What are children for? In the current climate, you could be forgiven for thinking that they're biological timebombs, little leeches designed to suck not just milk but wealth. On a domestic level, that's probably true (the old chestnut about new parents arranging to have their salary paid directly to Mothercare has a painful basis in reality), but the general consensus seems to be that it applies on a national level too.
Babies are, apparently, lifestyle choices, you see. Just as you wouldn't expect the HardWorkingTaxPayer© (henceforth HWTP) to pay for your conservatory or your cruise, it's unreasonable to expect them to contribute to the upkeep of little Conor or Chloe. You can't afford children? Don't have them!
The government, generally, agrees. In today's budget George Osborne announced that child tax credits will be limited to two children. Trailed in most newspapers this morning, it seems that there is a lot of public support for this measure. Unsurprisingly, perhaps, since it's hard to open a newspaper, listen to a radio or TV debate or browse through Facebook without being confronted by one of these bloated (in all senses of the word) families, living it up on money scrounged from the HWTP. They're everywhere. Except, surprisingly, in the statistics.
I count myself lucky beyond measure in my children, but three is absolutely my limit. I have finances and family on my side, but it would take considerably more than a few extra pounds a week to reconcile me to an unexpected addition - and I think that I'm probably the norm. The vast majority of us have the family we can manage, financially and otherwise, based on our circumstances when we have them and how we reasonably foresee them to be in the future.
I'll be honest: in choosing to have babies, I wanted to raise a family with the man I love, rather than conscientiously doing my bit for the common good. My dewy-eyed pregnancy fantasies didn't include the day my offspring would get their National Insurance number through the post. Procreating is an essentially selfish act, but not in the same way as, say, having an extension built.
The problem with the two child limit is that it gives an official stamp of approval to this idea that children are an indulgence. I'm sure that those in authority would love to preside over a nation of conscientiously contracepting couples, who make a couple of dates in their (married) lives to dutifully doff the johnnies with a murmured "lie back, darling, and think of the Exchequer". But life, and sex, and babies, don't work that way.
Children can't only be acceptable when slotted into a life plan between the starter home and the pension. No method of birth control is 100% certain, and not every woman has that degree of choice over her pregnancies. Multiple births, bereavements, redundancies, relationship breakdowns: no matter how carefully life is planned, sometimes the unexpected happens.
Even if we choose to ignore all the external factors which contribute to parents labelled as "feckless", their children remain vulnerable. There is nothing abstract about hardship, nothing theoretical about struggling to keep your children warm and forgoing meals so that they can eat.
Does supporting families cost a lot? Yes, but not as much as other, unchallenged, areas of public spending. Do some people cheat the system and avoid work in order to live on benefits? Yes, but nowhere near as many as people think, and unless you are on the fiddle the sums involved don't make it a particularly attractive proposition. Recasting our entire social security structure in order to shake them out smacks somewhat of closing down Tesco because kids have been pinching KitKats from the bottom shelves.
Of course it is important to encourage people to take responsibility for their own circumstances and to ensure that public funds are used appropriately. The danger of turning that aim into policy, though, is that it takes no account of the realities of life for many people. We live in a time of soaring housing costs, insecure employment and the resultant toll on health and emotional resilience which put tremendous pressure on parents.
There are undoubtedly difficult questions about public finances, but the answer should never include withdrawing crucial funds from families without the means to support themselves adequately. The government must support families as they are, not as they wish them to be. Is the alternative a price we can afford?
Please or to access all these features
Please
or
to access all these features
Guest posts
Guest post: "The government must support families as they are, not as they wish they would be"
48 replies
MumsnetGuestPosts · 08/07/2015 14:39
OP posts:
Don’t want to miss threads like this?
Weekly
Sign up to our weekly round up and get all the best threads sent straight to your inbox!
Log in to update your newsletter preferences.
You've subscribed!
Please create an account
To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.