Against child support?

[Park Life 71]

Hopi Sen opens a can of worms: what should the left do about family breakdown?

In one sense, there’s not much policy can do. As Hopi says, dysfunctional families are centuries old. And they are not confined to the underclass; countless well-off people identify with Bree’s remark: “We might as well sit on the porch and play banjos.”

There is, though, one thing that could be done - stop giving people an incentive to have children. The tax-payer spends over £15bn a year in child benefit and tax credits - and that‘s before the billions we spend failing to educate kids and on the police and prison service for picking up the mess.

One result of this is that a single person on a full-time minimum wage gets an income of £72 a week more if she has a child than if she doesn’t - and, indeed, would be £6 a week better off even if she gave up work to have a kid.

There are three arguments against such subsidies:

1. At the margin, they give people an incentive to have children. And the marginal parent is likely to be a bad parent. One lesson of the Shannon Matthews affair is that even people who are long odds to win the economics Nobel respond to incentives.

2. There’s no good leftist principle that requires the tax-payer to write blank cheques to people who get into messes of their own choosing. We should be helping those who can’t help themselves - the low-skilled, the unlucky, but not parents.

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/st...st-child-s.html

 

 

 

Imo children have to be a focus of help and there needs to be a determination to give them a fair chance regardless of backgroud...But the system seems to be counterproductive it seems...

[NJS 4453]

I understand the basic human wish/need to have kids but I feel that without control the human race is doomed. We can either watch millions die in the next century or so from disease and starvation while the rich countries continue to "selfishly" have kids or we we can address it.

 

Of course currently thats impossibly idealistic but I think setting a good example of limiting kids to one or two would be a good start. I know I sound like a fascist when I say this but ideally I'd have a contraceptive in the water supply and issue the antidote on licence.

[Guest alex]

Interesting debate. I always find it somewhat paradoxical that almost anyone, regardless of their suitability to be a parent, can have kids. What you do about that is another matter altogether though.

[Park Life 71]

I understand the basic human wish/need to have kids but I feel that without control the human race is doomed. We can either watch millions die in the next century or so from disease and starvation while the rich countries continue to "selfishly" have kids or we we can address it.

 

Of course currently thats impossibly idealistic but I think setting a good example of limiting kids to one or two would be a good start. I know I sound like a fascist when I say this but ideally I'd have a contraceptive in the water supply and issue the antidote on licence.

 

Birth rate in the West is pretty poor iirc..

[Guest alex]

I understand the basic human wish/need to have kids but I feel that without control the human race is doomed. We can either watch millions die in the next century or so from disease and starvation while the rich countries continue to "selfishly" have kids or we we can address it.

 

Of course currently thats impossibly idealistic but I think setting a good example of limiting kids to one or two would be a good start. I know I sound like a fascist when I say this but ideally I'd have a contraceptive in the water supply and issue the antidote on licence.

 

Birth rate in the West is pretty poor iirc..

Religious persecution too, i.e. of Catholics.

[JawD 99]

Tricky one. Some of the scum kicking the streets shouldn't be allowed out let alone breed. But, human rights would have a field day if someone suggested selective breeding, no matter how sensible it seemed.

 

Mind you, on another note, I bet there is a good few decent people been dragged up only to make something of themselves. Just a shame there has to be so many replicant tossers thrown in with them.

[Guest alex]

Tricky one. Some of the scum kicking the streets shouldn't be allowed out let alone breed. But, human rights would have a field day if someone suggested selective breeding, no matter how sensible it seemed.

 

Mind you, on another note, I bet there is a good few decent people been dragged up only to make something of themselves. Just a shame there has to be so many replicant tossers thrown in with them.

I knew there was something sinister about Nexus running the Metro.

[NJS 4453]

Tricky one. Some of the scum kicking the streets shouldn't be allowed out let alone breed. But, human rights would have a field day if someone suggested selective breeding, no matter how sensible it seemed.

 

I know - my other ideas about completely abolishing private healthcare and education would suffer from the same drawback - as well as people going abroad for them - thats why I'd need a world order to be able to do it.

 

The thing is I can see combined global action being needed within a couple of hundred years (if climate change happens) so population control could follow - if its not too late.

[Park Life 71]

Tricky one. Some of the scum kicking the streets shouldn't be allowed out let alone breed. But, human rights would have a field day if someone suggested selective breeding, no matter how sensible it seemed.

 

I know - my other ideas about completely abolishing private healthcare and education would suffer from the same drawback - as well as people going abroad for them - thats why I'd need a world order to be able to do it.

 

The thing is I can see combined global action being needed within a couple of hundred years (if climate change happens) so population control could follow - if its not too late.

 

Are there really too many people on the planet tho?

[Rob W 0]

Child Benifit is supposed to help the kids - of course it's not really enough to do the job properly and the subclasses milk it for all it's worth

 

the problem is how do you help the kids without paying cash to their parents

[Park Life 71]

Child Benifit is supposed to help the kids - of course it's not really enough to do the job properly and the subclasses milk it for all it's worth

 

the problem is how do you help the kids without paying cash to their parents

 

Goodly question.

[NJS 4453]

Tricky one. Some of the scum kicking the streets shouldn't be allowed out let alone breed. But, human rights would have a field day if someone suggested selective breeding, no matter how sensible it seemed.

 

I know - my other ideas about completely abolishing private healthcare and education would suffer from the same drawback - as well as people going abroad for them - thats why I'd need a world order to be able to do it.

 

The thing is I can see combined global action being needed within a couple of hundred years (if climate change happens) so population control could follow - if its not too late.

 

Are there really too many people on the planet tho?

 

Probably - a lot of studies seem to think so - I think the projected 10bn would be too many - I would feel a lot "happier" about mankind's future if it dropped a bit.

 

Of course advances in food production could mean its easily feasible but that assumes said advances were passed on to the poor.

[Rob W 0]

Tricky one. Some of the scum kicking the streets shouldn't be allowed out let alone breed. But, human rights would have a field day if someone suggested selective breeding, no matter how sensible it seemed.

 

I know - my other ideas about completely abolishing private healthcare and education would suffer from the same drawback - as well as people going abroad for them - thats why I'd need a world order to be able to do it.

 

The thing is I can see combined global action being needed within a couple of hundred years (if climate change happens) so population control could follow - if its not too late.

 

Are there really too many people on the planet tho?

 

Probably - a lot of studies seem to think so - I think the projected 10bn would be too many - I would feel a lot "happier" about mankind's future if it dropped a bit.

 

Of course advances in food production could mean its easily feasible but that assumes said advances were passed on to the poor.

 

 

generally they are

 

the Green Revolution of the 60's and 70's saw almost all of Asia come out of mass starvation - it used to be common in China India and Indonesia but these days it almost gone except in exceptional circumstances

 

Africa is still a serious problem but a lot of that is due to constant warfare

[Fop 1]

Imo children have to be a focus of help and there needs to be a determination to give them a fair chance regardless of backgroud...But the system seems to be counterproductive it seems...

 

 

Thing is I'm not sure you're actually helping the child just be giving the parent more money for working (or not working as the case may be).

 

You'd be helping the child by actually helping the child, but as you can see quite easily across the UK, making a child a form of earning potential does nothing to help anyone.

[Fop 1]

Tricky one. Some of the scum kicking the streets shouldn't be allowed out let alone breed. But, human rights would have a field day if someone suggested selective breeding, no matter how sensible it seemed.

 

I know - my other ideas about completely abolishing private healthcare and education would suffer from the same drawback - as well as people going abroad for them - thats why I'd need a world order to be able to do it.

 

The thing is I can see combined global action being needed within a couple of hundred years (if climate change happens) so population control could follow - if its not too late.

 

Are there really too many people on the planet tho?

 

Probably - a lot of studies seem to think so - I think the projected 10bn would be too many - I would feel a lot "happier" about mankind's future if it dropped a bit.

 

Of course advances in food production could mean its easily feasible but that assumes said advances were passed on to the poor.

 

 

generally they are

 

the Green Revolution of the 60's and 70's saw almost all of Asia come out of mass starvation - it used to be common in China India and Indonesia but these days it almost gone except in exceptional circumstances

 

Africa is still a serious problem but a lot of that is due to constant warfare

 

Yeah but the Green Revolution (much like globalisation) is a one time thing, yields don't go up indefinitely (even with all the technology possible), and agricultural land is finite.

 

We probably have too many people on the planet now (at 6 billion) for everyone to have a Western type lifestyle, at 9 billion by 2050 there's going to be a LOT of new (and old) problems to deal with.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Breeding rates that are designed (in evolutionary terms) for MASSIVE child mortality quickly cause all sorts of problems (just look at the maths involved never mind anything else) as soon as that mortality is in anyway reduced.

If we were any other species disease and starvation would have put us on the bust part of the population cycle by now, but we've managed to stave it off with technology to a certain degree....... although I suspect we're just allowing bigger problems to build for the future rather than actually solving anything at all.

[Park Life 71]

Tricky one. Some of the scum kicking the streets shouldn't be allowed out let alone breed. But, human rights would have a field day if someone suggested selective breeding, no matter how sensible it seemed.

 

I know - my other ideas about completely abolishing private healthcare and education would suffer from the same drawback - as well as people going abroad for them - thats why I'd need a world order to be able to do it.

 

The thing is I can see combined global action being needed within a couple of hundred years (if climate change happens) so population control could follow - if its not too late.

 

Are there really too many people on the planet tho?

 

Probably - a lot of studies seem to think so - I think the projected 10bn would be too many - I would feel a lot "happier" about mankind's future if it dropped a bit.

 

Of course advances in food production could mean its easily feasible but that assumes said advances were passed on to the poor.

 

 

generally they are

 

the Green Revolution of the 60's and 70's saw almost all of Asia come out of mass starvation - it used to be common in China India and Indonesia but these days it almost gone except in exceptional circumstances

 

Africa is still a serious problem but a lot of that is due to constant warfare

 

Yeah but the Green Revolution (much like globalisation) is a one time thing, yields don't go up indefinitely (even with all the technology possible), and agricultural land is finite.

 

We probably have too many people on the planet now (at 6 billion) for everyone to have a Western type lifestyle, at 9 billion by 2050 there's going to be a LOT of new (and old) problems to deal with.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Breeding rates that are designed (in evolutionary terms) for MASSIVE child mortality quickly cause all sorts of problems (just look at the maths involved never mind anything else) as soon as that mortality is in anyway reduced.

If we were any other species disease and starvation would have put us on the bust part of the population cycle by now, but we've managed to stave it off with technology to a certain degree....... although I suspect we're just allowing bigger problems to build for the future rather than actually solving anything at all.

 

 

They really have tried everything almost to kill off Africa.

[Fop 1]

Tricky one. Some of the scum kicking the streets shouldn't be allowed out let alone breed. But, human rights would have a field day if someone suggested selective breeding, no matter how sensible it seemed.

 

I know - my other ideas about completely abolishing private healthcare and education would suffer from the same drawback - as well as people going abroad for them - thats why I'd need a world order to be able to do it.

 

The thing is I can see combined global action being needed within a couple of hundred years (if climate change happens) so population control could follow - if its not too late.

 

Are there really too many people on the planet tho?

 

Probably - a lot of studies seem to think so - I think the projected 10bn would be too many - I would feel a lot "happier" about mankind's future if it dropped a bit.

 

Of course advances in food production could mean its easily feasible but that assumes said advances were passed on to the poor.

 

 

generally they are

 

the Green Revolution of the 60's and 70's saw almost all of Asia come out of mass starvation - it used to be common in China India and Indonesia but these days it almost gone except in exceptional circumstances

 

Africa is still a serious problem but a lot of that is due to constant warfare

 

Yeah but the Green Revolution (much like globalisation) is a one time thing, yields don't go up indefinitely (even with all the technology possible), and agricultural land is finite.

 

We probably have too many people on the planet now (at 6 billion) for everyone to have a Western type lifestyle, at 9 billion by 2050 there's going to be a LOT of new (and old) problems to deal with.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Breeding rates that are designed (in evolutionary terms) for MASSIVE child mortality quickly cause all sorts of problems (just look at the maths involved never mind anything else) as soon as that mortality is in anyway reduced.

If we were any other species disease and starvation would have put us on the bust part of the population cycle by now, but we've managed to stave it off with technology to a certain degree....... although I suspect we're just allowing bigger problems to build for the future rather than actually solving anything at all.

 

 

They really have tried everything almost to kill off Africa.

 

True, but when the entire African population are dropping sprogs still at pretty much the maximum human rate, it's near impossible for anything but a nuclear war even slow down the growth.

 

In a strange way medical aid has done as much harm to Africa as anything else, it's a pretty cold way to look at it, but when you "save" a child, you've then got to support them through their life and then all their progeny too (a task with becomes pretty much exponentially more difficult with each generation), or you're actually "saving" nothing.

 

Even if you look at the West you don't have to go that far back to find massive child (and even adult) mortality, it's an incredibly difficult task get an ever growing population through that to a more sustainable level.

 

Again in a really cold (but still true) way, it would have better to introduce health measures at the same rate as infrastructure and technology increase..... of course war, corruption and wealth stripping makes that even more impossible to actually do (and even when it is more successful it doesn't take much to destroy it all again, just look at Zimbabwe).

 

 

 

 

Which really goes back the UK underclass issue, whilst their population maybe isn't expanding at quite the same rate, incentives that actually effectively encourage population growth (rather than personal growth), and do little to actually change the lives of the people from generation to generation are probably at best just putting off issues for the future.

[Park Life 71]

Tricky one. Some of the scum kicking the streets shouldn't be allowed out let alone breed. But, human rights would have a field day if someone suggested selective breeding, no matter how sensible it seemed.

 

I know - my other ideas about completely abolishing private healthcare and education would suffer from the same drawback - as well as people going abroad for them - thats why I'd need a world order to be able to do it.

 

The thing is I can see combined global action being needed within a couple of hundred years (if climate change happens) so population control could follow - if its not too late.

 

Are there really too many people on the planet tho?

 

Probably - a lot of studies seem to think so - I think the projected 10bn would be too many - I would feel a lot "happier" about mankind's future if it dropped a bit.

 

Of course advances in food production could mean its easily feasible but that assumes said advances were passed on to the poor.

 

 

generally they are

 

the Green Revolution of the 60's and 70's saw almost all of Asia come out of mass starvation - it used to be common in China India and Indonesia but these days it almost gone except in exceptional circumstances

 

Africa is still a serious problem but a lot of that is due to constant warfare

 

Yeah but the Green Revolution (much like globalisation) is a one time thing, yields don't go up indefinitely (even with all the technology possible), and agricultural land is finite.

 

We probably have too many people on the planet now (at 6 billion) for everyone to have a Western type lifestyle, at 9 billion by 2050 there's going to be a LOT of new (and old) problems to deal with.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Breeding rates that are designed (in evolutionary terms) for MASSIVE child mortality quickly cause all sorts of problems (just look at the maths involved never mind anything else) as soon as that mortality is in anyway reduced.

If we were any other species disease and starvation would have put us on the bust part of the population cycle by now, but we've managed to stave it off with technology to a certain degree....... although I suspect we're just allowing bigger problems to build for the future rather than actually solving anything at all.

 

 

They really have tried everything almost to kill off Africa.

 

True, but when the entire African population are dropping sprogs still at pretty much the maximum human rate, it's near impossible for anything but a nuclear war even slow down the growth.

 

In a strange way medical aid has done as much harm to Africa as anything else, it's a pretty cold way to look at it, but when you "save" a child, you've then got to support them through their life and then all their progeny too (a task with becomes pretty much exponentially more difficult with each generation), or you're actually "saving" nothing.

 

Even if you look at the West you don't have to go that far back to find massive child (and even adult) mortality, it's an incredibly difficult task get an ever growing population through that to a more sustainable level.

 

Again in a really cold (but still true) way, it would have better to introduce health measures at the same rate as infrastructure and technology increase..... of course war, corruption and wealth stripping makes that even more impossible to actually do (and even when it is more successful it doesn't take much to destroy it all again, just look at Zimbabwe).

 

 

 

 

Which really goes back the UK underclass issue, whilst their population maybe isn't expanding at quite the same rate, incentives that actually effectively encourage population growth (rather than personal growth), and do little to actually change the lives of the people from generation to generation are probably at best just putting off issues for the future.

 

 

Africa is the most underpopulated continent on earth.

 

As you say sustainability is the modern dilemma...Maybe mother nature has some tricks up her sleeve for us?

[Guest alex]

Tricky one. Some of the scum kicking the streets shouldn't be allowed out let alone breed. But, human rights would have a field day if someone suggested selective breeding, no matter how sensible it seemed.

 

I know - my other ideas about completely abolishing private healthcare and education would suffer from the same drawback - as well as people going abroad for them - thats why I'd need a world order to be able to do it.

 

The thing is I can see combined global action being needed within a couple of hundred years (if climate change happens) so population control could follow - if its not too late.

 

Are there really too many people on the planet tho?

 

Probably - a lot of studies seem to think so - I think the projected 10bn would be too many - I would feel a lot "happier" about mankind's future if it dropped a bit.

 

Of course advances in food production could mean its easily feasible but that assumes said advances were passed on to the poor.

 

 

generally they are

 

the Green Revolution of the 60's and 70's saw almost all of Asia come out of mass starvation - it used to be common in China India and Indonesia but these days it almost gone except in exceptional circumstances

 

Africa is still a serious problem but a lot of that is due to constant warfare

 

Yeah but the Green Revolution (much like globalisation) is a one time thing, yields don't go up indefinitely (even with all the technology possible), and agricultural land is finite.

 

We probably have too many people on the planet now (at 6 billion) for everyone to have a Western type lifestyle, at 9 billion by 2050 there's going to be a LOT of new (and old) problems to deal with.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Breeding rates that are designed (in evolutionary terms) for MASSIVE child mortality quickly cause all sorts of problems (just look at the maths involved never mind anything else) as soon as that mortality is in anyway reduced.

If we were any other species disease and starvation would have put us on the bust part of the population cycle by now, but we've managed to stave it off with technology to a certain degree....... although I suspect we're just allowing bigger problems to build for the future rather than actually solving anything at all.

 

 

They really have tried everything almost to kill off Africa.

 

True, but when the entire African population are dropping sprogs still at pretty much the maximum human rate, it's near impossible for anything but a nuclear war even slow down the growth.

 

In a strange way medical aid has done as much harm to Africa as anything else, it's a pretty cold way to look at it, but when you "save" a child, you've then got to support them through their life and then all their progeny too (a task with becomes pretty much exponentially more difficult with each generation), or you're actually "saving" nothing.

 

Even if you look at the West you don't have to go that far back to find massive child (and even adult) mortality, it's an incredibly difficult task get an ever growing population through that to a more sustainable level.

 

Again in a really cold (but still true) way, it would have better to introduce health measures at the same rate as infrastructure and technology increase..... of course war, corruption and wealth stripping makes that even more impossible to actually do (and even when it is more successful it doesn't take much to destroy it all again, just look at Zimbabwe).

 

 

 

 

Which really goes back the UK underclass issue, whilst their population maybe isn't expanding at quite the same rate, incentives that actually effectively encourage population growth (rather than personal growth), and do little to actually change the lives of the people from generation to generation are probably at best just putting off issues for the future.

 

 

Africa is the most underpopulated continent on earth.

 

I thought Antarctica was

[Fop 1]

Tricky one. Some of the scum kicking the streets shouldn't be allowed out let alone breed. But, human rights would have a field day if someone suggested selective breeding, no matter how sensible it seemed.

 

I know - my other ideas about completely abolishing private healthcare and education would suffer from the same drawback - as well as people going abroad for them - thats why I'd need a world order to be able to do it.

 

The thing is I can see combined global action being needed within a couple of hundred years (if climate change happens) so population control could follow - if its not too late.

 

Are there really too many people on the planet tho?

 

Probably - a lot of studies seem to think so - I think the projected 10bn would be too many - I would feel a lot "happier" about mankind's future if it dropped a bit.

 

Of course advances in food production could mean its easily feasible but that assumes said advances were passed on to the poor.

 

 

generally they are

 

the Green Revolution of the 60's and 70's saw almost all of Asia come out of mass starvation - it used to be common in China India and Indonesia but these days it almost gone except in exceptional circumstances

 

Africa is still a serious problem but a lot of that is due to constant warfare

 

Yeah but the Green Revolution (much like globalisation) is a one time thing, yields don't go up indefinitely (even with all the technology possible), and agricultural land is finite.

 

We probably have too many people on the planet now (at 6 billion) for everyone to have a Western type lifestyle, at 9 billion by 2050 there's going to be a LOT of new (and old) problems to deal with.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Breeding rates that are designed (in evolutionary terms) for MASSIVE child mortality quickly cause all sorts of problems (just look at the maths involved never mind anything else) as soon as that mortality is in anyway reduced.

If we were any other species disease and starvation would have put us on the bust part of the population cycle by now, but we've managed to stave it off with technology to a certain degree....... although I suspect we're just allowing bigger problems to build for the future rather than actually solving anything at all.

 

 

They really have tried everything almost to kill off Africa.

 

True, but when the entire African population are dropping sprogs still at pretty much the maximum human rate, it's near impossible for anything but a nuclear war even slow down the growth.

 

In a strange way medical aid has done as much harm to Africa as anything else, it's a pretty cold way to look at it, but when you "save" a child, you've then got to support them through their life and then all their progeny too (a task with becomes pretty much exponentially more difficult with each generation), or you're actually "saving" nothing.

 

Even if you look at the West you don't have to go that far back to find massive child (and even adult) mortality, it's an incredibly difficult task get an ever growing population through that to a more sustainable level.

 

Again in a really cold (but still true) way, it would have better to introduce health measures at the same rate as infrastructure and technology increase..... of course war, corruption and wealth stripping makes that even more impossible to actually do (and even when it is more successful it doesn't take much to destroy it all again, just look at Zimbabwe).

 

 

 

 

Which really goes back the UK underclass issue, whilst their population maybe isn't expanding at quite the same rate, incentives that actually effectively encourage population growth (rather than personal growth), and do little to actually change the lives of the people from generation to generation are probably at best just putting off issues for the future.

 

 

Africa is the most underpopulated continent on earth.

 

As you say sustainability is the modern dilemma...Maybe mother nature has some tricks up her sleeve for us?

 

It is in terms of raw landmass it is, but looking at population compared to the available resources and actual (and even potential) productivity of the land it's not.

 

It's true that if more of Africa could be raised to the level of say Zimbabwe before Mugabe destroyed the place then there'd be more scope, but the problem is Africa needs that NOW, and by the time it gets there (if ever) the goal posts will have likely shifted even further.

 

I think mother nature is trying, the question I guess is will humanity manage it first in some other way.

[NJS 4453]

In a strange way medical aid has done as much harm to Africa as anything else, it's a pretty cold way to look at it, but when you "save" a child, you've then got to support them through their life and then all their progeny too (a task with becomes pretty much exponentially more difficult with each generation), or you're actually "saving" nothing.

 

Even if you look at the West you don't have to go that far back to find massive child (and even adult) mortality, it's an incredibly difficult task get an ever growing population through that to a more sustainable level.

 

Again in a really cold (but still true) way, it would have better to introduce health measures at the same rate as infrastructure and technology increase..... of course war, corruption and wealth stripping makes that even more impossible to actually do (and even when it is more successful it doesn't take much to destroy it all again, just look at Zimbabwe).

 

I don'y mind coldness to a degree - I've said before I'm torn between a very left wing view of things (due mainly to my Mam) which I'm proud of which sits beside a very cold view which involves execution for minor crimes and as I argued at my last works xmas party a view that a nuclear war/bird flu which wiped out the USA/Chiana and India would be for the "good" of mankind in terms of population and climate change.

 

On Africa I remember being torn when the Ethiopian famine was happening - wanting to help but at the same time thinking "that's nature - if the environment doesn't support you then take the hint and move" - impractical of course but nonetheless "right" (though horrible).

[Park Life 71]

In a strange way medical aid has done as much harm to Africa as anything else, it's a pretty cold way to look at it, but when you "save" a child, you've then got to support them through their life and then all their progeny too (a task with becomes pretty much exponentially more difficult with each generation), or you're actually "saving" nothing.

 

Even if you look at the West you don't have to go that far back to find massive child (and even adult) mortality, it's an incredibly difficult task get an ever growing population through that to a more sustainable level.

 

Again in a really cold (but still true) way, it would have better to introduce health measures at the same rate as infrastructure and technology increase..... of course war, corruption and wealth stripping makes that even more impossible to actually do (and even when it is more successful it doesn't take much to destroy it all again, just look at Zimbabwe).

 

I don'y mind coldness to a degree - I've said before I'm torn between a very left wing view of things (due mainly to my Mam) which I'm proud of which sits beside a very cold view which involves execution for minor crimes and as I argued at my last works xmas party a view that a nuclear war/bird flu which wiped out the USA/Chiana and India would be for the "good" of mankind in terms of population and climate change.

 

On Africa I remember being torn when the Ethiopian famine was happening - wanting to help but at the same time thinking "that's nature - if the environment doesn't support you then take the hint and move" - impractical of course but nonetheless "right" (though horrible).

 

 

I get drunk at parties and talk shit but I don't really believe in it.

[Happy Face 29]

I love the way people look down their noses at the "subclasses" on their benefits. If I had a kid and my partner died, I'd be relying on benefits. I've worked my whole adult life and am university educated, but I have no savings and couldn't keep my current job. Would that make me "scum"?

 

Isn't the welfare state something to be proud of? It pulled people out of the slums and gives everyone at least a chance in life. People in here are advocating that be tore apart?

 

Anyway, the UK only invests 20% of GDP in welfare expenditure, that's a lot less than many other European countries. It's probably why Parky prefers to live in germany, where it's closer to 30%.

[Rob W 0]

I love the way people look down their noses at the "subclasses" on their benefits. If I had a kid and my partner died, I'd be relying on benefits. I've worked my whole adult life and am university educated, but I have no savings and couldn't keep my current job. Would that make me "scum"?

 

Isn't the welfare state something to be proud of? It pulled people out of the slums and gives everyone at least a chance in life. People in here are advocating that be tore apart?

 

Anyway, the UK only invests 20% of GDP in welfare expenditure, that's a lot less than many other European countries. It's probably why Parky prefers to live in germany, where it's closer to 30%.

 

 

Naahh wqe don't look down on people on benifits - well I don't

 

I can't see how you can bring up a family , work on Minimum Wage AND pay tax - it just doesn't add up

 

But being poor doesn't make you a member of the sub-human set. I can remember when times WERE tough and most people still took a pride in themselves and their families and stayed out of trouble

 

then of course you could live in the Ridges..........

[Guest alex]

I think you've hit on something there HF. The benefits system in this country is in many ways something to be proud of but at the same time it allows some people to milk it and we now have some places where unemployment etc. is the norm. How you have the first thing without the other is hard to say. I'd genuinely like to think I don't look down on people less fortunate than myself btw, although I think everyone is a bit snobby to a degree.