Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Dave: Prolls Ought Not Have Children Before They Can Afford To


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 174
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Put it this way...a million years or so when man was still half animal he could afford children.

How on earth FFS can anyone in the world not afford kids now?

Put it this way... how many stone tablets with 'UM TAX DEMAND' do you think Ug and his missus got delivered to the cave in a typical month?

Productive people are delaying/cancelling the thought of children because they are too busy paying for the fecklessness of others. It's been happening for about 25 years, which is why you are just getting the second wave of Tasha Slappers popping out their quota of DaeShauns as we speak.

Not to mention the glories of mulitculturalism, which explains why such an unrepresentatively high percentage of sprogs have foreign born parents. What percentage of them rely on welfare, I wonder?

Edited by tahoma
Link to post
Share on other sites

What a stupid statement. In those countries, the children learn a useful skill at an early age (not always prostitution BTW) that brings money to the family in a honourable way. In this country, they are just parasites unfairly sucking resources and wealth from those who learnt you had to work for a living.

So you agree with me then. ;)

.....agree, excess money and resources should not be handed on a plate, given for nothing....a lifestyle choice that governments have encouraged over the last 40 years while free money and votes were flowing .... helping to keep the able but lethargic, demotivated, uneducated, in order putting a roof over their heads and food in their bellies, it suited the times and as long as the real workers were reaping the benefits of the booming economy, earning far more than they were worth in many cases, enabling them to buy cheap houses for 3.5 times salary they turned a blind eye....who wants to live in council housing anyway?

Now the same workers are finding life harder, a home of their own is now out of their grasp, one person now doing the work of two, job losses, cut backs, austerity....that council house is looking all the more attractive.........How can we put people back into work if there is not the sustainable long-term secure jobs that will pay a living wage to the average punter......this is the problem, too many people too fewer good jobs about..... ;)

Edited by winkie
Link to post
Share on other sites

Since when has it been a right to do whatever you want without taking responsibility for your actions?

Since the dawn of time

Luckily something you will be more comfortable with. Humans care for those around them esp their babies this is practically a human instinct. An animal instinct.

Humans should comfortably be able to afford 50 kids. Like I said when we were animals swinging from trees we could afford half a dozen and a million years later with all our brains most of us can't afford 1-2 without working 100h a week?

What gives?

The other side of the coin if you care to look. How can the top thousand richest people own $10T IN ASSETS? How were these monkeys in cloths able to amass this fortune was it not for direct or indirect theft from the majority?

Somebody else trying to re-define the meaning of words. The 'right' to do whatever you want has never existed. People do, because they can.

Some people care for those around them, some don't.

People get rich via different methods. Some steal. Some invent cats-eyes. Some get lucky. Some have gold in the back garden.The richest tend to be obsessed with riches - that's one reason they're the richest - & will do anything to hang onto it.. It's up to the rest of us whether we tolerate this level of inequality or not. How far to go is a matter for debate.

But they haven't necessarily 'stolen' anything.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Since the dawn of time

Luckily something you will be more comfortable with. Humans care for those around them esp their babies this is practically a human instinct. An animal instinct.

Humans should comfortably be able to afford 50 kids. Like I said when we were animals swinging from trees we could afford half a dozen and a million years later with all our brains most of us can't afford 1-2 without working 100h a week?

What gives?

The other side of the coin if you care to look. How can the top thousand richest people own $10T IN ASSETS? How were these monkeys in cloths able to amass this fortune was it not for direct or indirect theft from the majority?

What the hell were you drinking last night? Can I have some?

P.s. perhaps we should also cap our lives at 35 years, now that would be a good incentive to breed lots. Oh and let's start breeding as soon as puberty is finished, after all that's what we used to do since the "dawn of time". Fabulous. We also used to hunt and kill each other every other week, grand.... first dibs on ken in my team!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with David Cameron's comments. People need to take responsibility for their own actions. I don't enjoy contributing towards other peoples' child benefit (although I am OK paying for their schooling through my taxes).

IIRC, the 'young girls deliberately getting up the duff to get housing' arguement was debated circa 20 years ago during the last Tory administration (I recall the PC brigade jumping over the individual's opinions about this - I guess a Tory MP). They could have nipped this in the bud back then!

Link to post
Share on other sites

how/why was Thatcher bad in your opinion?not having a go,just interested in your take.

Thatcher kicked this all off.Before her arrival most people were content to work,earn enough to live and raise their kids.The whole ethos of thatcherism was that you can have more,you can have it all.Now for the top 20% this was true.People like the directors of Southern cross got smart and saw how you could milk the system.The bottom 20% did the same,only they used state benefits as their milch cow.The losers have been the 60% in between, who I guess are most of us on here.

You can't blame the dole wallahs without blaming the fat cats.If Thatcher had really had bottle she would have cut their benefits and had compulsory sterilisation for the chav classes.I'm not supporting that BTW just observing the logical progression of policy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The reality is that adults chosing not to have kids are effectively economic free-riders. Given that kids cost money, and that kids will underpin the lifestyle and life chances of the current generation when they are older, and prevent the economy from imploding in the future, there is a classic free-rider problem which it seems most of the posters on this thread are only too keen to take advantage of.

However, since the consequences of the problem are beyond most peoples horizons, they don't understand, or don't care.

In fact the behaviour on display here is not dissimilar to that of recent senior bankers, which just goes to show that the cultural problems we have that led us to where we are in 2011 are actually deeply embedded in everyone.

Obviously things ought to be fairer and the burden of raising kids need to be sensibly shared, but really, some of you should be ashamed of yourselves and your short term self centred outlooks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The reality is that adults chosing not to have kids are effectively economic free-riders. Given that kids cost money, and that kids will underpin the lifestyle and life chances of the current generation when they are older, and prevent the economy from imploding in the future, there is a classic free-rider problem which it seems most of the posters on this thread are only too keen to take advantage of.

(...)

Obviously things ought to be fairer and the burden of raising kids need to be sensibly shared, but really, some of you should be ashamed of yourselves and your short term self centred outlooks.

That is a very good point Scepticus. I agree with you.

But it doesn't mean the current policy is beneficial in this aspect. It doesn't offer support and/or inducement enough to convince the average working couple to have kids, but it is strong enough to convince many teenage girls (mainly those with less qualifications/options in life) to go for it. And housing is key here, of course. I think working couples who have a secure, safe, and spacious home feel more inclined to have children than couples who don't. It is just natural, I feel.

Edit: Besides housing, good and affordable nurseries/child care would also be essential for working couples.

Edited by Tired of Waiting
Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with David Cameron's comments. People need to take responsibility for their own actions. I don't enjoy contributing towards other peoples' child benefit (although I am OK paying for their schooling through my taxes).

IIRC, the 'young girls deliberately getting up the duff to get housing' arguement was debated circa 20 years ago during the last Tory administration (I recall the PC brigade jumping over the individual's opinions about this - I guess a Tory MP). They could have nipped this in the bud back then!

What I don't understand is how many were simply allowed to choose not to work, even when there were plenty of jobs for anyone who wanted them. One I know of hardly ever worked from leaving school at 16, except a bit of casual cash in hand, even before she had a baby in mid-20s. Then it was council flat, yet more benefits, whining at being broke and scrounging from parents, who'd incidentally always worked. She wasn't thick or hopelessly un-educated, either.

The great pity of it is that reading between the lines, now that her kid's at secondary school, she really regrets all the wasted opportunities that will never come back. Upside is that she's apparently determined her kid's not going to waste his.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That is a very good point Scepticus. I agree with you.

But it doesn't mean the current policy is beneficial in this aspect. It doesn't offer support and/or inducement enough to convince to the average working couple to have kids, but it is strong enough to convince many teenage girls (mainly those with less qualifications / options) to go for it. And housing is key here, of course. I think working couples who have a secure, safe, and spacious home feel more inclined to have children than couples who don't. It is just natural, I feel.

...people don't have kids either because they don't want them or they are fearful that their standard of living will deteriorate by having them......we in this country already have more than enough.....no gain without some pain, the right pain turns into a huge gain that will never be regretted...if only done for the right reasons. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

...people don't have kids either because they don't want them or they are fearful that their standard of living will deteriorate by having them......we in this country already have more than enough.....no gain without some pain, the right pain turns into a huge gain that will never be regretted...if only done for the right reasons. ;)

I think many couples do feel fearful, but for theirs and the children's financial security, and not necessarily for some shallow "standard of living".

I forgot to mention another aspect in my previous post, besides housing, I think child care is the other great problem for working couples. Well, related to housing, as many need double income to afford a house. So, they are forced to delay having children.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Seeing as RB started this topic I would be interested to see him expand his views a little more. Some have commented that he has misunderstood the point.

If he has not misunderstood what Dave was saying then his comments surprise me. Reading through this thread just confirms my view that this country will continue to sink under benefits and continue to produce generations of idle citizens happily taking without putting shit all back in the pot.

You can't stop folks having sex but you can educate them enough to know that they will no longer get the generous benefits dished out today when they produce a litter.

It's not rocket science.

The mind boggles....

Link to post
Share on other sites

What I don't understand is how many were simply allowed to choose not to work, even when there were plenty of jobs for anyone who wanted them. One I know of hardly ever worked from leaving school at 16, except a bit of casual cash in hand, even before she had a baby in mid-20s. Then it was council flat, yet more benefits, whining at being broke and scrounging from parents, who'd incidentally always worked. She wasn't thick or hopelessly un-educated, either.

I think it was the left's desire to eliminate child poverty without really understanding what the term meant.

They focused on an arbitary measure of income to which the obvious solution was "raise benefits for those with children who are not in work" without thinking through the consequences.

The result is that for many getting pregnanat and claiming benefits is the best carreer choice they can make.

On the downside you have a massive increase in true child poverty with huge numbers of largely unwanted children being born to allow the mothers to access the benefit system then suffering from low level neglect throughout their childhood as the parents opt to spend their money on booze and fags instead.

This is to me the key difference between the right and the left. The leftists say "something must be done" and anyone who questions them is an evil heartless tory b******. The right tends to look at the economics of the situation and realise that short term measures can bring long term pain.

Link to post
Share on other sites

People here are referring to non workers having lots of kids as an economic option and that this is now expanding into 2nd and 3rd generations of the same. Whilst workers' kids per head falls.

If having sufficient numbers of kids is so unpopular, yet kids are a required input to the economy, then it stands to reason in a society governed by the price level, that people would be paid to have them.

The problem is not that we are paying people for the 'job' of having kids (and it is very hard work compared to the dinkie 'working' lifestyle alternative, as you'll know if you have more than one kid), but that having kids is unpopular in the first place. This relates eventually to the emancipation of women. When finally given a choice between having 3 or 4 kids and spending 40 years in the marital home, unsurprisingly many women chose to have 0, 1 or 2, and go out and work like men,

Obviously now many/most women are doing this, labour costs fall, wages stagnate and houses cost typically somewhere just under two incomes, because most FTBs are in a couple with both working. You might suggest that the dual working FTBs are a symptom of high house prices, however undoubtedly the phenomenon of two income families was on the rise from the 70s/80s, long before HPI took off.

Now, because the norm has become two incomes, going to one income to have kids makes kids incredibly expensive. Monetisation of child rearing is horribly socially damaging so you can see social policies designed to 'demonetise it' as a natural response.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If having sufficient numbers of kids is so unpopular, yet kids are a required input to the economy, then it stands to reason in a society governed by the price level, that people would be paid to have them.

The problem is not that we are paying people for the 'job' of having kids (and it is very hard work compared to the dinkie 'working' lifestyle alternative, as you'll know if you have more than one kid), but that having kids is unpopular in the first place. This relates eventually to the emancipation of women. When finally given a choice between having 3 or 4 kids and spending 40 years in the marital home, unsurprisingly many women chose to have 0, 1 or 2, and go out and work like men,

Obviously now many/most women are doing this, labour costs fall, wages stagnate and houses cost typically somewhere just under two incomes, because most FTBs are in a couple with both working. You might suggest that the dual working FTBs are a symptom of high house prices, however undoubtedly the phenomenon of two income families was on the rise from the 70s/80s, long before HPI took off.

Now, because the norm has become two incomes, going to one income to have kids makes kids incredibly expensive. Monetisation of child rearing is horribly socially damaging so you can see social policies designed to 'demonetise it' as a natural response.

The reason it is so expensive, is the tax burden on wages and prices, that is there to support other people's kids.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The reality is that adults chosing not to have kids are effectively economic free-riders. Given that kids cost money, and that kids will underpin the lifestyle and life chances of the current generation when they are older, and prevent the economy from imploding in the future, there is a classic free-rider problem which it seems most of the posters on this thread are only too keen to take advantage of.

However, since the consequences of the problem are beyond most peoples horizons, they don't understand, or don't care.

In fact the behaviour on display here is not dissimilar to that of recent senior bankers, which just goes to show that the cultural problems we have that led us to where we are in 2011 are actually deeply embedded in everyone.

Obviously things ought to be fairer and the burden of raising kids need to be sensibly shared, but really, some of you should be ashamed of yourselves and your short term self centred outlooks.

++++++++++++++++++++++1

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think he's missing the point. For many it is simply a rational career choice based on the economic decisions presented. The governments only have themselves to blame. People just follow the money. You can't rely on 'values' anymore, if you ever could.

So turn off the money.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The £20.30 child benefit was fine. it all went wrong when they introduced family tax credits IMHO

Agreed.

When our first born came along I got a nice rebate on income tax.

The 2nd we got the tax credits bumped up, didnt matter whether you were working/married or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The reality is that adults chosing not to have kids are effectively economic free-riders. Given that kids cost money, and that kids will underpin the lifestyle and life chances of the current generation when they are older, and prevent the economy from imploding in the future, there is a classic free-rider problem which it seems most of the posters on this thread are only too keen to take advantage of.

:lol:

This is based on lots of massive assumptions:

That they will actually work when they grow up, dole chavs don't tend to work.

That they will stay in the UK.

That they will be happy to take on the crippling debts passed onto them.

My own generation is dubious about 2 and 3. And the lack of work (which makes economic sense to the individual) means even #1 is shaky as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Squeeze people off the 'land' into minimum wage temp. labour, remove their pensions, cut welfare then tell them they're too poor to have children.

Only Blue party memebers and their bankster sponsors are permitted to breed in The Bullingdon Boys brave new world.

Cameron's even more dangerous than Brown, and that's goign it some.

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2002195/David-Cameron-Families-children-afford-it.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

David Cameron courted controversy today by talking about families who had children before they could afford to support them.
The Prime Minister said he was determined to 'change values' in Britain so that hard-working families would be rewarded.

This govenment is out of touch not just with the electorate but with any sense of humanity.

If its to expensive for normal "HWF" to have kids its too expenive. Regime change please.

Yep he is right to many people in this country bring their familys up on benefits and have no intention of working to support their familys, we have a breed for benefits society in this country,this also encourages people from abroad to come to this country as they know after they have got their feet under the table they are secure for life, this does happen i have seen it myself first hand.

Benefits are a good thing and are there for people who need them when they fall on hard times, Not for people to take RATHER THAN WORK which is what seems to be what we have ended up with

Link to post
Share on other sites

Teen conception rates are falling. It's the over 30's that are having the kids in the UK these days...I'm not sure how long one is expected to 'wait' to have a family since biology kind of limits the options once you get over 35. As for single 'chav' teens going out and having kid after kid as a 'lifestyle' choice.. the evidence suggests otherwise.

..only 13 per cent of single parents are under 25 years old, the average age being 36. Fifty-two per cent live below the breadline and 26 per cent in “non-decent” housing. Single-parent families are more likely than couple families to have a member with a disability, which gives some idea of the strains that cause family break up. In spite of all the obstacles, 56.3 per cent of lone parents are in paid employment.

Some on this thread may want to modify their assumptions, and stereotypes.. especially as to who exactly it is having the 'unaffordable' kids these days. So might Mr Cameron actually.

_47364706_conception466x321.gif

post-14173-0-50079600-1307805084_thumb.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 433 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.