Page 24 of 28 FirstFirst ...
14
22
23
24
25
26
... LastLast
  1. #461
    Deleted
    As I see it, the cap on claiming benefits should be for the first 2 children (from that family there is no population increase or decrease).

    While it is the right of all people to reproduce (as many times as they want), there is the fact that they are responsible for those children and should not be reliant on others to care for them.

    If planning for children, most people will look to see if they can afford to have a child and be able to care for it. If not the will hold off on having children. They should live within their means, if they cannot afford to care for three children then don't have three.

    Cap on how many children? No
    Cap on how many children will receive welfare support? Yes

    If you think about it, people will say "well then only rich people can have as many children as they want". When i'd imagine alot of them are very conservative in their life style and have very few children. Either to keep the 'empire' together and not splitting it between multiple children, or to ensure the children will receive a large amount of money from wills and enable them to live as they have. (also with more children thats potentially more money they need to give away to keep all of them happy, and that will reduce how much money they make)

  2. #462
    I am Murloc! Atrea's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Montreal, QC
    Posts
    5,740
    Quote Originally Posted by Madkitty View Post
    As I see it, the cap on claiming benefits should be for the first 2 children (from that family there is no population increase or decrease).

    While it is the right of all people to reproduce (as many times as they want), there is the fact that they are responsible for those children and should not be reliant on others to care for them.

    If planning for children, most people will look to see if they can afford to have a child and be able to care for it. If not the will hold off on having children. They should live within their means, if they cannot afford to care for three children then don't have three.

    Cap on how many children? No
    Cap on how many children will receive welfare support? Yes

    If you think about it, people will say "well then only rich people can have as many children as they want". When i'd imagine alot of them are very conservative in their life style and have very few children. Either to keep the 'empire' together and not splitting it between multiple children, or to ensure the children will receive a large amount of money from wills and enable them to live as they have. (also with more children thats potentially more money they need to give away to keep all of them happy, and that will reduce how much money they make)
    The problem here is, unfortunately, this adversely affects innocent parties: namely, the children.
    They didn't ask to be born into poverty because their parents are irresponsible.

    You can say, "take them away from the parents, then", but if you understand the magnitude of what you're suggesting, then the current system (which sucks, admittedly) is by far the cheapest. Think about it - if you took kids away from every irresponsible parent, you'd have millions of children taken. Foster care, aside from being a potentially very awful environment for a child to grow up in, is a great deal more expensive than a few hundred dollars more a month given to the parent(s) by welfare and social services. The fact that we'd split up homes - even homes where the parents are not going to be winning any "X of the year" awards - in order to spend more money is ridiculous.

    It's disturbing to see such care given for children in other countries, but so little for the children in our own communities, who face squalor all the same.
    Last edited by Atrea; 2013-03-25 at 10:16 AM.

  3. #463
    Quote Originally Posted by Shifthappens View Post
    Im fine with people on welfare or disability, as long as that money is spent responsibly and not on shit like drugs, booze, smokes.
    i have ZERO respect for people that capable to work and still sit on welfare keep saying they cant find a job, its bullshit, if you want to work you will always find a job. Where there is a will there is a way.

    As for having many children, if parents can give them roof over their heads, food, education then its up to them, otherwise no. Personaly i dont plan on having more then 2 so i can send them to private school and give them good future.
    Please come to my country and try to get a job. Even if you get a job, you won't get paid or you will get paid under minimum wage which is actually same as welfare. So what is better than for people? Work 8 hours per day and get underpaid or not paid at all, or sit at home and get safely welfare because government is 100% giving it ?
    Smarty pants.
    I hate those rich smarty pants as you as you think you know everything and you know situations around the world. It's fucking financial crisis here and unemployment rate is 15% and rising 1% every month. Unemployment rate of people under 30 years is almost 40% already. When you search for job they ask you if you have a graduate degree for cleaning toilets!!! Average wage here is like 600-800€ with which you can only sweep your bottom. (minimum wage by law is 738€) This in barely enough to buy food and roof over your head. Efficient tax here is over 70%. Yes you read it right, over 70% of money you make in company, government takes away. First you need to pay around 400€ for health and pension insurance, after that 16-45% tax, depending how much you earn. After that you pay yearly income tax that takes another 10-25% and then you have VAT tax of 8% for food and 20% for everything else.
    People have other needs as well, not only to be fed. In some of EU countries is even worse.
    Spain: almost 25% unemployment rate and more than 50% under 30 years old.
    Greece: over 25% unemployment rate and around 45% under 30 years old.
    Cyprus: no money in banks, only cash transactions, you can only get 100€ per day from cash machine. They have no oil, medicine and food supply anymore, as they can't pay it unless they have cash on hand. Their country in on edge of collapse and civil war.
    It isn't everything and everywhere so shiny as in america where it seems people bath in money...

  4. #464
    Quote Originally Posted by Atrea View Post
    The problem here is, unfortunately, this adversely affects innocent parties: namely, the children.
    They didn't ask to be born into poverty because their parents are irresponsible.

    You can say, "take them away from the parents, then", but if you understand the magnitude of what you're suggesting, then the current system (which sucks, admittedly) is by far the cheapest. Think about it - if you took kids away from every irresponsible parent, you'd have millions of children taken. Foster care, aside from being a potentially very awful environment for a child to grow up in, is a great deal more expensive than a few hundred dollars more a month given to the parent(s) by welfare and social services. The fact that we'd split up homes - even homes where the parents are not going to be winning any "X of the year" awards - in order to spend more money is ridiculous.

    It's disturbing to see such care given for children in other countries, but so little for the children in our own communities, who face squalor all the same.
    I know beyond people taking their lives in their own hands, and being responsible won't happen, and I know there really isn't a great fix. But, without a cap on the amount of kids the Gov will help you with, there really is no incentive to stop. That lady with 15 kids obviously thinks the Gov should help her, and I doubt she thinks she should stop there. Its difficult to discuss things like this, and its difficult to come up with a real fix. All I see is a system waiting to be abused, and a system that is abused.

    ---------- Post added 2013-03-25 at 06:32 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Numeanor View Post
    Please come to my country and try to get a job. Even if you get a job, you won't get paid or you will get paid under minimum wage which is actually same as welfare. So what is better than for people? Work 8 hours per day and get underpaid or not paid at all, or sit at home and get safely welfare because government is 100% giving it ?
    Smarty pants.
    What country are you from?

  5. #465
    Quote Originally Posted by sandmoth12 View Post
    There should be.
    Who is going to enforce it?
    My Gaming Setup | WoW Paladin (retired)

    "This is not a dress. This is a sacred robe of the ancient psychedelic monks."

  6. #466
    I think we should get rid of all welfare. Let the people that can't take care of themselves die off. Soon there will only be intelligent hard working people remaining.

  7. #467
    I think they should limit benefits after 2 children. I also think those benefits should diminish after x amount of time to encourage people to actually get a job. Some people need help, i understand that. I was on unemployment for a month but i worked my butt off to find a new job.
    I play many games. WoW, Rift, D3, PoE, SC2 I will not criticize your game choice if you don't mine.

  8. #468
    Deleted
    The world isn't overpopulated there's plenty of resources for everyone and more. We just have to manage it better. We waste way too much in the western world.
    Also I don't think many understand the value kids have to society. Not everyone from poor areas sticks to a life of government support. Rich people aren't having kids cause its not cool anymore, who the fuck will pay our pensions?

  9. #469
    Quote Originally Posted by Numeanor View Post
    Please come to my country and try to get a job. Even if you get a job, you won't get paid or you will get paid under minimum wage which is actually same as welfare. So what is better than for people? Work 8 hours per day and get underpaid or not paid at all, or sit at home and get safely welfare because government is 100% giving it ?
    And what country would that be?

    Quote Originally Posted by Numeanor View Post
    I hate those rich smarty pants as you as you think you know everything and you know situations around the world.
    Poor is a state of mind. Circumstances around you may hinder or help your capability, but it comes down to the individuals to work hard and prosper. I had to work for three years with no pay to set up my company, I took nothing for three years, scrapping by, but now I am earning a large amount of money, I've educated myself over those three years so I could walk into almost any company and get a C-Suite Job.

    It wasn't easy, it was bloody hard work, but I forced myself to do it, while most people just sit around crying about how life isn't fair or how hard it is. I'm not wanting to dramatise things, or my story, but there were nights where I choose to go hungry, so I could buy some Software or Recording Equipment for the company.

    Life isn't fair, it is going to absolutely obliterate you, so quit whining and educate yourself!

  10. #470
    Quote Originally Posted by Hyve View Post
    I know you can't reply to this yet, due to your ban, but I would like to have a lack of faith in the government, a system that can be changed every four or so years, depending on the nation you live in, whereas entire social systems take decades to change!
    Governments may change but the sort of people in them, not so much. It's like a the more they change the more they stay the same thing, tbh.

  11. #471
    Quote Originally Posted by Rodna View Post
    Governments may change but the sort of people in them, not so much. It's like a the more they change the more they stay the same thing, tbh.
    It is still easier to change the people governing a nation, then the systems that the people have come to rely on.

  12. #472
    Oceans are acidifying and warming, killing off corals and reef ecosystems are an astonishing rate. Global fish stocks are down ~70% from 60 years ago. Forests are being cleared and vital wildlife habitat destroyed. Species are going extinct due to habitat loss and pollution. Hardly a river exists outside of the extreme latitudes that isn't horribly polluted. 300 wolves exist in Sweden and yet their government thinks they need to cull them because some people think their pocketbook is more important.

    But sure, go ahead and breed more. Clearly we have a people shortage on this planet.

  13. #473
    Quote Originally Posted by Skarssen View Post
    Oceans are acidifying and warming, killing off corals and reef ecosystems are an astonishing rate. Global fish stocks are down ~70% from 60 years ago. Forests are being cleared and vital wildlife habitat destroyed. Species are going extinct due to habitat loss and pollution. Hardly a river exists outside of the extreme latitudes that isn't horribly polluted. 300 wolves exist in Sweden and yet their government thinks they need to cull them because some people think their pocketbook is more important.

    But sure, go ahead and breed more. Clearly we have a people shortage on this planet.
    Every single problem you listed is caused by our industrial complex, not number of people.

  14. #474
    Old God Grizzly Willy's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Kenosha, Wisconsin
    Posts
    10,198
    Quote Originally Posted by Skarssen View Post
    Oceans are acidifying and warming, killing off corals and reef ecosystems are an astonishing rate. Global fish stocks are down ~70% from 60 years ago. Forests are being cleared and vital wildlife habitat destroyed. Species are going extinct due to habitat loss and pollution. Hardly a river exists outside of the extreme latitudes that isn't horribly polluted. 300 wolves exist in Sweden and yet their government thinks they need to cull them because some people think their pocketbook is more important.

    But sure, go ahead and breed more. Clearly we have a people shortage on this planet.
    That isn't a population problem.
    Edit:
    Quote Originally Posted by Rukentuts View Post
    Every single problem you listed is caused by our industrial complex, not number of people.
    Damn, beat me to it. :P

  15. #475
    Quote Originally Posted by Rukentuts View Post
    Every single problem you listed is caused by our industrial complex, not number of people.

    Deforestation is due to clearing land for farming. More people will require more land for farming and more cleared forest. Ocean acidification is due partially to increasing temperatures (from whatever source), and the increase in deadzones is due to agricultural runoff. More people means more farming and more agricultural runoff. Wildlife habitat loss happens when people consume more of the land surface area, which is bound to happen with an increasing population.

    Surely there are ways to increase farming productivity, prevent run-off and ocean pollution, better management of fish stocks, etc., but do you really think countries outside of North America and Western Europe will ever bother with such measures until the land is irreversibly damaged? I'd say you are delusional if you think the human population can continue to grow without destroying what is left of the natural world.

  16. #476
    Old God Grizzly Willy's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Kenosha, Wisconsin
    Posts
    10,198
    Again, that's inefficient consumption, not overpopulation.

  17. #477
    Quote Originally Posted by Skarssen View Post
    Deforestation is due to clearing land for farming. More people will require more land for farming and more cleared forest.
    We already produce enough food (and then quite some) per population.

    Quote Originally Posted by Skarssen View Post
    Ocean acidification is due partially to increasing temperatures (from whatever source), and the increase in deadzones is due to agricultural runoff. More people means more farming and more agricultural runoff. Wildlife habitat loss happens when people consume more of the land surface area, which is bound to happen with an increasing population.
    Oceans are the result of more CO2, see aforementioned industrial complex. As per farming, see above efficiency statement.

    Quote Originally Posted by Skarssen View Post
    Surely there are ways to increase farming productivity, prevent run-off and ocean pollution, better management of fish stocks, etc., but do you really think countries outside of North America and Western Europe will ever bother with such measures until the land is irreversibly damaged? I'd say you are delusional if you think the human population can continue to grow without destroying what is left of the natural world.
    I'd say people that think human population is to blame without taking into account the massive strains we put on the planet to accommodate our way of life need to reexamine some key facts.

  18. #478
    Quote Originally Posted by Grizzly Willy View Post
    Again, that's inefficient consumption, not overpopulation.
    And I am saying there is no way that we can continue to increase our numbers without making each and every one of these problems worse. Inefficiency or overpopulation, it doesn't matter. More people will equate to more environmental damage. Our species may have the means to prevent this, but it sure as hell doesn't have the will.

  19. #479
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Skarssen View Post
    Deforestation is due to clearing land for farming. More people will require more land for farming and more cleared forest. Ocean acidification is due partially to increasing temperatures (from whatever source), and the increase in deadzones is due to agricultural runoff. More people means more farming and more agricultural runoff. Wildlife habitat loss happens when people consume more of the land surface area, which is bound to happen with an increasing population.

    Surely there are ways to increase farming productivity, prevent run-off and ocean pollution, better management of fish stocks, etc., but do you really think countries outside of North America and Western Europe will ever bother with such measures until the land is irreversibly damaged? I'd say you are delusional if you think the human population can continue to grow without destroying what is left of the natural world.
    Sorry mate but you need to look into it a bit. We waste so much more than what we produce.

  20. #480
    Quote Originally Posted by Rukentuts View Post
    Every single problem you listed is caused by our industrial complex, not number of people.
    And the Industrial Complex has been put together to meet the demands of the people who seem to need a new phone every year, who leave their lights on when they go out of the room and all other selfish and foolish attitudes.

    ---------- Post added 2013-03-25 at 02:47 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Grizzly Willy View Post
    Again, that's inefficient consumption, not overpopulation.
    And you think that inefficient consumption with even more people is going to be a good thing?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •