Baby Bonds - New way of the left

[Divinus Arma]

We actually agree!

I completely hate the fact that youth (though I am one) believe that everything should be handed to them because they screwed up. "I'm going to drink" and the parents get in trouble. "I'm going to have sex" and the grandparents raise the child. If people need responsibilities that badly, tell them they need to grow and/or kill their own food and build their own shelters. Most of my peers are the "entitlement generation" where they believe they're entitled to the fruits of their parents' labors. Damn lazy, irresponsible people.

You will feel the irresistable lure of my power in no time. Soon you will see the truth! I recommend that you go check out the political persuasion poll and read it top to bottom. You may find a few other things we agree on, my wet and scaly friend.

[Ja'chyra]

I don't think this is a brilliant idea, for one thing why should taxpayers money go towards 18 years olds pissing it against a wall, really well thought out. I see this as along the same lines as no children should fail at school, we will end up raising a whole generation of emotional cripples. If you want to travel round the world at 18 then get a job and save the money, if you want to go to uni then you can get loans to do so. "But then there is student debts" So what, if you want a degree to help you get a better job and earn more money then you should be prepared to put a bit of effort into it.

I'm not suprised you would support this though JAG, you seem to advocate that it is societies fault everytime someone fails. I've said it before and I'll say it again, stand up and take responsibility. At the very least the options of what you can do with the money, our money, should be limited to helping with a job or education.

And before anyone asks, no I don't come from a wealthy family, I come from a single parent family that would've been classed as poor.

If you want an incentive to halt the falling birth rate then give the money to parents to help raise kids, even better supply things like baby food and nappies free.

[Duke Malcolm]

I have to agree with JAG that baby bonds are one of Labour's few good policies, but there should be certain strings attached, such as it can only be used for further education and training, or a house, or some such thing, so that it cannot be wasted away. The EMA, however, is not such a good idea.

[Strike For The South]

All this does is create dependency on the goverment and the kids will expect everything form the goverment not a good way to go at all

[PanzerJaeger]

Let us hear why then, I am sure you have brilliant responses to the article rather than simplistic statements, much like Panzers.

Simplistic policies call for simplistic criticisms.

The whole point is that it is a form of savings account. Money goes in and cannot be touched until the child is 18, and all money which goes in is doubled by Govt. You may come from a background and family where that kind of thing and the kind of money available to put aside in an account such as this is easy - this is aimed at precisely the people in which it isn't. That is why it is such a good policy. On top of this it creates a saving culture, to try and get us out of our spiraling and uncontrollable debt we are racketing up.

Neither the article nor you - until responding to paps post - said that there was a limit on the government doubling. Why shouldnt I take advantage of such an offer?

It clearly shows that you have no idea about the situations of the families the policy is there to help when you make statements such as this -


Quote:
Hell, I could probably put over a million in over the course of 18 years, that makes a million pound profit for the family - unless your kid hates you.

Its the truth, and Im trying to show you the fallacy in this policy. The more money you have, the more money the government will double.

If you believe a single mother on the minimum wage can set aside £500,000 while bringing her child up then you are living on another world. It really does seem you have no idea, but then again that is probably why you hold the opinions you do. A bit more experience of what people go through and we might save you yet.

Im not ashamed that I live well and have plenty of money - that would make me a liberal.

You seem to be acting like my criticisms dont count because I dont understand poverty. What you dont seem to understand is that this policy leans toward the wealthy. More money in the account means more money doubled by the government. That would mean kids from wealthy families start off richer than kids from poorer families.

Now the article doesnt say anything about caps on the money, but if you claim there are then thats a different story. You cant expect to post an article and assume that people know theres a limit when it doesnt say that.