Die-off
Moderator: Peak Moderation
-
- Posts: 6595
- Joined: 07 Jan 2011, 22:14
- Location: New England ,Chelsea Vermont
L B I've seen that chart before perhaps without the updates. I would say their estimate of population decline is quite optimistic both on when it starts and the slope of the decline. I would expect the slope to be parallel to the average of the food , services and productivity lines if not steeper pushed down by war.
Being on the dole isn't a part of it. In the UK EVERY 1st child receives £20.70 per week and every 2nd child £13.70 per week. Two things have changed recently:vtsnowedin wrote:You are out to lunch on this one Clv101. As a working couple the wife and I chose to limit our family to three children as that was all we could afford. Why should a person living on the dole not have to exercise a similar level of responsibility? We shouldn't have a world where intelligent productive people are limited to one or two children while ignorant dead beats bankrupt us paying for their low IQ broods.clv101 wrote:John, it's a terrible policy! The government are specifically taking money out of families who have more than 2 children. In what sane world do we chose to further (as some might also suggest being one of many siblings is a disadvantage) disadvantage children in larger families?johnhemming2 wrote:I think there is a merit to an approach that does not financially reward people for having more and more children.
If it's about the money then far, far better to means test pensioner benefits than to firstly means test child benefit and secondly remove it from the 3rd+ child.
Firstly if one parent earns over £50k child benefit falls, reaching zero by £60k. Whilst I'm generally in favour of means testing, I think we should stop paying pensioner benefits to older folk earning (say) over £50k before stopping child benefit. We are currently giving public money to millionaires simply because they are old, this is wrong in my opinion.
Secondly, the 3rd+ child now gets no child benefit. This I think is wrong. We know children growing up in poverty have increased likelihood of seriously adversely affect life chances, education, health etc. Removing child benefit like this may or not reduce birth rate (studies looking at drivers of birth rate don't suggest child benefit is key) but what it will do is increase child poverty in the UK - that's why it's fundamentally wrong.
Last edited by clv101 on 12 Dec 2015, 20:24, edited 1 time in total.
Population declines slower because there's a lot of (slack) scope for quality of life to degrade before folk actually die as a result of food, services and productivity decline.vtsnowedin wrote:I would say their estimate of population decline is quite optimistic both on when it starts and the slope of the decline. I would expect the slope to be parallel to the average of the food , services and productivity lines if not steeper pushed down by war.
-
- Posts: 2159
- Joined: 30 Jun 2015, 22:01
Either
a) We don't have a problem with the population of the world increasing substantially ... or
b) We do.
If there are likely to be resource problems in the future a relatively minor change is to change a system which provides a financial benefit to have large families to one which does not.
There is arguably a majority view that we face in the future a potentially major die-off from resource limitations. It strikes me that relatively minor changes which aim to stop more people dying are be a good idea.
The marginal cost of additional children is not the same as the cost of the first one of each gender.
We live in a relatively harsh reality. It exists. It has elements which we have to deal with or they deal with us.
I have met people who make decisions based upon the benefits they get, the provision of housing etc. It is entirely rational to do this. That includes having additional children. It does not seem rational to simply continue a free for all in this area.
If we consider people in a hundred of years from now facing resource limits on food globally (which is a possibily). How would you answer their question as to why people were encouraged financially (beyond the costs) to have large families.
a) We don't have a problem with the population of the world increasing substantially ... or
b) We do.
If there are likely to be resource problems in the future a relatively minor change is to change a system which provides a financial benefit to have large families to one which does not.
There is arguably a majority view that we face in the future a potentially major die-off from resource limitations. It strikes me that relatively minor changes which aim to stop more people dying are be a good idea.
The marginal cost of additional children is not the same as the cost of the first one of each gender.
We live in a relatively harsh reality. It exists. It has elements which we have to deal with or they deal with us.
I have met people who make decisions based upon the benefits they get, the provision of housing etc. It is entirely rational to do this. That includes having additional children. It does not seem rational to simply continue a free for all in this area.
If we consider people in a hundred of years from now facing resource limits on food globally (which is a possibily). How would you answer their question as to why people were encouraged financially (beyond the costs) to have large families.
-
- Posts: 6595
- Joined: 07 Jan 2011, 22:14
- Location: New England ,Chelsea Vermont
You guys are frecckin nuts. Your paying an immigrant family $2700 per year to stay home and change diapers in the UK where back at home they can only expect to make $1700 per year each if they don't git their a** shot off.clv101 wrote:Being on the dole isn't a part of it. In the UK EVERY 1st child receives £20.70 per week and every 2nd child £13.70 per week. Two things have changed recently:vtsnowedin wrote:You are out to lunch on this one Clv101. As a working couple the wife and I chose to limit our family to three children as that was all we could afford. Why should a person living on the dole not have to exercise a similar level of responsibility? We shouldn't have a world where intelligent productive people are limited to one or two children while ignorant dead beats bankrupt us paying for their low IQ broods.clv101 wrote: John, it's a terrible policy! The government are specifically taking money out of families who have more than 2 children. In what sane world do we chose to further (as some might also suggest being one of many siblings is a disadvantage) disadvantage children in larger families?
If it's about the money then far, far better to means test pensioner benefits than to firstly means test child benefit and secondly remove it from the 3rd+ child.
Firstly if one parent earns over £50k child benefit falls, reaching zero by £60k. Whilst I'm generally in favour of means testing, I think we should stop paying pensioner benefits to older folk earning (say) over £50k before stopping child benefit. We are currently giving public money to millionaires simply because they are old, this is wrong in my opinion.
Secondly, the 3rd+ child now gets no child benefit. This I think is wrong. We know children growing up in poverty have increased likelihood of seriously adversely affect life chances, education, health etc. Removing child benefit like this may or not reduce birth rate (studies looking at drivers of birth rate don't suggest child benefit is key) but what it will do is increase child poverty in the UK - that's why it's fundamentally wrong.
-
- Posts: 6595
- Joined: 07 Jan 2011, 22:14
- Location: New England ,Chelsea Vermont
I understand that theory and it is probably valid in the western world but in North Africa and much of the Middle East I think most of the slack is already out of the system and it won't take much more to start a steep decline.clv101 wrote:Population declines slower because there's a lot of (slack) scope for quality of life to degrade before folk actually die as a result of food, services and productivity decline.vtsnowedin wrote:I would say their estimate of population decline is quite optimistic both on when it starts and the slope of the decline. I would expect the slope to be parallel to the average of the food , services and productivity lines if not steeper pushed down by war.
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14287
- Joined: 20 Sep 2006, 02:35
- Location: Newbury, Berkshire
- Contact:
While I agree with the tone of your post, the cost of a family in the UK are very much higher than those of someone in the Middle East or Africa. they might be able to live on that amount at home but £20 per week won't even pay the rent here let alone the food.vtsnowedin wrote: You guys are frecckin nuts. Your paying an immigrant family $2700 per year to stay home and change diapers in the UK where back at home they can only expect to make $1700 per year each if they don't git their a** shot off.
Action is the antidote to despair - Joan Baez
-
- Posts: 6595
- Joined: 07 Jan 2011, 22:14
- Location: New England ,Chelsea Vermont
You should be trying to convince the immigrants of that not me.kenneal - lagger wrote:While I agree with the tone of your post, the cost of a family in the UK are very much higher than those of someone in the Middle East or Africa. they might be able to live on that amount at home but £20 per week won't even pay the rent here let alone the food.vtsnowedin wrote: You guys are frecckin nuts. Your paying an immigrant family $2700 per year to stay home and change diapers in the UK where back at home they can only expect to make $1700 per year each if they don't git their a** shot off.
What does a twenty pound sack of wheat flour cost you down at the market?
-
- Posts: 2159
- Joined: 30 Jun 2015, 22:01
It is more like USD 27,000 than 2,700.vtsnowedin wrote:Your paying an immigrant family $2700 per year to stay home and change diapers in the UK where back at home they can only expect to make $1700 per year each if they don't git their a** shot off.
(including rent etc).
Child benefit is only part of the story. There is also the following. The effect of which is to bring the income of a family up substantially whether or not in work.
Some benefits can be claimed as alternatives (universal credit) others are reduced by amounts paid for example by child benefit and act as top ups.
This table shows the Child Tax Credit rates for the 2015 to 2016 tax year.
Elements Yearly amount
For each child Up to £2,780
For each disabled child Up to £3,140 (on top of the child element)
For each severely disabled child Up to £1,275 (on top of the child element and the disabled child element)
Income support
Family Premium (claimants with children) 17.45
Family Premium (Lone Parent) protected for certain claimants 22.20
Universal Credit
Child Element
Your Universal Credit will include a child element if you are responsible for a child or qualifying young person who normally lives with you.
You will receive a higher amount for your first or only child, and a lower rate for each of your other children:
First or only child: £277.08 per month
Second and other children: £231.67 per month
There are also two disabled child additions.
Disabled child addition of £126.11 per month for each child or qualifying young person that is in receipt of DLA or PIP; or
Severely disabled child addition of £367.92 per month if your child or qualifying young person gets the highest rate of the care component of DLA, the enhanced rate for daily living of PIP, or is registered blind
- biffvernon
- Posts: 18538
- Joined: 24 Nov 2005, 11:09
- Location: Lincolnshire
- Contact:
-
- Posts: 6595
- Joined: 07 Jan 2011, 22:14
- Location: New England ,Chelsea Vermont
Well that is all nice and fuzzy but in most of the world children are the dependents of their parents and not automatically wards of the state. In the US this year they do allow $4000 per dependent to be exempt from income tax so for a working family in the 15 percent tax bracket that would give them $600 plus perhaps another $150 reduction in state income tax depending on what state they live in.biffvernon wrote:Children are citizens and deserve to share in the wealth of the nation. Their share should not be dependant on whether they have older siblings.
That won't even cover the health insurance premiums that are now mandatory.
Of course the poorer and non working people qualify for a whole range of benefits from the earned income tax credit to food stamps to subsidized housing and ,medicare (Obama care).
I'm supporting enough of these deadbeats now and certainly don't need a million or more new "Refugees" moving in and going right onto the dole.
I read somewhere lately that each refugee is costing about $65 ,000 to settle in but that might be a per family figure. And I'm sure the yearly maintenance cost will go on forever.
People will be doing the math and I expect border closings to happen world wide very shortly.
- biffvernon
- Posts: 18538
- Joined: 24 Nov 2005, 11:09
- Location: Lincolnshire
- Contact:
You can speak for the USA but here British citizenship starts at birth (if not before).vtsnowedin wrote:in most of the world children are the dependents of their parents and not automatically wards of the state.biffvernon wrote:Children are citizens and deserve to share in the wealth of the nation. Their share should not be dependant on whether they have older siblings.
Which is why the number of immigrants reported always deliberately misleads the changing makeup of Europebiffvernon wrote:You can speak for the USA but here British citizenship starts at birth (if not before).vtsnowedin wrote:in most of the world children are the dependents of their parents and not automatically wards of the state.biffvernon wrote:Children are citizens and deserve to share in the wealth of the nation. Their share should not be dependant on whether they have older siblings.
-
- Posts: 6595
- Joined: 07 Jan 2011, 22:14
- Location: New England ,Chelsea Vermont
In the USA citizenship begins at birth but that grants you Life Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It dose not provide you with food shelter, income or happiness. For those you must look to your parents until you can pursue them yourself.biffvernon wrote:You can speak for the USA but here British citizenship starts at birth (if not before).vtsnowedin wrote:in most of the world children are the dependents of their parents and not automatically wards of the state.biffvernon wrote:Children are citizens and deserve to share in the wealth of the nation. Their share should not be dependant on whether they have older siblings.
- biffvernon
- Posts: 18538
- Joined: 24 Nov 2005, 11:09
- Location: Lincolnshire
- Contact:
In Europe we have developed a more enlightened view of the functions of state.vtsnowedin wrote: begins at birth but that grants you Life Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It dose not provide you with food shelter, income or happiness. For those you must look to your parents until you can pursue them yourself.