They have a choice - abort or work. 99% would abort, believe me.... because as soon as these girls get pregnant, they use this pregnancy as an excuse not to work or even bother lookingfor it - believe me, I see these girls day in day out.... they'd rather eat their own eyeballs than even consider working.

 

And before we start thinking of excuses for them... my friend worked until the day before she gave birth..... pregnancy, in most cases, is absolutely no barrier to someone working. Whilst employers would think twice about employing a pregnant girl... well.... isn't there a whole load of things these girls could do for the community?

 

I want a society that simply does not tolerate social scroungers any more.

 

And Scott.... I'm not saying I want a return to the 60s and 70s where things were 'shameful'.... but.... you liken the pregnancy issue to the gay issue - and it doesn't compare - being gay does NOT take money out of mine and every other worker's pockets.... being jobless and pregnant DOES.

And who would perform the abortion? Under the Hippocratic oath a doctor cannot perform invasive surgery without the patient's permission. Even if a government was daft enough to implement such a policy, we would just go back to the days when pregnant teenagers were sent into hiding until the baby was born.

Regarding Child Benefit, does anyone think it should be limited to say 2,3 or 4 children as well as stopped for high earners? We know a family with 13 kids so that's a lot of child benefit. The father is working but I mean no-one tells them to have so many do they? Another family we know have 8 kids.

Here's one thing, why the fuck have a child if you're unable to financially take care for it?

Here's one thing, why the fuck have a child if you're unable to financially take care for it?

 

You're too dense to realise the limitations?

So what if the girls won't abort Scott?

 

Either A) Too fukkin' bad, or B) Adoption...

 

I'm sorry, but if people are soooooo bloody "moral" about Abortion (and apparently they're similarly "moral" about not using adequate birth control either, Gee, never realised there were so many Catholics living on Chav Estates.... :rolleyes: ) then presumably it's on religious grounds, if so, then shouldn't they be actually equally moral about sex before marriage... If not, they're a bunch of bloody hypocrites. Either that, or they're spawning numerous offspring on purpose to leech off the taxpayer. Gee, wonder which of these is the most likely eh..... <_<

 

I'm sorry guys, but this country is hundreds of BILLIONS IN BAD DEBT... Time to cut away some of the Chav.... Ooops, sorry, meant to say "chaff".... Because I AM FUKKED if I'm gonna continue to pay taxes and have MY services cut to the bone and watch while tens of thousands of my fellow actual working class brothers and sisters are chucked onto the dole to be humiliated when they try to claim something back from the system they DID actually pay into, while layabout scum out there who've NEVER worked are breeding and living at my expense....

 

There really is something totally fukked up about a system which makes it more difficult for those who paid into it to get something when they need it than it does for those who have never contributed a fukkin' thing, Bevan and Attlee never intended the Welfare State to be abused in this manner.... Time for that to change IMO.... -_-

And Scott.... I'm not saying I want a return to the 60s and 70s where things were 'shameful'.... but.... you liken the pregnancy issue to the gay issue - and it doesn't compare - being gay does NOT take money out of mine and every other worker's pockets.... being jobless and pregnant DOES.

 

 

In terms of society's changing attitudes it does compare however, it wasn't meant to be taken literally Russ....

I'm sorry guys, but this country is hundreds of BILLIONS IN BAD DEBT... Time to cut away some of the Chav.... Ooops, sorry, meant to say "chaff".... Because I AM FUKKED if I'm gonna continue to pay taxes and have MY services cut to the bone and watch while tens of thousands of my fellow actual working class brothers and sisters are chucked onto the dole to be humiliated when they try to claim something back from the system they DID actually pay into, while layabout scum out there who've NEVER worked are breeding and living at my expense....

 

As someone to whom motherhood came late (I had my first and only child at 38) I'd be pretty f*cked off is someone had the gall to stop child benefit for my one and only offspring ... after I'd spent all of my time till then (and with just a 4 month break since then) paying into the system. Sure ... have your say about people cranking them out ... but there are some of us who still appreciate the work-ethic and also are happy to be a parent. Bollocks ... my husband didn't even get the benefit of this 'paternal leave'.

 

Norma

 

As someone to whom motherhood came late (I had my first and only child at 38) I'd be pretty f*cked off is someone had the gall to stop child benefit for my one and only offspring ... after I'd spent all of my time till then (and with just a 4 month break since then) paying into the system. Sure ... have your say about people cranking them out ... but there are some of us who still appreciate the work-ethic and also are happy to be a parent. Bollocks ... my husband didn't even get the benefit of this 'paternal leave'.

 

Norma

 

Well, you said it there didn't you...? I wasn't including you in my posts.... And I presume you didn't rely on the State or expect the taxpayer to support you... My main criticism is levelled at these stupid teenage girls who dont seem to be able to grasp the basic concept of "birth control", and as Russ says, there's a certain type of individual out there who really would rather gouge out their eyes than bloody actually work for a living, so they just crank em out and reckon the rest of us owe them a living... And you waited til you were 38 too, well, you know, again, that shows you actually thought about it and planned for it, and waited until you could both afford to bring a kid into the world....

They really should stop rich people like my wife's employers getting child benefit. Multi-millionaires with servants and houses all over the world and they still get their £64 a month for one daughter. They told my wife they buy 2 extra bottles of nice champagne with it every month. :rolleyes:

Edited June 15, 201015 yr by Victor Meldrew

They really should stop rich people like my wife's employers getting child benefit. Multi-millionaires with servants and houses all over the world and they still get their £64 a month for one daughter. They told my wife they buy 2 extra bottles of nice champagne with it every month. :rolleyes:

 

That I agree with, reduce child benefits gradually over a certain income. However, what I don't agree with is what Cameron is threatening to do and get rid of EMA, which gives every 16-18 in full time education with a low earning household £30 a week to help with household costs and the like to make sure they're not on the edge of bankruptcy the whole time. I have friends who rely on that.

DELETED as post I quoted seems to have been deleted.

Edited June 15, 201015 yr by Common Sense

That I agree with, reduce child benefits gradually over a certain income. However, what I don't agree with is what Cameron is threatening to do and get rid of EMA, which gives every 16-18 in full time education with a low earning household £30 a week to help with household costs and the like to make sure they're not on the edge of bankruptcy the whole time. I have friends who rely on that.

 

 

Totally agree. They should keep that as teenagers that age can be expensive. I'll no doubt discover that in 2 years' time. :rolleyes: I didn't know it was for low income families only though, thought they all got it.

Edited June 15, 201015 yr by Common Sense

Totally agree. They should keep that as teenagers that age can be expensive. I'll no doubt discover that in 2 years' time. :rolleyes: I didn't know it was for low income families only though, thought they all got it.

I agee with EMA on principle, but in some cases, it can be abused e.g. a lot of students seem to think it's just pocket money, and they use it to go to gigs, have a night out, when it should be used to buy school books etc.

I agee with EMA on principle, but in some cases, it can be abused e.g. a lot of students seem to think it's just pocket money, and they use it to go to gigs, have a night out, when it should be used to buy school books etc.

EMA has no explicit intention for use - it can be spent however the student sees fit, but most advise it goes on transport, school books etc. - there's nothing wrong with them doing this as the entire aim of EMA was to increase the amount of students who stayed on - it has enabled the poorest to fund going to school rather than be forced into work (or unemployment for the JSA contributions), and the students who can afford to use it as pocket money spend it, thereby boosting aggregate demand, and are more likely to stay in school. People may decry it as a bribe, but it has saved huge amounts of money in the long run through the increase of Aggregate Supply (through increased skills) and decreased Unemployment (and therefore decrease in NEETs and Jobseekers' Allowance payments).

In all honesty, if we're going to be cutting things then I think EMA SHOULD be one of the first things to go (although it would save a limited ammount of money). The idea is to help students with buying stuff they need to do well in school, but in all honesty, schools provide textbooks and all the stuff you need anyway... I claimed the maximum of £30 for the whole two years, and in that entire time, the only "educational" things I spent the money on was two theatre trips for English Lit, and the rest I spent for myself. Tbh even at the time I could see it was pretty unfair that I got free money whereas people with richer parents didn't, even though they didn't get much money off their parents anyway... although obviously I'm not an idiot, so I wasn't exactly going to turn down £30 a week purely because of principle. :P

Edited June 15, 201015 yr by Danny

my lad needed ema to physically attend the college he went to, it paid his transport costs.

EMA has no explicit intention for use - it can be spent however the student sees fit, but most advise it goes on transport, school books etc. - there's nothing wrong with them doing this as the entire aim of EMA was to increase the amount of students who stayed on - it has enabled the poorest to fund going to school rather than be forced into work (or unemployment for the JSA contributions), and the students who can afford to use it as pocket money spend it, thereby boosting aggregate demand, and are more likely to stay in school. People may decry it as a bribe, but it has saved huge amounts of money in the long run through the increase of Aggregate Supply (through increased skills) and decreased Unemployment (and therefore decrease in NEETs and Jobseekers' Allowance payments).

It's a good argument in regards to encouraging more people to continue with school (although a student should want to attend to get the grades to go to uni, not so they can get £30 to spend on a nice pair of shoes. If that is the case, then they probably also lack the motivation to push themselves to do well in exams. Education is not for everyone) there's only that one point I have conflicting views with; if they don't need EMA to help support them in attending further education (in terms of books, transport etc.) then I don't think they should recieve anything. A lot of the schools, like Danny said, already have funds in place to support families, although not all schools are well funded: so instead of giving it directly to the kid's bank account, why not just give the school the money. So it's like one account, and the school controls the flow of it, that way they can give it out to the people that genuinely depend on it on a case to case basis, regardless of income? That way it stops it being used on spending for the sake of it, although the money would be just sitting there and as you said it could be used to increase aggregatre supply. That being said, on principle, wouldn't that be a fairer distribution of the money than simply transfering it a child's bank account that might not necessarily need it?

 

The main point I want to make though is that some people might deceptively appear to have a high income, don't qualify for EMA, but when it comes to disposable income they may have less than the family that recieves EMA. I'm pretty sure I'm right in saying they don't take into account the amount of interest a family have to pay, their household bills etc. So because of the difference in the amount of debt or mortgage the two families have, the apparantly richer working class family could be in a worse financial position. I'm not sure if I made that point very eloquently, or if my assumption is accurate, so please correct me if I'm wrong. It may just be based on personal experience, but that is something that bugs me about means testing, the same thing goes for grants to help with university. I won't be able to claim anything in grants or bursaries, I do volunteer work I don't get paid, my parents haven't got the money to loan me, so it's a pretty frustrating situation to be in, although that's going off the point.

Edited June 15, 201015 yr by Daniel Gleek

It's a good argument in regards to encouraging more people to continue with school (although a student should want to attend to get the grades to go to uni, not so they can get £30 to spend on a nice pair of shoes. If that is the case, then they probably also lack the motivation to push themselves to do well in exams. Education is not for everyone) there's only that one point I have conflicting views with; if they don't need EMA to help support them in attending further education (in terms of books, transport etc.) then I don't think they should recieve anything. A lot of the schools, like Danny said, already have funds in place to support families, although not all schools are well funded: so instead of giving it directly to the kid's bank account, why not just give the school the money. So it's like one account, and the school controls the flow of it, that way they can give it out to the people that genuinely depend on it on a case to case basis, regardless of income? That way it stops it being used on spending for the sake of it, although the money would be just sitting there and as you said it could be used to increase aggregatre supply. That being said, on principle, wouldn't that be a fairer distribution of the money than simply transfering it a child's bank account that might not necessarily need it?

 

The main point I want to make though is that some people might deceptively appear to have a high income, don't qualify for EMA, but when it comes to disposable income they may have less than the family that recieves EMA. I'm pretty sure I'm right in saying they don't take into account the amount of interest a family have to pay, their household bills etc. So because of the difference in the amount of debt or mortgage the two families have, the apparantly richer working class family could be in a worse financial position. I'm not sure if I made that point very eloquently, or if my assumption is accurate, so please correct me if I'm wrong. It may just be based on personal experience, but that is something that bugs me about means testing, the same thing goes for grants to help with university. I won't be able to claim anything in grants or bursaries, I do volunteer work I don't get paid, my parents haven't got the money to loan me, so it's a pretty frustrating situation to be in, although that's going off the point.

Ah, but EMA gets withdrawn by schools unless they continue to put effort into their studies (as measured by grades etc.). The pupil premium should deal with your second point - the idea that the government provides more funds to schools for taking on poorer pupils.

 

I appreciate your point on deceptively appearing to have a high income, having gotten only £10 a week despite not actually receiving parental support but technically ending up outside the maximum bound due to how much my aunt earned. It's an annoying problem, but I don't see any possible way of dealing with it really? Certainly no reason to withdraw EMA.

Ah, but EMA gets withdrawn by schools unless they continue to put effort into their studies (as measured by grades etc.). The pupil premium should deal with your second point - the idea that the government provides more funds to schools for taking on poorer pupils.

 

In fairness this is true. Also, you had to have 100% attendance in a week to get the payment for that week - if, for instance, I ever had an afternoon of free periods and so went home at lunchtime and missed afternoon register, I'd miss the entire week's EMA payment. I don't know if all schools are as strict as that though.