Search results

Says the man who lives in a country who paid $5000 per birth to boost their economy in the future and still pay to this day!

Except it is wrong. Many developed countries, Japan, Australia, Spain to name just 3, have a negative birth rates and face unprecedented stresses for the very opposite reason of the population not growing enough. 10 years ago Australia actually had a policy to give a Baby Bonus payment of $3000...

Population growth is the capitalist economic model. There is no two ways about it. The two go hand in hand in a profit driven free market economy. The more people you have, the more your economy will grow. The more successful your economy, the more people want to be there. That economy shrinks...

One of the women had twins you've dodged that each time I've mentioned it. What are you going to do, blame the mother for knocking 2 out at once!

We subsidise lots of people in the economy and many industry sectors, those looking for work, on training schemes, additional education. As a state of course you subsidise things to benefit the economy. How can you take the economic stance out of it? It is purely and simply an economic decision...

Because, as I stated before, those parents might be nurses, care workers, emergency services, teachers, medical assistants, public sector, etc. etc. stuff we all need and use! Even if they aren't those things, what sort of economy is it if it doesn't pay for a parent to work because childcare is...

I think you are reading more into the article than there is. I didn't read anything about any moaning about their standard of living, they were moaning that the cost of childcare was more expensive than what they would earn. That is entirely different to what you are portraying. The article is...

Party drugs!? Seriously...when I was in my 20s a certain dance orientated pill was about 300% more expensive than they are today! (apparently...)

How do you start explaining something based on such broad assumptions? If the parents are contributing, then why would they be taking social costs for the kids? Do all immigrant families from anywhere in the world coming to Britain all have an average of 5 kids? Where did you even pull this...

Sounds almost like holiday hours...

Because that person maybe a nurse, teacher, healthcare worker, public sector working, emergency services, armed forces, and our economy needs them working rather than at home looking after a child? Maybe...perhaps be grateful if that person who is just about affording to get their child in...

The rate we're going, anyone in their 40s and below will be being wheeled out to carry on working with our oxygen strapped to the back of our chairs!!!

I think this is a really cynical view. We are a generation now that will work harder and longer hours than any post war generation before us, with less benefits such as full salary pensions, they will also workto an older age than ever before, have less chance to own their own property, more...

If you did a pros and cons list of smoking, I fancy one side is going to be a bit longer than the other, with either cost or cancer fighting it out for top con spot.

I'm honestly not sure how anyone can afford to smoke these days. Even a moderate habit of 40 fags per week is racking up an annual bill of just shy of a grand. Any kind of addiction over 10 fags a day and you're looking at £1500+. That means £2k of your salary before deductions is literally...

I'm hoping that while 3 kids is going to hurt me in my 40s and early 50s (especially if all 3 go to university...(gulp)), I'll get some sort of payback when I'm ready to be looked after!!!

I have 3, would like to offload at least 1.