Pay problem parents not to breed say NZ mayor

[Kurtofan]

Absolutely. Unfortunately society doesn't reward good behaviour. I'd like a £10k cheque to celebrate 30 years without a single day spent in prison but it ain't gonna happen, likewise, as a non-driver I ought to receive some sort of 'Minimal Carbon Footprint' bonus but I don't. And, again, as a childless man that has always paid a fat chunk of tax, it'd be nice to get some sort of recognition for that too.

To be fair as a non driver you already save a lot of money by not buying a car

[gofreak]

Pay them? That seems a bit generous.

I'm appalled in my own country how so many young teens in what could be consider 'socially deprived circumstances' turn to baby-making and the ensuing state benefits as a career. They get practically everything payed for once they have a baby, from prams up to rent. A lot of them do literally make a career out of it, and they keep some genuinely needy people from getting help.

I do sometimes wonder if we should have a license system for having kids, as awful as that sounds...

[jorma]

I agree with the sentiment but I think the removal of the welfare system after the birth of the first child would have the same effect. Babies for benefits cannot continue to be a viable career choice. Unfortunately, a lot of people with grand ideals and scarce understanding of the real world will hold us back from making the tough choices regarding population and resource management.

What you are suggesting is not the "tough choice" its the easy choice. Easy for the people who dont really care about kids born in poverty at all, but rather how they affect their own wallet.

edit: cheers kipz thanks for underlining my point

[Kipz]

Just remove all tax and welfare benefits for having kids. The problem would solve itself.

What you are suggesting is not the "tough choice" its the easy choice. Easy for the people who dont really care about kids born in poverty at all, but rather how they affect their own wallet.

But why are they born into poverty at all? Do condoms not exist? If you can't afford a child and still decide to create a human life then others shouldn't have to foot the bill.

[vooglie]

lol New Zealand's net population growth is approximately 1%. [s](not sure about immigration though)[/s]

Yeah, it's never going to be a problem for us because we're at the ass end of the world. But I wasn't just talking about just NZ. As I've said, this is not me agreeing with Laws, but rather talking about the principles of what he's saying.

Birth rates slow in areas that become more affluent and developed. In most developed countries, the birth rate is at or below the replacement rate. As globalization brings economic benefits to numerous developing nations, many, many of those countries have shown rapid declines in birth rate. Given these trends, it is reasonable to assume that the world population will eventually reach a peak and stabilize or begin to decline if left to its own devices.

This sounds way too much like the 'free market will fix everything' paradigm. Problems don't fix themselves, there needs to be a concerted effort on all fronts to control our population growth. Note that this does not mean we should go around force-sterilizing people. I think proper education and telling people of the benefits of a small family coupled with state incentives for keeping a small family can work if applied with conviction.

I agree with the sentiment but I think the removal of the welfare system after the birth of the first child would have the same effect. Babies for benefits cannot continue to be a viable career choice.

That's a bit rough. Lots of people want a sibling for their child as it teaches them crucial social rules. Anyway, removing benefits is not the solution because it harms the babies more than it does the parents. It also propagates the cycle of crime, child abuse, etc.

[shintoki]

Just remove all tax and welfare benefits for having kids. The problem would solve itself.

There is so much about it though.

I think the first major problem is why punish the kid for the parent? Without that money, the kid is probably going to have an even shittier life.

2nd, Why would they also want to discourage making children? For that 10k they spend on children through payments, tax breaks, etc. The kid is probably going pay 5k a year in return for 50years once he gets to 18. Even at some of the lowest paying jobs, they'll make massive amounts of their return back. Not to mention all the money he will spend or money his parents will spend on him.

You need a sort of balance in this act. China's policy about 1 child isn't a bad idea. Maybe only give the breaks up to 2 children. And also to prevent teenagers from having kids, make it were they won't receive any tax breaks till they get a GED or Grad High School. None of that drop out of school shit.

And I know this is going to start a shit storm, but if they go on welfare. They lose their rights to privacy. The government should not blindly be giving money to parents who use it to buy a TV and then say how it's hardly enough to get by. I think if the parents were forced to show exactly what the money was spent on with the risk of losing it. It would probably cut down allot on the welfare cases people so love to bitch about, and make sure the money is being spend to help bring up the kid.

[News Bot]

He's got the right idea.

Piss poor execution though.

[gofreak]

There is so much about it though. I think the first major problem is why punish the kid for the parent? Without that money, the kid is probably going to have an even shittier life.

Unfortunately if people know the state will support their kid too the hilt (and thus them) there's no incentive not to milk the system. It sounds rough, maybe, but I do think there should be limits on welfare available to people who cannot independently support their children in the first place (i.e. who bring a child into the world knowing they can't properly support it). Or maybe the money should be loaned or something, interest free, and if there's no effort to pay back within x amount of time the support should be stopped or they should have the right to repossess the unnecessary shit they'll undoubtely pick up at the government's expense.

We should be encouraging people to think carefully before having children. Giving out support and money like candy without questions after the fact doesn't really encourage that.

2nd, Why would they also want to discourage making children? For that 10k they spend on children through payments, tax breaks, etc. The kid is probably going pay 5k a year in return for 50years once he gets to 18. Even at some of the lowest paying jobs, they'll make massive amounts of their return back.

Assuming they get jobs and don't follow their parents' 'career'...

And I know this is going to start a shit storm, but if they go on welfare. They lose their rights to privacy. The government should not blindly be giving money to parents who use it to buy a TV and then say how it's hardly enough to get by. I think if the parents were forced to show exactly what the money was spent on with the risk of losing it. It would probably cut down allot on the welfare cases people so love to bitch about, and make sure the money is being spend to help bring up the kid.

Reminds me of a story my sister recently recalled to me (she works in a welfare office) of a mother who came in with 2 kids hanging out of her, complaining how she couldn't afford a flat screen tv on her welfare. I mean...they're shameless.

[evilromero]

How about they pay gaf to impregnate these poor dumb women then take their babies? The poor dumb husbands can watch from the corner of the room.

[pedrothelion]

It's defiantly one of those damned if you do damned if you don't situations. On one hand it sucks for the tax payer to subsidize peoples bad decisions, but on the other hand you don't want children that were born into a bad situation to suffer.

We do need to find some middle ground though. Perhaps requiring women to get a depo shot before they receive their monthly welfare check?

[sonicmj1]

This sounds way too much like the 'free market will fix everything' paradigm. Problems don't fix themselves, there needs to be a concerted effort on all fronts to control our population growth. Note that this does not mean we should go around force-sterilizing people. I think proper education and telling people of the benefits of a small family coupled with state incentives for keeping a small family can work if applied with conviction.

I agree with you, to some extent.

As I said, according to demographic and economic trends, it is likely that the problem will eventually solve itself. This was in response to the poster I responded to, who believed that population represented an inevitable crisis. But as I probably should have explained, things like education and family planning can make that change come about faster. If women are educated and informed, they can make better decisions about having the number of kids they want, instead of the number of kids they're forced to have by their partner.

Forced (or encouraged) sterilization is a far too drastic response. Education is a better answer.

[clemenx]

You know, I've always come to the defense of the poor but as much as I've tried I never had any empathy for the morons who are dirt poor and still make children like rabbits. Imo it's society's obligation to extinct poverty but the poor should do something too. And the least they can do it stop breeding like fucking morons when they obviously can't support their fucking children. And I'm not saying don't let them have the joys of parenthood (supposedly) I'm saying YOU HAVE THREE FUCKING CHILDREN YOU CAN'T AFFORD YOU MORONIC PRICKS AND YOU PLAN TO MAKE A FOURTH ONE? HOW FUCKING STUPID ARE YOU? I look at places like India and it really pisses me off how stupid these people are. They bring their children to hellholes and they don't even give a fuck. My country is full of morons and even they hesitate to make kids because of the state of our economy. This is why well funded free mandatory education is always the most important element in a society, it minimizes the stupidity.

They don't plan, that's the problem.

[Count Dookkake]

The buck stops her.

[Neverfade]

The buck stops her.

How do you do it? What's the secret?

[Wormdundee]

If you're on welfare it should be required to be audited or you lose your welfare. They should have to send in a statement every month delineating exactly what they spent their welfare check on.

I'm thinking of that family (in England I think) who are all so fat that they can't work and they were demanding thousands more dollars a year so that they could afford more food.

[fortified_concept]

Fail and more fail, first you mean population control and on the whole its not the west you need to tell to stop breeding, its mostly Africa. We're mostly 2 child families with the exceptions being the ones who use babies for benefits like we have here in Britian and the teens doing the same. As for the eugenics getting rid of the idiot gene load of crap, generally only the people who show the "gene" in action are targetted and you don't get rid of the carriers, Eugenics doesn't work besides the face since Hitler was a fan its fucked up..

First of all I wasn't talking only about the west hence my example about India. Your second paragraph is almost unreadable but -to try to reply- eugenics aren't only about race and they're certainly not science fiction. Your Hitler analogy is classic Godwin's law. Anyway my argument has much less to do with eugenics and more to do with idiot parents who don't know how to raise their kids or just can't but still make more. My sentence "So yeah if you call that support of eugenics then yes I support eugenics." is obviously tongue in cheek.

[NaughtyCalibur]

Maybe it's just because I'm sick of screaming babies, but I am completely for this. As people have already mentioned, it's bullshit that many people have kids for the sole purpose of receiving special treatment; thus, they don't really give two shits about their kids to begin with. If these appallingly underclass people are willing to give up cash in order to have children, then I'll have to assume that they'll actually love their kids and try their damnedness to give them good futures.

[Grant DaNasty]

It sounds bad in theory but in practice he's actually right.

[speculawyer]

Paying them not to breed might be going a little too far.

But I think that to accept welfare you have to prove that you are on birth control.

Hey . . . if you don't want the money, you don't have to be on birth control . . . but if you want the money then NO MORE KIDS.

[speculawyer]

To be fair as a non driver you already save a lot of money by not buying a car

Well directly tied to the government: No sales tax on the care, no licensing and registration fees, no gas tax, no congestion charge, no toll road fees, etc. And that public transport you are using . . . . it is subsidized by the government.

So yeah, you actually ARE being helped by the government for not having a car.

[Aegus]

Introduce a Battle Royale type system where prospective parents are forced to fight to the death to be allowed to breed. 1 island for each gender and the winner of each is forced to mate when they survive.

Resultant bad-ass child is then trained from birth in a military program.

That'd make an awesome TV series with the resultant sequel following the soldier child from birth.

[Zaptruder]

Deriving from the idea above...

how about we have prospective parents take parenting exams. Pass the exam, get a parenting license. Without a parenting license, your children are taken to be raised by the government.

The flipside is the children been raised by the government are given elite education and status in society; and they're also among the first to be drafted by the military.

Kinda like a reverse spartan society...

[user_nat]

I can't imagine New Zealand ever actually needing to lower its population, since they all move to Australia anyhow.

Now even more of them would move so they could get $4,000 per child (I think).