that at all. ALL children should have the entitlement to food, shelter and education. Working people should get a tax credit when they have more children.

eviltwin

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Seems like a reasonable enough point although maybe slightly controversial in some quarters. Which part do you think is 'messed up'?

Assuming people's ability to parent based on age, income, address etc is a bad idea.

Kintarō Hattori

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Eh I just had my first and possibly last and I'm just a few months off of 40.

I'm with my partner 13 years this December and I wouldn't have said I was paternal. I liked the life the two of us had and I wasn't convinced on the idea of having children. She quite wanted to though and I didn't like the idea of denying her something she wanted and which she wouldn't be able to have after a certain point so I committed to having a child together.
She was born almost six weeks ago and I can say it's been amazing. I know it's the biggest commitment you can make and there will be many challenging times ahead but I don't regret it for a number of reasons including seeing the look of love on my partners face when she looks at our daughter. The over flow of emotion when I pick her up and see her staring back at me.

When it was just the two of us I was ignorant to the feelings and emotions that a baby/child can stir in you. I didn't get the enthusiasm friends and family had for their kids. It totally changes you and it brings out something you didn't know you had inside you. I don't feel any poorer for it, would anyone feel pity for us if we were out with a crying baby it'd be wasted on us. There's absolutely nothing to pity.

It'll be for some, it won't be for others. We all want different things out of life and we're all complex characters, there's no one size fits all.

Professor Moriarty

Gravelly wrote: »

Not disagreeing with that at all. ALL children should have the entitlement to food, shelter and education. Working people should get a tax credit when they have more children.

Everybody who works gets children's allowance and tax allowances. Anyway the proposal was about 'middle classes' being 'financially incentivised to have children', not working people. So ordinary working Joes don't qualify.

The Specialist

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Everybody who works gets children's allowance and tax allowances. Anyway the proposal was about 'middle classes' being 'financially incentivised to have children', not working people. So ordinary working Joes don't qualify.

The middle class are generally the ones working so your point doesn't make sense. They are also the most squeezed section in the country - work like dogs, pay bills/rent/mortgages/childcare with minimal state support, get nothing for free but are then expected to subsidise everybody else.

eviltwin

There is no right age to have a child but it's definitely easier the younger you are. I'm 40 and had my last at 32. I babysat my nephew last month for overnight and I was shattered. It's tiring whatever age you are though. I don't particularly like the idea of dealing with teens in my 50's, I want to be doing my own thing by then. Mostly I hope that if I'm lucky enough to have grandchildren that I will be young enough to be active in their lives. My parents were mid 40's when I was born, my grandparents were gone by the time I was 6 or 7. My dad was gone by my twenties, he never got to see his kids marry, missed all bar one of his grandchildren. I don't want to miss out on that.

Gravelly

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Everybody who works gets children's allowance and tax allowances. Anyway the proposal was about 'middle classes' being 'financially incentivised to have children', not working people. So ordinary working Joes don't qualify.

There are no tax allowances in Ireland for having children. Everybody gets childrens allowance.
There should be tax incentives for working people to have children, as the current system favours the unemployed. For the future health of the country, we should be incentivising working people to have children. Look at Germany, spent decades disincentivizing the working and middle classes from having kids, belatedly realised the consequences, tried to import a million or so immigrants to make up the shortfall, and now all hell has broken loose. Children are the future of any country, and the people best placed to raise them without being a burden on the state are those who work.

farmchoice

farmchoice wrote: »

in my opinion no, you can have all those emotions and experiences but when you have children they are experienced in a different way.

now you could argue that that is the case for loads of things that i have not experienced but in my opinion reproducing is such a fundamental part of the human experience that it trumps everything else in regard to the depth of emotion and feeling that it engenders in us.

this is my opinion based on what has been my experience, no more, but it has influenced my thinking on the subject, and i find that in general its the way that other parents feel.
its also influenced by the nature of human existence. what drives all life on earth is the overwhelming desire of the members of species to reproduce. it tops almost everything else.
humans in general also have an overwhelming desire to nurture and raise their young.

Yes. In your opinion that has been your experience.

CramCycle

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

The over riding goal of all animals is to ultimately reproduce. To not have that in your life is, of course, diminishing the human experience. People are quite entitled to make that choice but to think that you get the full human experience while ignoring the primary reason for our existence is absurd.

It really isn't. It maybe something you missed or did not want but the experience as can be seen across all levels of society is not always a positive one. It was for me but I would laugh at the idea that it is "diminishing" the human experience. Technically you miss a strand of the potential human experience, for some people that maybe a positive. I have certainly missed parts of this human experience as a result of having kids. I didn't plan any of my kids, I certainly didn't intend it and if I did not know what I know now I would be just as happy. Different type of happy but equally fulfilled nonetheless.

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

It'll be for some, it won't be for others. We all want different things out of life and we're all complex characters, there's no one size fits all.

100% - I have friends who suffered through their kids childhoods. They were good parents, done all they were meant to but they really suffered, borderline breakdown cases, broken relationships, utter anguish. It was the exception but it is there. Some people were just neutral to it all, and some people said it was the best thing ever. Everyone is different, shocked at how many people fail to see that.

Professor Moriarty

The Specialist wrote: »

The middle class are generally the ones working so your point doesn't make sense. They are also the most squeezed section in the country - work like dogs, pay bills/rent/mortgages/childcare with minimal state support, get nothing for free but are then expected to subsidise everybody else.

Everyone who works is middle class? No.

So those on social welfare are screwing the system by having kids? Ever walk around a deprived area? Ever walk around a middle class area? Which houses are nice big houses in leafy streets? Which houses have two nice cars in drive? Which families go on a few expensive holidays every year. Whose kids are getting piano lessons, ballet lessons, grinds to make sure the get the course they want? Whose kids get to jump the queue when they get seriously sick?

Yeah. Let's incentivise them financially because the need the money.

Rather than bashing those on welfare, here's a thought. Why don't we aspire to make everyone more middle class?

Pawwed Rig

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

The over riding goal of all animals is to ultimately reproduce. To not have that in your life is, of course, diminishing the human experience. People are quite entitled to make that choice but to think that you get the full human experience while ignoring the primary reason for our existence is absurd.

The primary reason for my existence is to help other people to the best of my ability. I get to do that which means for me that I'm having fulfilling human experience.

Professor Moriarty

Gravelly wrote: »

There are no tax allowances in Ireland for having children. Everybody gets childrens allowance.
There should be tax incentives for working people to have children, as the current system favours the unemployed. For the future health of the country, we should be incentivising working people to have children. Look at Germany, spent decades disincentivizing the working and middle classes from having kids, belatedly realised the consequences, tried to import a million or so immigrants to make up the shortfall, and now all hell has broken loose. Children are the future of any country, and the people best placed to raise them without being a burden on the state are those who work.

Let's apply logic to your point. Unemployed people are already at home so they can parent their children better than middle class people. So for "the future health of the country" unemployed people should be raising better children than middle class people.

The Specialist

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Everyone who works is middle class? No.

So those on social welfare are screwing the system by having kids? Ever walk around a deprived area?

There is an element there yes - pop out a few kids, collect benefits. Never worry about working because as long as you keep having them, you'll keep collecting the state benefits that entails. Don't pretend it doesn't happen.

Ever walk around a middle class area? Which houses are nice big houses in leafy streets? Which houses have two nice cars in drive? Which families go on a few expensive holidays every year. Whose kids are getting piano lessons, ballet lessons, grinds to make sure the get the course they want? Whose kids get to jump the queue when they get seriously sick?

Yeah. Let's incentivise them financially because the need the money.

They have those things because they work. They have those things because they have earned the money to buy them - not sitting on their arse with their hands out to the state. As for kids jumping the queue when they are sick - that's called Health Insurance. You can generally afford it when you work. Despite that, you still get the pleasure of paying full price for any medicines you need because you don't get a medical card when you earn any decent income.

Gravelly

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Let's apply logic to your point. Unemployed people are already at home so they can parent their children better than middle class people. So for "the future health of the country" unemployed people should be raising better children than middle class people.

Read my post again. If you want people to have children, and don't want the raising of those children to be paid for by the state, the only option is to incentivize working people to have children.

Professor Moriarty

The Specialist wrote: »

There is an element there yes - pop out a few kids, collect benefits. Never worry about working because as long as you keep having them, you'll keep collecting the state benefits that entails. Don't pretend it doesn't happen.



They have those things because they work. They have those things because they have earned the money to buy them - not sitting on their arse with their hands out to the state. As for kids jumping the queue when they are sick - that's called Health Insurance. You can generally afford it when you work. Despite that, you still get the pleasure of paying full price for any medicines you need because you don't get a medical card when you earn any decent income.

Yet kids whose parents are on social welfare rarely end up well-educated and wealthy. Whereas kids from middle class areas rarely end up uneducated and poor. Just one of life's strange coincidences I guess.

Professor Moriarty

Gravelly wrote: »

Read my post again. If you want people to have children, and don't want the raising of those children to be paid for by the state, the only option is to incentivize working people to have children.

I'm not disagreeing with that point. I'm disagreeing with the proposal that middle class people should be financially incentivised to have children. I'm doing this for two reasons. 1. It's a form of eugenics. 2. They don't need the money.

The Specialist

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Yet kids whose parents are on social welfare rarely end up well-educated and wealthy. Whereas kids from middle class areas rarely end up uneducated and poor. Just one of life's strange coincidences I guess.

Not really a coincidence at all - do you understand how a childs view of the world develops based on their parents? Middle class are more likely to have completed school, be in employment and will naturally pass that ethos on their children.

Welfare is no excuse either - it doesn't put any ceiling on what you can be or become provided your parents also give you the drive to be something. A kid watching his mother collect multiple state benefits with a "work is for mugs" attitude is never going to aspire to completing school or working - they already know what's to be gained from not doing either.

Gravelly

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I'm not disagreeing with that point. I'm disagreeing with the proposal that middle class people should be financially incentivised to have children. I'm doing this for two reasons. 1. It's a form of eugenics. 2. They don't need the money.

I'm not sure about the eugenics point - if incentivising middle class people to have kids is eugenics, then surely incentivising unemployed people to have children is too?

The point about them not needing the money is another one I'm not sure about - depends on your classification of what middle class means - these days, most people would consider, say, a teacher, a mid-level manager, or a Guard to be middle class - they are hardly rolling in money, and if they bought a house during the boom are quite possibly struggling financially.

farmchoice

Deleted User wrote: »

The primary reason for my existence is to help other people to the best of my ability. I get to do that which means for me that I'm having fulfilling human experience.

that might be your primary motivation in life and a noble one it is to have and its one we should all have and the world would be a better place if everyone took that view.

its not the reason for your existence though. in the sense that there is any reason to existence its simply to reproduce and continue on the species. we have no other evolutionary function.

farmchoice

farmchoice wrote: »

that might be your primary motivation in life and a noble one it is to have and its one we should all have and the world would be a better place if everyone took that view.

its not the reason for your existence though. in the sense that there is any reason to existence its simply to reproduce and continue on the species. we have no other evolutionary function.

I understand where you are coming from in terms of evolution. For me I see it on a more individual level. My work for example, while it means so much to me is certainly not going to mean much to others. I believe having children to be similar. It may mean a lot to some but not to others.

Human existence I feel can't be reduced down to purely evolutionary functions. We are many dimensional complex beings with a variety of instincts and desires which drive us.

Professor Moriarty

Gravelly wrote: »

I'm not sure about the eugenics point - if incentivising middle class people to have kids is eugenics, then surely incentivising unemployed people to have children is too?

The point about them not needing the money is another one I'm not sure about - depends on your classification of what middle class means - these days, most people would consider, say, a teacher, a mid-level manager, or a Guard to be middle class - they are hardly rolling in money, and if they bought a house during the boom are quite possibly struggling financially.

Most teachers I know are married to teachers. Guards that I know are married to nurses. Average combined income would be in the region of 110k per annum. Recession didn't really affect them. Nice houses, health insurance, two cars, grinds and piano/ballet lessons for the kids, few expensive holidays a year or off to their apartments in Spain or Italy. I would define them as lower middle class. Upper middle class is your dentist, solicitor, accountant etc.

If you're flipping burgers in McDonald's then I'm afraid you don't qualify for the incentive.

Professor Moriarty

The Specialist wrote: »

Not really a coincidence at all - do you understand how a childs view of the world develops based on their parents? Middle class are more likely to have completed school, be in employment and will naturally pass that ethos on their children.

Welfare is no excuse either - it doesn't put any ceiling on what you can be or become provided your parents also give you the drive to be something. A kid watching his mother collect multiple state benefits with a "work is for mugs" attitude is never going to aspire to completing school or working - they already know what's to be gained from not doing either.

So society isn't just and all children are not treated equally. Yet we should give more money to the parents of kids who do really well out of society?

The Specialist

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

So society isn't just and all children are not treated equally. Yet we should give more money to the parents of kids who do really well out of society?

I really don't get why you are so opposed to giving the middle class a break for once? As another poster said, that class is not rolling in money. Explain to me how it's fair that someone should work 40 hours a week, pay 80% of their wages between rent/bills/taxes and should they require medication (let's say inhalers for asthma) they have the pleasure of forking out 120 quid of whatever cash they have left. Meanwhile, someone unwilling to work and rolling in benefits can get the same medication for 2.50 max.

So yes they should get more money because most of their money as it is is being used to subsidise those who can't be arsed to work even menial jobs, but still come out better off than those of us breaking our arses to keep things afloat.