Jump to content
Manx Forums - A Discussion Board & Classifieds for the Isle of Man

Extinction Rebellion, Yessir!

Manx Bean

By Manx Bean
in Local News

Recommended Posts

AndyF Newbie

AndyF

Posted
Posted

The nail has been hit on the head here, the main issue I think is simply too many people. :) Its unfair to targett the elderly who in many cases have paid into the system their entire working lives only to be crapped upon later in life when its time to get something back, due to governments over the past 50+ years wasting endless monies.

Regarding excess offspring, I don't know what the benefit policy is 'over there' , however here I think the cap here for max of 2 is completely wrong (read on please) as it potentially discriminates against the other children aka "we don't get money for you (insert name here) as you're our third/fourth" etc.

The solution to this "cap" is very simple indeed and something I have suggested, I thought about one of those UK petition things until I realised I needed and excess of email signatures to get it started. Anyway my 'solution' to this is very simple:

 

> They used to say the average was 2.4 children. That may no longer be the case but for the purpose of this example it is perfect.

> Let us also (again just to make it really easy to read) say the benefit is £10 per child per week. I realise again that's wrong but it makes it easier to read/understand.

 

With the above in mind any household with children < 16 or < 18 if they are in education etc, should get 2.4 x £10 per week. This is paid if they have just one or ten of them. This is much fairer I think as the first one there are always hidden and unexpected expenses etc etc. Those with one or two offspring will actually be fractionally better off, those with three fractionally worse. Those with a complete menagerie quite a bit worse off potentially.

It would probably have to be brought in , in say 10 or more years time to allow people to adjust and not punish those already with an assortment of offspring perhaps.

^ But that's my idea anyway. It seems fair , unbiased and sensible unlike the current system.

 

Moving onto climate itself, I'm not really keen on these carbon offset tax things either, this not really fixing the problem as I don't see the money going towards any solutions really, or some of it will likely be eaten up by "consulatations" and the like at a silly high hourly rate. I sort of wonder if this is merely paying an ongoing fine for your "climate crime" ,perhaps ? Crime is probably too strong a word here though. The answer is to not cause as much pollution, but with factories etc this is going to cost "mega-bucks" to speak to change or amend production processes and/or new equipment and ways of working. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 174
  • Created
  • Last Reply
AndyF Newbie

AndyF

Posted
Posted
53 minutes ago, Donald Trumps said:

Carbon offset surely goes directly to climate change solutions?

I would like to think so, but I suspect as I say a bit will go on hiring consulatation firms and the like, so in reality I'd honestly suspect something like 30% to 60% of the money 'taken' would go towards a project/projects with the rest taken up with red-tape beforehand. Then there's the likely 'we are over budget sorry we want more' thing too.

Don't get me wrong though! :) It is worth doing however a better solution would be to encourage them (at whatever cost) to actually stop or reduce the damage/pollution caused in the first place.

Ultimately the climate and nature is not really interested in money, you can't (daft example I know) pay the upper atmosphere to fix itself etc. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites
woody2 Newbie

woody2

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, AndyF said:

The nail has been hit on the head here, the main issue I think is simply too many people. :) Its unfair to targett the elderly who in many cases have paid into the system their entire working lives only to be crapped upon later in life when its time to get something back, due to governments over the past 50+ years wasting endless monies.

Regarding excess offspring, I don't know what the benefit policy is 'over there' , however here I think the cap here for max of 2 is completely wrong (read on please) as it potentially discriminates against the other children aka "we don't get money for you (insert name here) as you're our third/fourth" etc.

The solution to this "cap" is very simple indeed and something I have suggested, I thought about one of those UK petition things until I realised I needed and excess of email signatures to get it started. Anyway my 'solution' to this is very simple:

 

> They used to say the average was 2.4 children. That may no longer be the case but for the purpose of this example it is perfect.

> Let us also (again just to make it really easy to read) say the benefit is £10 per child per week. I realise again that's wrong but it makes it easier to read/understand.

 

With the above in mind any household with children < 16 or < 18 if they are in education etc, should get 2.4 x £10 per week. This is paid if they have just one or ten of them. This is much fairer I think as the first one there are always hidden and unexpected expenses etc etc. Those with one or two offspring will actually be fractionally better off, those with three fractionally worse. Those with a complete menagerie quite a bit worse off potentially.

It would probably have to be brought in , in say 10 or more years time to allow people to adjust and not punish those already with an assortment of offspring perhaps.

^ But that's my idea anyway. It seems fair , unbiased and sensible unlike the current system.

 

Moving onto climate itself, I'm not really keen on these carbon offset tax things either, this not really fixing the problem as I don't see the money going towards any solutions really, or some of it will likely be eaten up by "consulatations" and the like at a silly high hourly rate. I sort of wonder if this is merely paying an ongoing fine for your "climate crime" ,perhaps ? Crime is probably too strong a word here though. The answer is to not cause as much pollution, but with factories etc this is going to cost "mega-bucks" to speak to change or amend production processes and/or new equipment and ways of working. :)

or cut all benefits and get rid of the civil servents in heated offices= a co2 cut........

no civil servents pensions to pay either........ meaning the less work for taxpayers to pay the pensions....=more time sitting in the garden.......

its easy this green lark.......

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Max Power Grand Master

Max Power

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, AndyF said:

The nail has been hit on the head here, the main issue I think is simply too many people.

That is the main problem and no doubt. We are in the middle of an environmental crisis rather than a man made climate crisis!

The trouble is, political systems need people to fund them and capitalism depends on people to sell things to. It's no coincidence that the number of billionaires has increased in line with the growth of the population. 

On the other hand, the capitalist system has led to some phenomenal technological advances which are made possible by the huge market for the resulting products. I think we need to reduce the population by approximately 50% at least and realign our priorities, sharing wealth more evenly and reducing our demands on natural resources. We are heading for extinction or at least near extinction in the future and we will take many other species with us. 

I think that tackling the population issue by restricting people to one child per married couple is probably the only way to tackle the population crisis. This will in turn improve the effect we are having on the climate and the environment in general. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...