If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Aged 16-25? Share your experience of using the discussion boards and receive a £25 voucher! Take part via text-chat, video or phone. Click here to find out more and to take part.
Options
Comments
Note: keep fucking mouth shut next time...
It's so fetch!
Censor me again bitches.
exactly. Im confused
I know people will say, its not fair to make the children suffer, but its the parents responsibility and they are at fault if they have a third.
Dont get a mortgage which has a £1200 pcm payback if you only ear £1100, pcm, its simpe maths, dont have a kid if YOU cant feed it, I apreciatate sometimes people in tough situation have a child they didnt plan for which is why capping it at two caters for that.
I sort of agree with you, but only for people who are long term unemployed. If you've got 2 parents who are financially able to support their kids then it's irrelevant how many they have because they won't be a burden on the state. No job? Then stop having kids.
Without much thought on the issue, I quite like the idea proposed in a scify book written a few decades ago - the state supports the first, ignores the second, and adds tax for each subsequent. I'm not entirely sure about the geometrically increasing tax rates proposed, but otherwise seems fairly sound.
You could try being a little less of a c**t at times then?
The cap shouldn't be about *your* ability to support them, but the world resources. Western kids use 8 times the amount of natural resources (during their lifetime) than second or third world children.
Freedom of speech works both ways.
Also, you freely choose to post here, even with the following:
http://vbulletin.thesite.org/showthread.php/87302-The-registration-rules
Unfortunately the "I never saw that" isn't a defence.
I disagree. Most people I know who actively tried for a baby waited until they were financially able to do so. I know we did.
By 'able to support a child', we're not necessarily talking Baby Gap and designer strollers. I mean literally able to feed and clothe and house them. My two wear hand-me-downs and charity shop finds, we shop at Aldi and I got my pushchair second hand off eBay. If you can make ends meet, you can afford it.
It's different if the pregnancy was not planned, or if you find yourself in hard times after the fact, but I think intentionally conceiving a child you know you have no means to support is irresponsible.
Slarti also makes a good point about the resources, and one I had not considered before.
Similarly when my parents had my brother; both were working but it was still a struggle. I think it's far more important for people to 'get by' and if that means having some financial support from the government than so be it.
I also am one of the people whom clementine_the_tangerine descibed as me and my OH thought we were not financially ready to concieve and was planing to have kids later on when we could 'afford' them, we were carefull, but not careful enough and I have to say how happy I am to concieve accidetally as I know I would still be thinking I am not ready yet financially.
When it happened we knuckled down and you realise that it is not that hard.
We did get benifits that were so helpful as my OH was not earning much above Minimun wage, the after a year he was promoted with a 11k rise and then we lost all benifits which is fine, but without them at the time we would of been quite affected by poverty/housing etc.
We do want another one but we know how much that decision will cost and I wish I had more money so we could give our Son a Brother or Sister why he is still young but in reality i predict we may have another one when he is 7 or 8? Our son is 4 now.
I work in Housing as well and I come across so many families who have many children and no jobs etc ad they are at that stage where in order for a job to be worthwhile they would need to earn so much to make up for the loss of benifit that would take place.
The Country where my parter is from does not have that luxury, if you do not work, you will not eat, admittedly I think thats going a bit too far in the other direction however I really think 2 should be the cap for benifit reasons and human population reasons...:yeees:
Freedom to accept the consequences of what you say.
We will if you carry on disregarding everyone as if you're somehow better and above the rules. Either use your intelligence to engage properly or be censored permanently from TS. As Seany said in his PM, it's in your hands.
And like i said to Seany, i'll pay some attention if he told me what post got deleted.
(Also if I'm perfectly honest, the only thing to lose here is my username/post count, if i really wanted, i can evade IP bans, even ISP bans, the world of proxies/VPNS/Tor - nothing to hugely stop me)
It's more than your username/post count - it's your identity - you can evade IP bans as much as you like, but if you want to be yourself - which is the only worthwhile way to be in a community like this - then you're better off staying on good terms with people for the most part. Otherwise the only way you can come back is by pretending to be something you're not, which is a lose lose situation. You know that the people here are well safe with loads of sound advice to share - so why not just embrace it? Are you wired to be a rebel?
Stop being a bumface. People here are willing to support you, you give some good advice and no one *really* wants you to be banned. Conforming isn't such a bad thing
This