Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai General Chat

shafique wrote: You have not addressed this point. Whilst some communities may have larger families - the specific point I'm challenging is the REASON why they have larger families and whether reducing benefits will therefore reduce family size.

Nobody will confirm that it's their reason but big family and low income ARE the grounds for receiving. Cut excess mouths, levy special tax on the 5th, 6th etc kid and you will see how it works.

Once more the Barroness did not speak about all immigrants but only Bangla+Pakistani with their huge families. The research do show that there are good immigrants like Poles and Indians, who follow different pattern.

so Shaf , are you against cutting benefits for these people?

Please specify who 'these people' are specifically and which benefits you are calling to be cut. What would be the reason for cutting the benefit, and what would it achieve. (We may find that 'these people' only exist in the Baroness' imagination.. and you'd be asking me to cut benefits to imaginary people... so that would not achieve much would it?)

I'm in favour of benefit reform and am in favour of cutting Child Benefit for those families who are paying higher-rate tax (for example) - but I'm not sure what would be achieved by cutting benefits from those who are in genuine need of social assistance.

The stats are out there - just make your case based on evidence, not just 'beliefs'. As I stated, if a sound case is made, I'll certainly review and consider the evidence.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:I'm not sure what would be achieved by cutting benefits from those who are in genuine need of social assistance.

The experience of the former colonies like Singapore and Hong Kong shows that the birth rate had dropped drastically but wealth per capita reised for the period of the programm but facts are nothing when somebody has different agenda:

"Just look at the development within Europe," said a triumphant Norwegian imam a few months ago, "where the number of Muslims is expanding like mosquitoes. Every Western woman in the EU is producing an average of 1.4 children. Every Muslim woman in the same countries is producing 3.5 children. Our way of thinking will prove more powerful than yours."

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z1YeerHlyv

The Baroness wasn't talking about Singapore or Hong Kong - and in any case, you haven't shown cause and effect. Birth rates have dropped world wide for a number of differing reasons. In England, 90% of those in social housing are white - so again, I'm struggling to see what the fuss is.

This thread is about whether the larger families (I'm not sure where you are getting 'huge' families from) is because of benefits and whether cutting family-dependant benefits will bring down family sizes.

From a demographic perspective, smaller family sizes is actually causing more trouble than benefits in countries with this feature.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:From a demographic perspective, smaller family sizes is actually causing more trouble than benefits in countries with this feature.

How come? PRC against Pakistan for instance shows absolutely opposite trend.

Cause and effect, RC.

China is a very good example - just look up the concerns for their 'demographic timebomb'.

But do you have no comment for the fact that 90% of those on social housing in England are white, and therefore presumably not going to be affected by 'huge families' etc?


Cheers,
Shafique

No. Facts and hypes. We speak what to do now, not about fantasies.

I am not going to speak about whites (it's not the topic of OP) but only those ethnic groups, who occupy disproportionaly more social housing than national average and their huge families are the main factors as your source showed.

Facts, not hype indeed.

Did you even look up the concerns about China's demographic timebomb (concerns the government itself has)?
The top link:
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/ ... 08,00.html

If you are still confused, let me know.

But back to this thread's topic:

shafique wrote:But do you have no comment for the fact that 90% of those on social housing in England are white, and therefore presumably not going to be affected by 'huge families' etc?

Where are these 'huge families' you keep referring to coming from? Did you dream this up - or are you referring to the very small numbers of UK families who have more than 4 children?

BTW: A quick reminder:

Red Chief wrote:

The vast majority of benefit recipients are not Immigrants.

There is also no information that they are whites as well.

In reality there is indeed this information. At least we've been able to clarify this misconception for you.

Cheers,
Shafique

Sorry, I cannot add more:

Larger family size, with many families being unable to afford suitable
properties (for Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Somalia-born populations).

I'll presume then that you are confusing 'larger' with 'huge' - no problem then - and are indeed only referring to a minority of people on benefit.

See, statistics are very helpful when assessing the strengths of arguments. Even if the Baroness is correct (which there's no evidence) reducing the number of children from the minority who have large families is only going to have a marginal effect on either the number of children or the Child Benefit paid to them.

Let me know if you have any queries on the supplementary point concerning demographic timebombs and the economic benefits of small families vs larger families.

Cheers,
Shafique

As I said I have no questions about your off-topic statements. I am not going to waste time speaking about everything in general and nothing in particular in EH's style.

Sorry about that, man.

Glad you have no questions on the 'off topic statements' which stemmed from your posts about other countries

My offer to reconsider my views if any evidence to support the Baroness' views that cutting child benefits will have any meaningful impact (or indeed that there is a problem to begin with) still stands though.

Cheers,
Shafique

Let's try from the beginning. Larger families together with lower income of parrents means less parrents' attention and inverstment per kid, what reproduce poverty in the next generation. Do you agree or disagree? It's a simple question. There is no need in smoke and mirrors.

I disagree - parents' face time is not proportional to the number of children, but rather relates to how much time parents want to devote to their children.

In short, a single child or two children may be worse looked than a larger family - and vice versa. Indeed, some argue that if both parents work the children may be less well looked after - also a factor is whether the child/children is/are being brought up in a single parent family or a long term stable family unit (married or not).

Reducing benefits for the lower income won't help either the parents or the children, IF getting benefits was not a reason for having benefits.

It will also not help society generally, if there is an overall need for more children, not less.


Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:I disagree - parents' face time is not proportional to the number of children, but rather relates to how much time parents want to devote to their children.

In short, a single child or two children may be worse looked than a larger family - and vice versa. Indeed, some argue that if both parents work the children may be less well looked after - also a factor is whether the child/children is/are being brought up in a single parent family or a long term stable family unit (married or not).

Reducing benefits for the lower income won't help either the parents or the children, IF getting benefits was not a reason for having benefits.

It will also not help society generally, if there is an overall need for more children, not less.


Cheers,
Shafique

May be baby. The smoke and mirrors again. In equal situation with parents' attitude the kid in the family of 12 had almost no attention from the parents. It's arithmetic and you cannot do anything with that. Multiplicate it on low income of his/her parents and you will see predictable result.

Where's the smoke and mirrors?

I disagree with your proposition.

I could also argue that those who have more children are more likely to care about children. Arithmetic is quite simple - time in front of children is not dependant on the number of children, but time in front of children (doh).

But now I see you are going into hypotheticals instead of dealing with evidence. No problems, even in your hypotheticals your logic doesn't seem to stack up to the OP and the premise that somehow reducing benefits to families will be good in some way.

Cheers,
Shafique

Oh... I see Muslims care more about their kids and their education than Indians or whites. Where are the results of their activity? More kids means more doctors, engeneers and scientists. You are funny guy indeed. Any evidence or stats about Pakistani and Bangla, Shafique?

Wow. I know about only two Noble Prize winner in Physics from the UK for last 50 years Abdrey Geim and Eugeniy NovoselOV but MAY BE I lost something in my life.

You do know that there are many Indian Muslim and even White Muslims, don't you?

The point is that you're the one who is trying hard to justify a desire to reduce the size of families. I'm all for letting people choose the size of their families and will always ask people what they are basing their beliefs on if they try and present them as 'facts'.

In this case, there was a belief that some Immigrants were having children only for benefits. This hasn't been proven.

The case for a country needing more children is well documented. The case for whether large families cause LESS attention to be paid to children than in small families is another belief I dispute for reasons given above. Indeed, I'd argue that larger families is actually an indication of more parental contact, not less.

Now RC is choosing to talk about the UK education system - I'm scratching my head to understand what that has to do with the minority of UK families with large number of children. Hmmm.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:time in front of children is not dependant on the number of children, but time in front of children (doh).

Yet another gem. I am guessing all the fuse about larger school classes is for nothing. Nobody should care whether a class consists of 20 children or 40. Duh!

What do class sizes have to do with whether Parents have time or willingness to nurture their kids? Why would a single child be more nurtured than one with siblings?

I'm sure there are studies on single children vs those from bigger families, and studies on single parents, two working parents and other sorts of families.

But hey - if people want to limit family sizes and want to do that by cutting back on benefits (even though there's no evidence it will have the desired effect) - go ahead. But don't blame me for asking why or disagreeing with the unproven premise.

Cheers,
Shafique

LOL ! The master FD at work again. Out of four pages of discussion you only found this little gem !

But actually, if you think about it - he's saying that one teacher can look after 20 students. Which does actually mean that a couple of parents looking after 5 children (say) should be a walk in the park..

But let's be honest - I invited evidence based beliefs, but instead am getting hypotheticals and false analogies. Such as it always was.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:I'm all for letting people choose the size of their families

Again, you are creating your own opposition and are gaslighting. Nobody disputes this. The discussion is whether this should be supported with tax money or not.

shafique wrote: In this case, there was a belief that some Immigrants were having children only for benefits. This hasn't been proven.

Some people are parasites but they are not stupid to confess that. It should be a subject of investigation, which is not possible due to polite-correctness. It's the point that the barroness reised and your article shows that she has some grounds to think that. Who has disproportionaly more than National average social housing? Afghani, Bangla, Somali. Period.

Flying Dutchman wrote:

shafique wrote:I'm all for letting people choose the size of their families

Again, you are creating your own opposition and are gaslighting. Nobody disputes this. The discussion is whether this should be supported with tax money or not.

Well said FD. I don't think people would be so keen to knock them out if they had to support all of them thereselves.

I bet it's first up, best dressed, in many large households.

I could also argue that those who have more children are more likely to care about children. Arithmetic is quite simple - time in front of children is not dependant on the number of children, but time in front of children (doh).

What's the maximum amount of time per day a parent could give to each child if they have 1000 children?

If your brilliant statement is correct, then, as the number of children you have goes to infinity, the amount of time one could possibly spend with each child on an individual basis should not decrease.

(Of course, anyone with basic common sense and mathematical abilities would know that time spent per child would go to 0)

What is it with the false analogies and hypotheticals? Let's stay on planet earth where mothers and fathers don't have infinite children and can love them all if they choose to do so and prioritise their care above other pursuits.

eh when it comes to abortion you're against the pro-choice lobby. Here there is a theory that if child benefit is cut then the number of children will reduce - BECAUSE, the theory goes, Pakistani and Bangladeshi immigrants in the UK have larger families because of benefits.

The baroness wasn't talking about reducing the benefit cost - if so, then the discussion is about benefit reform and as I said, I'm for means testing.

My contentions are two fold:
1. I've seen no evidence that the reason for larger families is because of benefits
2. The statistics show that only a minority of families in the UK have larger families - so there isn't a problem - and indeed the wider demographic issue of a national need for MORE children means that measures to cut the numbers of children is counter productive if not damaging.

Note, the Baroness IS talking about reducing children by cutting benefits - that is in the OP and that is what I've challenged from the outset. I've said that IF the reasons for children are not benefits, then cutting benefits won't reduce the number of children.

It would be bizare if someone who opposes abortion would support a theory that family sizes should be attempted to be restricted by cutting benefits. RC has been explicit about this, and this is what the Baroness is arguing.

Cheers,
Shafique

The statistics show that only a minority of families in the UK have larger families - so there isn't a problem - and indeed the wider demographic issue of a national need for MORE children means that measures to cut the numbers of children is counter productive if not damaging.

Your material said that predominantly South Asian minorities have larger families, what is damaging for the nation. Moreover generous benefits attract their compatriot from continental Europe and homeland.

I've said that IF the reasons for children are not benefits, then cutting benefits won't reduce the number of children.

It's wrong. Those children neeed not only attention but also money for the feeding, clothes, student's book etc., which dustmen definitely don't have. The experience of Singapore and Hong Kong show that levy taxes on excess kids cuted quantity of hungry mouths.

Besides benefits I blame poor knowledge of English, which makes impossible watching TV. So they have vey limited entertaiment. Broadcasting in Bangla and Urdu would help as well.

How are larger families damaging the nation? I didn't see that in the statistics?

But let us assume that they are damaging - I haven't seen any evidence that reducing child benefit payments will help in reducing the number of children - or that this reduction would be a good thing.

With overall numbers of children reducing, I don't see why there will be a shortage of schoolbooks, food etc for those who choose to have larger families. Sure, they'll have to spend more money and resources on their children - but that is the nature of having kids.

As for you thinking that kids from larger families can't understand English and can't watch TV - that's really funny. But it does show that you've run out of cogent arguments now.

Cheers,
Shafique