Do you want to discuss boring politics? (26 Viewers)

Nick said:

Apologies, with that one I thought you meant I was disgusting.

I've literally said I don't agree with taxing in this thread? Even more so if women are literally unable to have a child.

Click to expand...

Thats fine, I didnt really make it clear.

rob9872 said:

To be fair Pete spent a couple of paragraphs on the last page explaining the difference between millions and billions for us.

I think we've all learnt something today.

Click to expand...

I had you all in the 60% who know how much more a billion is

SBAndy said:

100%. It’s more the auxiliary cost of kids: a house with sufficient space, the fucking water bill going through the roof because of bath time (went from £18 per month pre-child to £75 per month now), more food, and childcare.

As much as I think he’s a horrible bastard, Orban in Hungary has thrown a massive curveball with his proposal that any woman who has 2 kids will be exempt from income tax for life (don’t think their tax rate is as high as ours; may be wrong).

Click to expand...

That’s an excellent policy

Sky Blue Pete said:

I had you all in the 60% who know how much more a billion is

Click to expand...

I wouldn't put your last £1 on it after some of what I've read!

rob9872 said:

I wouldn't put your last £1 on it after some of what I've read!

Click to expand...

Just you then

L

Sky Blue Pete said:

I had you all in the 60% who know how much more a billion is

Click to expand...

How does it work, there's a difference in American Million's isn't there,does that transfer to the billions?

Nick said:

It's naive to ask what is outrageous about telling girls the risks of having kids in their 40s as opposed to their 20s? Let's face it, it's nothing like the Handmaids Tale like made out.

Click to expand...

I think if you take that one comment in isolation it would be hard to be outraged about it. But doesn't this already happen? I don't know any women who aren't aware of their biological clock and the increased risks that come with having a baby later in life.

His quote also doesn't make any sense, "We need to also explain to young girls and women the biological reality of this crisis. Many women in Britain are having children much too late in life and they would prefer to have children much earlier on.".

If they want to have children earlier but can't then that is the issue you address. Obviously some barriers, fertility issues, are harder to remove than others but if he is correct to say women want to have kids earlier but aren't then telling them about the "biological reality" will have zero impact.

People are probably looking at this as part of an overall picture of the guy who is also talking about taxing women who don't have kids and making disparaging comments about "childless women".

Seems to be a fair number of people on the right side of the political spectrum who believe women should be having more kids and having them earlier while also being against any support for parents.

We live in a world where for a lot of young people even if they are in a couple and both working its still a struggle. You're then saying either add in huge childcare costs or have one parent no longer work. How many young couples can take a huge reduction in income at the same time they have significant additional expenses?

chiefdave said:

Seems to be a fair number of people on the right side of the political spectrum who believe women should be having more kids and having them earlier while also being against any support for parents.

We live in a world where for a lot of young people even if they are in a couple and both working its still a struggle. You're then saying either add in huge childcare costs or have one parent no longer work. How many young couples can take a huge reduction in income at the same time they have significant additional expenses?

Click to expand...

Yep and that’s what needs challenging rather than going handmaids tale I think