Jump to content
DOSBODS
  • Welcome to DOSBODS

     

    DOSBODS is free of any advertising.

    Ads are annoying, and - increasingly - advertising companies limit free speech online. DOSBODS Forums are completely free to use. Please create a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

     

Change benefits system to discourage having kids


Recommended Posts

As I looked out of the toilet window of the London flat for which I get mugged of nearly two grand a month, I noticed the multi-generational out-of-work family in the flats opposite (they have two next door to eachother) lighting the barbecue and cracking open some lagers while their six kids frolicked in the world's biggest paddling pool.

And I thought: have we got it all wrong?

The feckless get more money, the more kids they have, although the amount doesn't increase after two kids, as far as I know. But that's still two kids born into the benefit lifestyle and the lifetime council tenancy.

Would it actually be cheaper in the long run to pay the same amount regardless of the number of kids?  Perhaps even a little more to those who don't have any?

Of course, politically, this would be impossible - the left and right would both complain of unfairness, but for different reasons. And the potential savings would take a generation to materialise, and no politician thinks 14 years ahead.

But, it might actually be cheaper... thoughts?

Edited by AWW
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 80
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

To be fair I can't think of anything else I would rather waste my money on.

Yes but there's a reason I said 'breeders'. That's women, and the men they want to breed with. I'm expecting to be called a nutter for this, but to take one example, my mate who works 16 hou

The system is disgenic. Amazing isn't it. But then again, evolution works by benefiting the best adapted specimens to the environment. That the environment benefits these people and hinders the i

I have come to the conclusion, and this will make me sound like an incel, that the country is structured to benefit those who breed. Economic darwinism?

If you are not chosen to breed or choose not to, then you get nothing, and even more so will be expected to pay not only for yourself but for the breeders.

The most disgusting extreme of this is the lack of help that disabled people often get - one of the groups who our benefits system should be looking after. Nobody really talks about them, nobody really gives a shit.

Edited by JoeDavola
Link to post
Share on other sites

Child benefit was introduced after ww2 to encourage people to have children. It's still encouraging people to have children, sadly our unbelievably useless politicians haven't yet caught on that there are now too many people in the uk. 

It should be got rid of for child welfare reasons if nothing else, as it encourages people who don't have any desire or ability to look after kids to keep having them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, JoeDavola said:

I have come to the conclusion, and this will make me sound like an incel, that the country is structured to benefit those who breed. Economic darwinism?

If you are not chosen to breed or choose not to, then you get nothing, and even more so will be expected to pay not only for yourself but for the breeders.

The most disgusting extreme of this is the lack of help that disabled people often get - one of the groups who our benefits system should be looking after. Nobody really talks about them, nobody really gives a shit.

I think it's because our system is designed to help women above anyone else, certainly above kids or the disabled. Child benefit and tax credits etc all go to women, that's why they're so generous.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, AlfredTheLittle said:

I think it's because our system is designed to help women above anyone else, certainly above kids or the disabled. Child benefit and tax credits etc all go to women, that's why they're so generous.

Yes but there's a reason I said 'breeders'.

That's women, and the men they want to breed with.

I'm expecting to be called a nutter for this, but to take one example, my mate who works 16 hours a week. Up until he met his wife, he was living with his parents. If he had never met her, and still only wanted to work 16 hours min wage, he'd never have moved out of his mum and dad's house. Couldn't have afforded it. Having kids actually seems to have made him wealthier.

The benefit recipient that lives next door to my mate and who has the hot tub installed recently paid for by benefits; the knuckle dragger she had the kid with does actually live in the house a few days a week, it's just the government doesn't know, and thus this bloke doesn't need to shoulder the cost of housing the mother of his kid, or his kid. He can just pull up in his BMW to use the hot tub and have a shag a few times a week. My mate does 12 hour days, pays for everything, and his wife has absolutley no interest in having sex with him.

Another mate married a single mother. Works himself into the ground to pay for her, some other dudes kid, and various other things that she wastes money on. Takes all the overtime going. The father of her first kid doesn't pay a penny towards the kid and has never been asked to. My mate is completely under the thumb of his wife and the spending decisions are made by her.

So if you want to be in receipt of benefits, either directly or indirectly, be a woman, or be the kind of bloke that women want to have kids with but don't expect to support the kids.

Don't be single. Don't be disabled.

Hence I am referring to this playing out as a sort of dariwnism - benefits for the breeders.

Edited by JoeDavola
Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, AWW said:

As I looked out of the toilet window of the London flat for which I get mugged of nearly two grand a month, I noticed the multi-generational out-of-work family in the flats opposite (they have two next door to eachother) lighting the barbecue and cracking open some lagers while their six kids frolicked in the world's biggest paddling pool.

And I thought: have we got it all wrong?

The feckless get more money, the more kids they have, although the amount doesn't increase after two kids, as far as I know. But that's still two kids born into the benefit lifestyle and the lifetime council tenancy.

Would it actually be cheaper in the long run to pay the same amount regardless of the number of kids?  Perhaps even a little more to those who don't have any?

Of course, politically, this would be impossible - the left and right would both complain of unfairness, but for different reasons. And the potential savings would take a generation to materialise, and no politician thinks 14 years ahead.

But, it might actually be cheaper... thoughts?

The system is disgenic. Amazing isn't it.

But then again, evolution works by benefiting the best adapted specimens to the environment. That the environment benefits these people and hinders the intelligent and the hardworking says so much about the system when you think about it.

Work is pointless, effort is pointless, university is pointless (in a reproductive fitness sense).

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, JoeDavola said:

Another mate married a single mother. Works himself into the ground to pay for her, some other dudes kid, and various other things that she wastes money on. Takes all the overtime going. The father of her first kid doesn't pay a penny towards the kid and has never been asked to. My mate is completely under the thumb of his wife and the spending decisions are made by her.

The very definition of a cuck. No sympathy for your mate I'm afraid.

Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, JoeDavola said:

Yes but there's a reason I said 'breeders'.

That's women, and the men they want to breed with.

I'm expecting to be called a nutter for this, but to take one example, my mate who works 16 hours a week. Up until he met his wife, he was living with his parents. If he had never met her, and still only wanted to work 16 hours min wage, he'd never have moved out of his mum and dad's house. Couldn't have afforded it. Having kids actually seems to have made him wealthier.

The benefit recipient that lives next door to my mate and who has the hot tub installed recently paid for by benefits; the knuckle dragger she had the kid with does actually live in the house a few days a week, it's just the government doesn't know, and thus this bloke doesn't need to shoulder the cost of housing the mother of his kid, or his kid. He can just pull up in his BMW to use the hot tub and have a shag a few times a week. My mate does 12 hour days, pays for everything, and his wife has absolutley no interest in having sex with him.

Another mate married a single mother. Works himself into the ground to pay for her, some other dudes kid, and various other things that she wastes money on. Takes all the overtime going. The father of her first kid doesn't pay a penny towards the kid and has never been asked to. My mate is completely under the thumb of his wife and the spending decisions are made by her.

So if you want to be in receipt of benefits, either directly or indirectly, be a woman, or be the kind of bloke that women want to have kids with but don't expect to support the kids.

Don't be single. Don't be disabled.

Hence I am referring to this playing out as a sort of dariwnism - benefits for the breeders.

There's also the issue of whetehr you can disability benefits for the kids isn't there.I don't the two kid rule stops you getting number three diagnosed with somehting that pays?

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, No One said:

The very definition of a cuck. No sympathy for your mate I'm afraid.

I probably shouldn't say this,but when I was younger(and relatively lacking in morals),it wasn't unusal to find this tpye of lass knocking around the night clubs looking for someone to make her laugh if you get my drift.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AWW said:

As I looked out of the toilet window of the London flat for which I get mugged of nearly two grand a month, I noticed the multi-generational out-of-work family in the flats opposite (they have two next door to eachother) lighting the barbecue and cracking open some lagers while their six kids frolicked in the world's biggest paddling pool.

And I thought: have we got it all wrong?

The feckless get more money, the more kids they have, although the amount doesn't increase after two kids, as far as I know. But that's still two kids born into the benefit lifestyle and the lifetime council tenancy.

Would it actually be cheaper in the long run to pay the same amount regardless of the number of kids?  Perhaps even a little more to those who don't have any?

Of course, politically, this would be impossible - the left and right would both complain of unfairness, but for different reasons. And the potential savings would take a generation to materialise, and no politician thinks 14 years ahead.

But, it might actually be cheaper... thoughts?

I'm pretty sure you can get the mobility allowance (and free car) for having a kid with ADHD/Aspergers.Happy to be corrected.

I once knew a paediatrician who said most kids with aspergers jsut needed some discipline once in a while.....

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, sancho panza said:

 

I once knew a paediatrician who said most kids with aspergers jsut needed some discipline once in a while.....

That i can well believe to be true ,in my day no one had Asperger`s /ADHD but there were a few right twats ,and every teacher had a cane or a dap ready for them the same as everyone else   

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JoeDavola said:

I have come to the conclusion, and this will make me sound like an incel, that the country is structured to benefit those who breed. Economic darwinism?

If you are not chosen to breed or choose not to, then you get nothing, and even more so will be expected to pay not only for yourself but for the breeders.

Is that such a bad thing, though? Even if you choose not to have kids, you still need other people to have them, if not to further the human race, then to support you in your twilight years. And not even in a financial sense - you'll need someone to put food in one end and take the waste out of the other. :Sick1:

My point was more that the system encourages the "wrong type of breeding" (yes, I realise this has dark connotations).  If you're the hard-working, self-sufficient type, who feels a moral obligation to support your family, having kids completely screws your finances, despite the fact that you're probably going to produce "better quality" offspring.  You need to earn more money, thereby paying more tax. You'll need a bigger house, but there's no MIRAS. Your other half won't be able to work, but you can't use their tax allowance.  If you're reasonably well off, well there goes the child benefit.

The incentives are all wrong. Working folk get poorer (in a monetary sense) the more kids they have. Feckless types get richer.

Disclosure: I do have a dog in this race; two kids currently and would like (several) more, but can probably only afford one more. I'm the only money earner. Mrs AWW is a stay-at-home mum, because we both want our kids to be raised by their actual parents.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, No One said:

The very definition of a cuck. No sympathy for your mate I'm afraid.

 

Oh agreed that's his own fault. He admitted to me that he couldn't bear to be long term single the way I am, he'd end up an alcholic. I think there's plenty of men who can't cope with not 'serving' someone in that way. Plenty of cucks to go round it seems.

My point is some men aren't wanted by women at all, some men are wanted but with very clear stipulations that they must work to provide X Y and Z for that woman, and some men are with women who expect nothing in terms of provision from them, they just want to have their babies.

1 hour ago, No One said:

evolution works by benefiting the best adapted specimens to the environment. That the environment benefits these people and hinders the intelligent and the hardworking says so much about the system when you think about it.

Work is pointless, effort is pointless, university is pointless (in a reproductive fitness sense).

 

Well this is my point. Maybe all that really matters is your reproductive fitness. Maybe society is moving more towards reflecting this truth.

Higher percentage of childless/single/celibate blokes than ever, being tax-cucked.

If you aren't able to keep the fruits of your labour, either for yourself or to spend on your own offspring, while other people work so little that they pay nothing in tax and get given money for nothing by the same state that takes it (and by extension, a large amount of your time) from you, aren't you being cucked as well?

And in case anyone things I'm making this about men, I know several women who never had kids and they're getting no help from the state either. They get 40+ hours a week in office stress until they're 65 or older if they stay single/childless.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, AWW said:

Is that such a bad thing, though? Even if you choose not to have kids, you still need other people to have them, if not to further the human race, then to support you in your twilight years.

I get what you're saying, and it's true to an extent, but many people have not chosen not to have kids, they've never found anyone to have kids with, and they do not get the choice whether or not to pay for others kids. Paying for that in the assumption there will be an extended period in which these kids will collectively look after me in old age is one hell of an assumption.

I do get what you're saying though, and I don't have as rough a work life as many people do so I can't complain too much, but it's still all messed up and I can see why some people would feel particularly hard done by.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I never understand people who are anti- having kids on principle. (Although I can understand just not wanting any yourself.) What if their mum n dad had been anti- having kids. Doesn't make sense.

Although fully understand annoyance seeing bennies people living it up when you're not.

I heard the declining population was a a huge problem in Japan?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AWW said:

My point was more that the system encourages the "wrong type of breeding" (yes, I realise this has dark connotations).

I have never seen the problem with breeding anything, (humans included) to enhance desired characteristics. We do it with animals and every kind of fruit, vegetable, and flower. 

I suppose that just makes me a Nazi. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is all about the economy I guess. The never ever ending cycle to produce more demand.

Greta never mentioned it. We did. Overpopulation.

Sure someone posted the figured for Ethiopia circa the mid eighties famine and now. Just wow.

That is not me saying its an African thing. Although their projective population without industrialisation is scary. It just leads to eventual jumping the continents ship or starvation.

The world wont accept less people. The money system demands it. Their should be less. There isnt though. No mainstream narrative even in the offs to go with this idea. I doubt my life time either.

We surely have the tech to live with a much lower population and a great, healthy lifstyle. 

Back here. Today. Yes I see the point. Realistically there will be another reason to argue to import labour if the numbers are lower than we can produce.

Sad really.

If only.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, AWW said:

Is that such a bad thing, though? Even if you choose not to have kids, you still need other people to have them, if not to further the human race, then to support you in your twilight years.

I think we're past the point of furthering the human race, now that there are 7 billion of us, and room is somewhat limited for many....!

The 'supporting me in my twilight years' angle is nonsense too, most people end up in care homes, with children that never visit.

If anything, it's better to not have children , when you're in your twilight years you'll just be constantly reminded how little they care about you.xD

Edited by spunko
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, JoeDavola said:

I have come to the conclusion, and this will make me sound like an incel, that the country is structured to benefit those who breed. Economic darwinism?

If you are not chosen to breed or choose not to, then you get nothing, and even more so will be expected to pay not only for yourself but for the breeders.

The most disgusting extreme of this is the lack of help that disabled people often get - one of the groups who our benefits system should be looking after. Nobody really talks about them, nobody really gives a shit.

It’s fucked up. All I can advise is pay as little tax as possible. Don’t feed the beast. I would rather be piss poor., and am. Rich on time though.

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.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...