It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Sterilise parents receiving government benefits, says Tory

page: 2
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 06:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by 44soulslayer
[
These are people that dont work whatsoever. They exist on income given to them by the state, which in turn is taken from those who actually do the jobs you outlined above.

Sorry for double posting, i just had to point this massive distinction out.


one in ten people in ohio recieve food stamps......
the one's that aren't working at least some, are by far quite few I believe...and well....I got a feeling they are mostly single moms with young children. if they are, well, they ARE working, or at least if they aren't their kids should be taken from them for negligence....but raising kids IS a full time job in and of itself!
one of the problems with society is that they don't recognize this work as anything meaningful!
and by the way, this welfare to work crap is costing us more in the long run that it is saving! a person has three kids and is told to go out and find a job, throw them in childcare, which the state pays three dollars (or more) per kid for, the person only makes $7, credit is given to transportation expense, clothing expense, and meals at work.......their new benefits are higher than they were when she wasn't working!




posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 06:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by 44soulslayer
reply to post by Merigold
 




Lets make no bones about it, these people are undesirable elements in society.
These people? To you the offenders are the lazy sods who up your tax bill. Do you decide who the undesirable are? Do I?


Our dear nanny state is actually affecting the balance of evolution in our country. The rich are penalised by excessive taxes and driven out of the country, while the "undesirable" elements are given benefit after benefit while they contribute nothing.
Can you see how this is a gross injustice?

So the rich are somehow better then the poor? They are more desirable? Where do I fit in? I'm not rich nor poor, but if I lost my job today I might have to get on benefits. Does that mean I should be sterilized because I aa potential user of benefits?



Thus the optimal solution to stop dysgenics in society would be to end the benefits culture. There is no reason why hard working folk should subsidize the work-shy. For me to have to subsidize the pointless benefits given to women such as Shannon Matthews' mother is a forthright slap to my face, and its making me want to leave this country every time i take a look at my tax return.


I have to agree that I don't like funding the lazy. When I first got to this country I had to work my ass off to get on my feet. I actually applied for JSA but by the time I finally got the 40 quid I'd already found a job. The first 6 months I slept in a hostel, ate mayonassie sandwhiches and saved every penny I could. Now I pay more in taxes per month then I made working in pub 12 hours per day for the first 6 months I was here.

I can't really argue with your comment abut how this may be effecting the balance of evolution, my argument is simply that if we were to allow Shannon Matthews to be sterilized where will we stop? Who else will be classed undesirable?



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 06:39 AM
link   
Sterilisation only serves to treat the symptoms not the disease.

The failure of the welfare and health services is due to any number of reasons, and yes part of that is that baby making pays well. There are many other factors though, a few years ago there was an influx of ex-pats from among other places Australia, who having retained their citizenship, yet never, ever contributing any tax to this country returned for free health care, benefits, pensions and bus passes - and by jove they got it all. We are also now providing free health care, benefits and education to half of Eastern Europe, which is having the additional benefit of pushing the wages down in the construction and manufacturing industry.

It is the system that is wrong, those that exploit it come from all classes. There was a story not long ago of a millionaire who was ordered to pay back the £35,000 he'd defrauded in benefits, look at the local papers and there are scores of cases like this. It is all very well blaming one group of people, but it serves no purpose, they perhaps have an excuse, they are ill educated and don't know any better, but others lack that reason. They simply see a system that can be exploited. Who is worse?



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 06:41 AM
link   
I might add, in defence of Child Benefit, that the Government WANTS people to have babies. Given the cost of modern living, raising any more than 1 child is a great burden today. The Government obviously wish to avoid a demographic crisis in the future, so try to entice people to have babies. Unfortunately, like most things in life, a few people, such as those I highlighted above, take advantage and abuse it, giving the whole system a bad name.

I personally DO believe in Government enticements to have children. it is a matter of national interest. The French did the same a few years back and the Russians do it also, where they give huge cash lump sums to those having 2 or more children, as a reward for having babies for the nations future. It doesn't seem to be abused in those states, but here in the UK, we have a whole population of inbred, poorly educated breeders who play the system so they never have to work a day in their lives and have a comfortable life as well.

As an added side, for those in the UK, they might be familiar with the C4 programme Wife Swap. Once I saw a family on there, where neither parent worked and they fed their kids solely on takeaway, even the 2 year old.

What was even more shocking than that, was the fact the monthly bill for takeaway alone was £2000!! Paid for by the tax payer!!!

That is obscene, that people are allowed to claim such huge sums and basically live a life where they don't have a concern in the world.

The system needs reforming, but I am not against the idea of receiving benefits, just as long as it is done in a fair and responsible manner.



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 08:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by dawnstar

Originally posted by 44soulslayer
[
These are people that dont work whatsoever. They exist on income given to them by the state, which in turn is taken from those who actually do the jobs you outlined above.

Sorry for double posting, i just had to point this massive distinction out.


one in ten people in ohio recieve food stamps......
the one's that aren't working at least some, are by far quite few I believe...and well....I got a feeling they are mostly single moms with young children. if they are, well, they ARE working, or at least if they aren't their kids should be taken from them for negligence....but raising kids IS a full time job in and of itself!
one of the problems with society is that they don't recognize this work as anything meaningful!
and by the way, this welfare to work crap is costing us more in the long run that it is saving! a person has three kids and is told to go out and find a job, throw them in childcare, which the state pays three dollars (or more) per kid for, the person only makes $7, credit is given to transportation expense, clothing expense, and meals at work.......their new benefits are higher than they were when she wasn't working!



You see we in the old world have this thing called birth control, which lets us choose when we are capable to support children and care for them adequately.

Having children irresponsibly is exactly what this targeted disincentive scheme is about.

We need to stop handing money out to people, and we need to make them stop and think about the consequences of their actions.

Just because someone had a child they couldnt afford why should i be penalised for it?



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 08:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Merigold
These people? To you the offenders are the lazy sods who up your tax bill. Do you decide who the undesirable are? Do I?


If the state comes into my wallet and forcibly takes money from me, then yes I will decide who is undesirable. If the offenders want to continue as they are doing, why oh why should I foot the bill? Have i done something wrong by working? Clearly I would have more incentive to pack it all in and go and knock up 10 women and just claim benefits.



So the rich are somehow better then the poor? They are more desirable? Where do I fit in? I'm not rich nor poor, but if I lost my job today I might have to get on benefits. Does that mean I should be sterilized because I aa potential user of benefits?


Did i ever say that? I said that those who have children irresponsibly in order to claim benefits are unworthy. I have nothing against the poor, I used to be poor at one point too but I worked until I wasnt. I didnt rely on governmental handouts, I didnt rely on Robin Hooding the rich to get where I am today. I expect the same courtesy from these people.



I have to agree that I don't like funding the lazy. When I first got to this country I had to work my ass off to get on my feet. I actually applied for JSA but by the time I finally got the 40 quid I'd already found a job. The first 6 months I slept in a hostel, ate mayonassie sandwhiches and saved every penny I could. Now I pay more in taxes per month then I made working in pub 12 hours per day for the first 6 months I was here.


And that is what I respect, and what I expect from others. The people who I am against subsidizing are those who abuse the system as outlined above.



I can't really argue with your comment abut how this may be effecting the balance of evolution, my argument is simply that if we were to allow Shannon Matthews to be sterilized where will we stop? Who else will be classed undesirable?


You see its a very simple system. The choice is either:

1. Have a benefits system and control who is the beneficiary of it.

2. Dont have a benefits system, let anyone do as they please.

What I cannot accept is people forcibly taking my money and giving it to those who abuse the system and are simply too lazy to work.

[edit on 26-3-2008 by 44soulslayer]



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 08:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by 44soulslayer

Just because someone had a child they couldnt afford why should i be penalised for it?


You shouldn't be penalized, however wouldn't the world be a nicer place if we actually gave a crap about our neighbors?

I find it distrubing that people just don't care anymore about anyone but themselves.

If you're poor it's your own fault, Who cares if your kids are hungry?
if you're fat, too bad, I shouldn't have to pay taxes so you can get health care

I read this on ATS everyday and it really depresses me that as a people we just don't care about each other anymore.


I believe that it is our responsibility as civilized beings to help those less fortunate then we might be.



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 08:49 AM
link   
oops! PC glitch

[edit on 26-3-2008 by citizen smith]



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 08:50 AM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 


There is a flip-side to this lifestyle, the most honest tragi-comedy-drama portrayal that springs to mind is Shameless

Where's the giro...time fer a party!




posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Merigold

I believe that it is our responsibility as civilized beings to help those less fortunate then we might be.


There is a difference between helping those less fortunate than yourself and allowing people to do nothing but pop out children every nine months so they don't ever have to get a job.

I don't agree with forcing sterilization on anyone, but something needs to be done. The welfare system is broken and it needs to be fixed badly.



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Merigold

Originally posted by 44soulslayer

Just because someone had a child they couldnt afford why should i be penalised for it?


You shouldn't be penalized, however wouldn't the world be a nicer place if we actually gave a crap about our neighbors?

I find it distrubing that people just don't care anymore about anyone but themselves.

If you're poor it's your own fault, Who cares if your kids are hungry?
if you're fat, too bad, I shouldn't have to pay taxes so you can get health care

I read this on ATS everyday and it really depresses me that as a people we just don't care about each other anymore.


I believe that it is our responsibility as civilized beings to help those less fortunate then we might be.



If I could bring myself out of poverty, then anyone should be able to.

I will not accept the burden of those unwilling to work. I am all for charity when it comes to helping those who have been dealt a worse hand than me, but I refuse to help those who wont help themselves.

Why must we help the inbreds on council estates who are nothing but parasites on society. I would rather help alleviate child poverty in Africa, I would rather give them drinking water in India than give a widscreen TV to a benefits abuser in the UK.

Im sorry if that makes me selfish and uncaring in your eyes, but I value justice and fairness over compassion.



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by 44soulslayer
If I could bring myself out of poverty, then anyone should be able to.

I will not accept the burden of those unwilling to work. I am all for charity when it comes to helping those who have been dealt a worse hand than me, but I refuse to help those who wont help themselves.


We're not just talking about a period of poverty and hardship during one's life, but multi-generational culturally ingrained 'learned helplessness'

When there seems like no other way to live even a half-decent life, when the only employment opportunities that you can get to pay you less than the welfare state can offer, then what other option is there?

It's all well to say 'cut benefits and send 'em to work'...what opportunities are there for those who are un/semi-skilled un/low-educated to make a meaningful economic contribution to society? What employers will stay in that local vicinity for a long period of time to enable community economic stability?

There needs to be government investment in these areas to start the transition to community self-esteem...

The problem is endemic and deep seated culturally, and will take a long time to redress the balance, and I for one would be happy to contribute my skills and an increase in tax-revenues to make that change possible



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 09:37 AM
link   
well if our idiot goverment would quit letting manurfactoring jobs leaving us for china and mexico maybe the people on the system might not be on system. in my part of the world we have lost a dupont plant , a pharmacetical plant, weyhauser is talking about stopping operation because of drought, bocsh is having layoffs, and my plant has had layoffs that might end in shut down. most all the rest of jobs in area are fast food or reatail have you ever tried to rtaise a family on 6 dollars an hour? that mp and any official in us that talk about sterilizing me or my girl because we might need help one day might get bobbitted themself.



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 09:41 AM
link   
reply to post by citizen smith
 


Your theory would be entirely plausible if it were not for the rampant availability of work in our society.

There are plenty of low-skill, low-income jobs but the people have more incentive to stay on benefit than to go to work. The labour is also manual and tiring... hence they prefer to stay on the dole.

Im sorry, but I really have no sympathy for those who are capable of work, are offered a job but then turn it down in favour of the dole.

There was never an issue with the availability of jobs in this country. Sure, in the 80s with the downturn in mining there may have been a shortage in the regional areas. But now there is plenty of work in retail, staffing etc.

Additionally, because these jobs are rejected by the benefit-takers, we have to bring in Eastern European immigrants who are more inclined to work for their livelyhoods. This is not at all a bad thing in my opinion.

If my tax burden is to increase, and thus if my money is to be appropriated by the state, I would prefer to see it go to immigrants who are working for our economy rather than those who take benefits.


sty

posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 10:03 AM
link   
reply to post by proteus33
 


I guess this is an artifficially created comflict. Europe DOES need young people ! If we continue the way we do now ( I am over 30 , married , no kids. My sister married too, over 40 , no kids ) - EU will need about 20 000 000 new immigrants (young of course) to keep the economy from collapsing. I live in Eastern Europe , we are not rich here.However, mother with children will have a 2 years paid maternity salary for every child she got ! ( an average salary for my country economy) .

I think yes, the real problem is the low level of education for the young people. We will end up (by 2020) with most of the high-skilled jobs to be done by migrants or to be moved aboard.

To sterilise peolple based on income is the most abusive / extremme solution, even Hitler would think twice.Hitler believed in his people , and he made the poor people to believe they are special based on the race. I would be curious about the figures of the money provided to the people in need in UK , and also about the figure on how much money are paid by the government as debt towards the bankers, and alo what was the cost of the Rock nationalisation. Then you will see, there are enough money . But for the rich only .

Solution - the help should be provided, and the amount should be based on the effort of the family to produce high-quality citisens. Did anyone ever proposed to change all the benefits into a scheme based on school-results? it would motivate parents and kids !



[edit on 26-3-2008 by sty]



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by sty
Solution - the help should be provided, and the amount should be based on the effort of the family to produce high-quality citisens. Did anyone ever proposed to change all the benefits into a scheme based on school-results? it would motivate parents and kids !



Damn fine idea there, my Eastern European friend! Damn fine idea....

Problem is, we've already got the Government dumbing down the exams so "everybody" can get C grades or above, so I'm not sure I trust a Labour Government to be able to operate your idea properly.



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 10:30 AM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 


Freaking hillarious..

Its funny that this is not an American thing.. because I thought it was.

The look is the same, you can always tell who the trash is. They breed as their job, because we the tax payers give them money to do it..

In fact, it would take me 4 years of income taxes to pay the benefits of a typical welfare reaping mother.

I fully support sterilizing these people.. after perhaps 2 kids.

And a full repeal of ANY benefit to ANYONE who has kids.. why the hell is the Gov handing out money just for having kids???

Why not take the money we give to the trash and give it to the Middle income family with 3 kids who will all go to college and be productive citizens?


sty

posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 10:36 AM
link   
Found it ! The Rock "business" possible costed the UK taxpayer about 110 billions. this is 110,000,000,000 £

source :

www.telegraph.co.uk.../money/2008/02/19 /nrock1119.xml


For the porrest 250 000 children , you need 1.7 billions :
source:

www.telegraph.co.uk... iew=DETAILS&grid=&xml=/money/2008/03/13/nbudget313.xml



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck

And a full repeal of ANY benefit to ANYONE who has kids.. why the hell is the Gov handing out money just for having kids???

Why not take the money we give to the trash and give it to the Middle income family with 3 kids who will all go to college and be productive citizens?


Rockpuck, I understand why benefits may appear bad, but even I agree with the principle. The country needs to up the Birth rate (all western nations do) so the only way to do that is enticements to have babies. The way our system works though is open to abuse.

Problem is, we have a whole hoard of cretins now whose sole purpose is to procreate. It's like an infection!

Thats all virii do, isn't it? Reproduce?



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 10:55 AM
link   
Will anyone saying that this is a measure to sterilise the poor please take note:

This is a measure to sterilize those who abuse the benefits system.

This is NOT a measure to sterilize the poor

Youre right Sty, not even Hitler would sterilize his own people for being poor... nobody would, because its unfair and makes no sense whatsoever.

However if the system is being abused by a few whose sole purpose is to procreate in order to leech money off others, then dont you think we have a problem?



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join