acooling08 Posted 24 June 2012 Posted 24 June 2012 Then you are punishing the child; and if you want single mums to work then make childcare affordable. As it is currently, getting knocked up is a great move for a young girl who isn't clever enough to have a good career, as she will get benefits and a council house. If she was to work full time in a shop or bar etc then she'd be much worse off. Having to rely on the state should be something to be ashamed of. When I was on JSA I was so embarrassed going to sign on, but for many it isn't like that at all.
Rincewind Posted 24 June 2012 Posted 24 June 2012 I thought the minimum hours that anyone under 25 can work now is 24 hours as opposed to 16 before the coalition. This means paying out more for nursery and childcare, drawing less benefits and having most of her earnings to pay for the extras. But first she would have to find a child carer she can afford. But according to some she is drawing hundreds per week just as a reward for having loads of kids so why bother trying to find work when she can stay at home with her feet up whilst bringing up baby. They have it so easy these women.
acooling08 Posted 24 June 2012 Posted 24 June 2012 I thought the minimum hours that anyone under 25 can work now is 24 hours as opposed to 16 before the coalition. This means paying out more for nursery and childcare, drawing less benefits and having most of her earnings to pay for the extras. But first she would have to find a child carer she can afford. But according to some she is drawing hundreds per week just as a reward for having loads of kids so why bother trying to find work when she can stay at home with her feet up whilst bringing up baby. They have it so easy these women. If they can't afford it, then it's their own fault for getting pregnant. They should have the responsibility to wait until they are in a stable relationship or have had a career to earn themselves the money they need. Many have the attitude of 'somebody else will pay for me'. Trust me, I only left college this time last year and a few pregnant chavs were saying exactly that.
MooseBreath Posted 24 June 2012 Posted 24 June 2012 You have all convinced me. We should go back to the good old days when the poor knew the place and were kept there by hook or by crook. I'm all for helping out the poor. I'd like to see people like acooling helped out more. As it stands they get no help at all. I'd be well in favour of removing all but the most literally essential benefits and spending the money on improving prospects for the hard working poor. There is a massive distinction between the hard working poor and the workshy. Attempting to group "the poor" together on this issue is pretty lame. The hard working poor are actually the group with the most resentment towards the workshy.
sphericalfox Posted 24 June 2012 Posted 24 June 2012 If they can't afford it, then it's their own fault for getting pregnant. They should have the responsibility to wait until they are in a stable relationship or have had a career to earn themselves the money they need. Many have the attitude of 'somebody else will pay for me'. Trust me, I only left college this time last year and a few pregnant chavs were saying exactly that. lol lol Don't get out much huh? Yes, those poor uneducated people should just pull up their socks, as most of them grow up and/or are surrounded by stability. Jeebus fooking wept!
MooseBreath Posted 24 June 2012 Posted 24 June 2012 lol lol Don't get out much huh? Yes, those poor uneducated people should just pull up their socks, as most of them grow up and/or are surrounded by stability. Jeebus fooking wept! Do you think that people aren't aware that having a child is a time and money commitment? Or else why do you think it is wrong to suggest people should be prepared to have a child before having one?
FoxyPV Posted 24 June 2012 Posted 24 June 2012 How about some of them keep their legs closed in the first place? Take your misogynist drivel and fvck off. It takes two people to conceive a child. Do you think that people aren't aware that having a child is a time and money commitment? Or else why do you think it is wrong to suggest people should be prepared to have a child before having one? Accidents happen.
MooseBreath Posted 24 June 2012 Posted 24 June 2012 Accidents happen. I have no way of knowing how many children are conceived by accident, but I doubt the number is high and in any case, abortions are available.
sphericalfox Posted 24 June 2012 Posted 24 June 2012 Do you think that people aren't aware that having a child is a time and money commitment? Or else why do you think it is wrong to suggest people should be prepared to have a child before having one? What's that got to do with what I was referring to? Someone is making the assumption that people who live at or below the poverty line have the life of Reilly, live in and around stable relationships, therefore they should easily be able to make the same application to their own lives pretty easily, and pull themselves out of it. It's idiocy of the highest regard or deliberate ignorance.
Rincewind Posted 24 June 2012 Posted 24 June 2012 Take your misogynist drivel and fvck off. It takes two people to conceive a child. Accidents happen. Partly correct One to conceive, one to donate. I'm on your side though.
Rincewind Posted 24 June 2012 Posted 24 June 2012 I have no way of knowing how many children are conceived by accident, but I doubt the number is high and in any case, abortions are available. Not if you follow the wisdom of the Pope.
Jon the Hat Posted 24 June 2012 Posted 24 June 2012 The usual slightly bizarre range of views. I ask the question again in a slightly different way - if working people in their 20s are living at home with their parents because they cannot afford a place of their own, why should their taxes be paying for others not in work to have a place of their own? Clearly a lot of meony is being spent where it is not needed. Personally I would much rather see targeted spending on young people who cannot stay at home and often have many other problems to boot.
Rincewind Posted 24 June 2012 Posted 24 June 2012 Maybe some young people are happy to stay at home with their parents. Also perhaps their parents don't mind them being at home. I assume that many that are not living with parents are not always doing it through choice.. Not everyone is the same so it cannot be said 'All do this or all do that. Pigeon holes are for pigeons.
FoxyPV Posted 24 June 2012 Posted 24 June 2012 I have no way of knowing how many children are conceived by accident, but I doubt the number is high and in any case, abortions are available. Not over here unfortunately
Webbo Posted 24 June 2012 Posted 24 June 2012 Not over here unfortunately People can and do come to England for an abortion.
FoxyPV Posted 24 June 2012 Posted 24 June 2012 People can and do come to England for an abortion. Having an abortion on the NHS is not available to women from here, so if you're on benefits, the chances of you being able to afford the travel, treatment and possible accommodation are quite small. It's a joke that it isn't available over here.
Rincewind Posted 24 June 2012 Posted 24 June 2012 People can and do come to England for an abortion. Unfortunately the Catholic Church do not allow devout catholics to have the wisdom of you or I.
Webbo Posted 24 June 2012 Posted 24 June 2012 Under 25? pregnant? have an abortion If it was an accident and not wanted, why not?
Webbo Posted 24 June 2012 Posted 24 June 2012 Unfortunately the Catholic Church do not allow devout catholics to have the wisdom of you or I. I'm pretty sure it's the govt that make the laws not the church.
Rincewind Posted 24 June 2012 Posted 24 June 2012 I'm pretty sure it's the govt that make the laws not the church.
I am Rod Hull Posted 24 June 2012 Posted 24 June 2012 If it was an accident and not wanted, why not? That wasn`t my point....
Daggers Posted 24 June 2012 Posted 24 June 2012 The usual slightly bizarre range of views. I ask the question again in a slightly different way - if working people in their 20s are living at home with their parents because they cannot afford a place of their own, why should their taxes be paying for others not in work to have a place of their own? Clearly a lot of meony is being spent where it is not needed. Personally I would much rather see targeted spending on young people who cannot stay at home and often have many other problems to boot. Working people in their 20s do not pay for the unemployed to have places of their own. Their taxes are paid into a government pot, as well you know. Unemployed people being homed do not necessarily have appropriate places to go if they have their right to housing removed. Again, as someone of your intelligence would be able to surmise. It is not clear at all that a lot of meony is being spent where it is not needed. There is targeted spending on young people who cannot stay at home and have many other problems to boot. Are you saying you'd like more meony spent in this area?
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.