Pay low quality people not to have kids

[exdub12]

Lots of so called poor quality people would wipe their arse for €5,000 or even 15,000 cos to them its only loose change. Underachieving people are no respecters of class, social background or intelligence. I bet you come from a poor background and have made a better life for yourself with no help from anyone thank you very much. Why don't you ponder on the people who have built better lives for themselves and their families and wonder what made them better quality people and then resource said poor quality people in more imaginative and humanitarian ways. e.g. Quality education, healthcare, neighbourhoods, accesss to supports that know what they are doing and outcomes to be worked towards with said people. Equal access for all not just those with the savvy to utilise public / private facitlities.

[20000miles]

I asked a question -

A question that was completely off topic. I posted an economic analysis that suggested being on welfare is a function of the welfare system, and that taxation hampers prosperity. My views are neither ideological nor religious, but economic.

Your attempt to liken my views to a religion are just a nice attempt at keeping them out of this debate. It's also trolling of the highest caliber.

[20000miles]

But I do think we should get back on topic, namely, why did cyp come to his monstrous conclusions?:

I thoroughly disagree with the thesis being advanced here - and coincidently it was my previous analysis that was quickly sidestepped.

The motivation in the OP appears to financial motivations in mind: "Currently the State gives massive subsidies for rearing these children" and "It would represent good value for money when you consider the future cost of those children to the State". Clearly, after just looking around a bit, cyberianpan has come to the conclusion that he would be better off if those people being subsidised completely vanished from this earth.

Their existence constitutes a drain on on his time and resources and cyberianpan is has no option but to regard them as a source of loss and misery.

So here we see that socialism, through its hallmark mechanism of involuntary redistribution of wealth, creates a permanent underclass of people, that are hated by the very people who are forced to subsidise them. Why be surprised that a hateful system breeds hate?

Of course, under the productive forces of capitalism, humans come to regard others with benevolence, as others represent an expansion of the division of labour, which is no surprise that charitable donations increased substantially in the alleged "decade of greed", and why mutual aid societies were ubiquitous before the modern welfare state.

[rhonda15]

It's not, it's a controversial proposal, for sure, but it's backed up by a NZ politician who has already suggested it. We're discussing that proposal.

All Fish did was hurl abuse around, fabricate irrelevant hypotheticals and rant on about Nazis and Fascism.

to be fair Fish does bring up valid points - the OP is proposing a version of eugenics "light" that could be straight out of a wannabe fascists playbook - and would set any country that tried it on a slippery slope to nowhere good - anyone who denies this is being intellectually dishonest imo

[afanningthong]

Do you have links supporting that? Not challenging it, more curious to actually see it.

Just in case you haven't seen it before now

SEIU - Service Employees International Union - Insurance company: "Get sterilized"

Also, if you haven't seen Michael Moore's movie 'Sicko', watch it - a real eye-opener

[CookieMonster]

to be fair Fish does bring up valid points - the OP is proposing a version of eugenics "light" that could be straight out of a wannabe fascists playbook - and would set any country that tried it on a slippery slope to nowhere good - anyone who denies this is being intellectually dishonest imo

But he doesn't explain why it "could be straight out of a wannabe fascists playbook". Simply saying it is doesn't cut it. Nor does harping on about forced sterilization because it's not the same. Similar, maybe, but not the same.

[rhonda15]

But he doesn't explain why it "could be straight out of a wannabe fascists playbook". Simply saying it is doesn't cut it. Nor does harping on about forced sterilization because it's not the same. Similar, maybe, but not the same.

you are going to have to use a little imagination here Cookie

[The Caped Cod]

But he doesn't explain why "could be straight out of a wannabe fascists playbook".

Well, IMO Cookie, he's trolling to see who'll bite, because the OP is just a eugenics (and there for the Nazi comparison is inevitable) propsosition dressed up to look like conservative capitalism. Even if it were serious, it is a road already travelled, and we know the result.

[toughbutfair]

Ah but toughbutfair, taking away their benefits will not solve this problem. This group of people will be in an even worse position to contribute.

Why do people need to "deserve" benefits?

Otherwise the government is forceably taking money off somebody who has earned it and giving some of it to somebody who has done nothing. This is wrong in my view.

I am aware that many people today want to work, have worked many years and paid taxes, and they deserve benefits (basically a partial tax refund). I am also aware that there are about 100,000 idle who have never worked and in my view these people deserve absolute poverty.


The bone idle deserve nothing, when hungry and cold they'll work.

[cHeal]

But he doesn't explain why it "could be straight out of a wannabe fascists playbook". Simply saying it is doesn't cut it. Nor does harping on about forced sterilization because it's not the same. Similar, maybe, but not the same.

It's voluntary Eugenics for those who likely need the money? Yeah no that is essentially the EXACT same as what happened during the proliferation of Fascism in Europe, save it may not be quite as efficient.