Are they taking over the UK?

[dextrous]

So it starts off as population explosion to tree surgery, see what i mean not every one is of the same mind.

Preventing a bud from growing is a form of pruning, grasshopper

 

[oompah]

So it starts off as population explosion to tree surgery, see what i mean not every one is of the same mind.

Preventing a bud from growing is a form of pruning, grasshopper

I didn't see no mention of a bud.

 

[dextrous]

So it starts off as population explosion to tree surgery, see what i mean not every one is of the same mind.

Preventing a bud from growing is a form of pruning, grasshopper

I didn't see no mention of a bud.

abbott and costello!

 

[oompah]

Surely only Abbott.

 

[dextrous]

Surely only Abbott.

In the end, yes since Costello died first.

 

[InNeedOfAdvice]

I don't believe there is a legal solution to the problems of over-population, but I am a strong believer in people paying more tax if they have children. Perhaps an extra 5% for every child they have? I really don't see why tax from my hard earned wages should go towards someone elses child benefits and their childs education.

I'm sure many will disagree with this, but children are a choice - a choice I have no wish in taking, and if you can't afford to have children, don't have them.

 

[dextrous]

I don't believe there is a legal solution to the problems of over-population, but I am a strong believer in people paying more tax if they have children. Perhaps an extra 5% for every child they have? I really don't see why tax from my hard earned wages should go towards someone elses child benefits and their childs education.

I'm sure many will disagree with this, but children are a choice - a choice I have no wish in taking, and if you can't afford to have children, don't have them.

A perfectly reasonable view, as I have repeatedly outlined throughout this thread.
As for the legalities, this is indeed a complex problem. I fear that the tax disincentive is flawed by the fact that it is increasingly those who do not work and thus pay tax who seem to want to procreate at leisure and with no thought of the consequences beyond the immediate. And any reduction in social benefits received will most likely harm the child (who's fault it is not) and quite possibly end up promoting the offspring taking up a life of crime or antisocial behaviour, contributing nothing but negativity, to the world around him/her, since that (irresposibility) is exactly what (s)he will have learnt from the parent(s).

 

[InNeedOfAdvice]

I don't believe there is a legal solution to the problems of over-population, but I am a strong believer in people paying more tax if they have children. Perhaps an extra 5% for every child they have? I really don't see why tax from my hard earned wages should go towards someone elses child benefits and their childs education.

I'm sure many will disagree with this, but children are a choice - a choice I have no wish in taking, and if you can't afford to have children, don't have them.

A perfectly reasonable view, as I have repeatedly outlined throughout this thread.
As for the legalities, this is indeed a complex problem. I fear that the tax disincentive is flawed by the fact that it is increasingly those who do not work and thus pay tax who seem to want to procreate at leisure and with no thought of the consequences beyond the immediate. And any reduction in social benefits received will most likely harm the child (who's fault it is not) and quite possibly end up promoting the offspring taking up a life of crime or antisocial behaviour, contributing nothing but negativity, to the world around him/her, since that (irresposibility) is exactly what (s)he will have learnt from the parent(s).

One idea I have (one which would never be accepted, but...) is for some kind of compulsory sterilisation as soon as a child reaches the age when they could procreate. This would be a temporary sterilisation of course! Possibly some form of implant or injection. This would be given to both boys and girls, and would remain in place until they became an adult, and prove they have the means to support a child.

It would wipe out the problem of teenage pregnancy, it would prevent people having children just so they don't have to work, and it would surely go towards reducing child poverty.

I know this would never even be considered, let alone accepted because it's sure to breach some "human rights", but I believe the world would be a much better place with this or something similar in place.

 

[dextrous]

One idea I have (one which would never be accepted, but...) is for some kind of compulsory sterilisation as soon as a child reaches the age when they could procreate. This would be a temporary sterilisation of course! Possibly some form of implant or injection. This would be given to both boys and girls, and would remain in place until they became an adult, and prove they have the means to support a child.

It would wipe out the problem of teenage pregnancy, it would prevent people having children just so they don't have to work, and it would surely go towards reducing child poverty.

I know this would never even be considered, let alone accepted because it's sure to breach some "human rights", but I believe the world would be a much better place with this or something similar in place.

I agree with this possible solution. On a different note, I also believe that every newborn child should have its DNA logged and stored for a variety of reasons - criminal proof, ID if found dead, immediate proof of parenthood, accurate place of birth to name a few.
Too many people jump on the bandwagon of personal "human rights" without ever really taking into account the rights of the human species as a whole.