Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Don't have kids you can't afford!

895 replies

user793847984375948 · 25/10/2025 10:57

Hi all, this is meant to be an interesting discussion.

I keep seeing people say, “Don’t have kids if you can’t afford them.”

But in the UK, if someone works full-time on minimum wage, the state ends up paying thousands for childcare so that parent can work.
If that same parent stayed home, they would receive less support overall, yet they would be raising their own child hands-on. A single mum can work part-time and get rent and living costs for kids, around 500 a month in support if she works.

Nursery is about 1K a month usually. Then there's the wraparound care before and after school that could also be funded by UC.

So why is one scenario seen as responsible and the other as “sponging”?

Further, do people who say “don’t have kids you can’t afford” actually think only those earning £60k or more should have children, since that is roughly what it takes to cover childcare or a single income? That eradicates the above two scenarios and it's just those with independent wealth

If so, what would that mean for society long-term, both economically and socially? There would be fewer poor people over all and I think this would have an impact on our monetary system and menial jobs getting done.

And if you believe that only the wealthy should reproduce, you are effectively asking rich, white, powerful men to police women’s reproduction.
That is exactly what is happening in parts of America right now.

Genuinely curious how people justify this way of thinking.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
5
Ubertomusic · 26/10/2025 16:13

ccridersuz · 26/10/2025 14:40

That term is used mainly when people already on benefits, have more kids, even although they are already sucking the state dry!.
People who get money from the state and still make themselves homeless, for example.
When you read that someone is in emergency accommodation and it’s too small or inadequate, only to then read she/he/they have been living there 10 years and have 3/4 or more kids of whom the youngest are below 10 years old!.
You’re put in a one bedroom flat with your baby, but then go onto having more kids, rather than trying to better your situation, by maybe working and improving your chances of getting alternative accommodation.
That’s what most mean when saying if you cannot afford them, don’t have them!.
The real term maybe should be “ don’t have more kids, as the taxpayers are pissed off at having to pay for them!”.

LOL you the taxpayer seem to be perfectly happy to waste billions on failed covid contracts enriching friends of our amazing politicians 😂 Good for you, you must be filthy rich to be able to afford that and do not mind at all :)))

Sheeparemyfriends · 26/10/2025 16:02

twistyizzy · 25/10/2025 11:27

Spot on

So what happens when life throws something at you? I used to be a Citizen's Advice Bureau worker. Many people don't start out not being able to 'afford' their children, something happens like a child or adult becoming unwell, or a relationship breakdown. Think it through.

Lemonadepie · 26/10/2025 15:59

Neetra30 · 26/10/2025 14:08

This is actually laughable.
Dont have sex? Seriously it is our bodies and we get to do what we want with it.
Who are you to tell me or any other woman what to do with their bodies? You are just some random pro life person from the internet

Of course you CAN do what you want with your body, but if the result of your actions are a burden on the rest of society, then you might want to reconsider

Finity · 26/10/2025 15:48

JHound · 26/10/2025 15:02

Don’t have kids you can’t afford.

Well, that's furthered the debate no end.

Neetra30 · 26/10/2025 15:09

ccridersuz · 26/10/2025 14:40

That term is used mainly when people already on benefits, have more kids, even although they are already sucking the state dry!.
People who get money from the state and still make themselves homeless, for example.
When you read that someone is in emergency accommodation and it’s too small or inadequate, only to then read she/he/they have been living there 10 years and have 3/4 or more kids of whom the youngest are below 10 years old!.
You’re put in a one bedroom flat with your baby, but then go onto having more kids, rather than trying to better your situation, by maybe working and improving your chances of getting alternative accommodation.
That’s what most mean when saying if you cannot afford them, don’t have them!.
The real term maybe should be “ don’t have more kids, as the taxpayers are pissed off at having to pay for them!”.

This 100%

JHound · 26/10/2025 15:02

Don’t have kids you can’t afford.

Mimph · 26/10/2025 14:59

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Your posts really show an inability to be polite and are basically rude, it appears you just want to hurl insults rather than enter debate.

HRchatter · 26/10/2025 14:56

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

ccridersuz · 26/10/2025 14:40

That term is used mainly when people already on benefits, have more kids, even although they are already sucking the state dry!.
People who get money from the state and still make themselves homeless, for example.
When you read that someone is in emergency accommodation and it’s too small or inadequate, only to then read she/he/they have been living there 10 years and have 3/4 or more kids of whom the youngest are below 10 years old!.
You’re put in a one bedroom flat with your baby, but then go onto having more kids, rather than trying to better your situation, by maybe working and improving your chances of getting alternative accommodation.
That’s what most mean when saying if you cannot afford them, don’t have them!.
The real term maybe should be “ don’t have more kids, as the taxpayers are pissed off at having to pay for them!”.

Neetra30 · 26/10/2025 14:08

YorkshireGoldDrinker · 26/10/2025 11:21

Sure, so don't have sex (contraception has a low failure rate but a rate none the less) when the very obvious consequence (depending on where you are in your cycle) is pregnancy.

Just go totally celibate. There is no need to kill babies if you don't conceive in the first place.

This is actually laughable.
Dont have sex? Seriously it is our bodies and we get to do what we want with it.
Who are you to tell me or any other woman what to do with their bodies? You are just some random pro life person from the internet

FrangipaniBlue · 26/10/2025 13:44

stclementine · 26/10/2025 12:46

That was my childhood and that of my siblings. Four of us that my parents couldn’t afford to have. We spent our childhood hiding from the rent man, hiding from the bailiff and hiding from the woman from the Provident. We rarely had new clothes and shoes and only then if our Nan took us shopping. We never had days out or a holiday. None of us were allowed hobbies or school trips. As the gas and electric often ran out we couldn’t have baths and had to wash in cold water. Our diet was basically potatoes and an egg if we were lucky. We managed to have a Sunday roast most weekends but that was because gran wanted one so provided the meat. We all grew up to hate roast dinners and chip shop chips were never a treat, but a staple part of our diets.
it was a dull, miserable existence. We have no good memories, nor do we look back with rose tinted specs. Our parents were stressed and absent emotionally. My mother was downright abusive. We were all bullied at school.
It’s not enough to say that children don’t need much because they do. They need a rich and interesting childhood, access to experiences and hobbies that will give them skills and interests that can last a lifetime.
I never had children mostly because I married the first man who showed an interest in me, but I knew that he wasn’t father material and I didn’t want to bring humans into this world unless I could give them what I didn’t have, and I couldn’t because I never had support to reach my potential and so I was well into my 40’s before I was stable enough in a good career to afford a decent lifestyle. By then the husband was long gone and my self esteem so low that I never bothered to look for another relationship. I’m now 51. I don’t stay in touch with two of my siblings who have gone on to have kids in similar circumstances to our childhoods - yes, I judge them. I care for my elderly father which, of course, means paying for everything, same as I do my younger brother.
life is ok, but, you know what? My parents shouldn’t have had any of us. I’m here now and made the best of it, but few people make such an impact on the world that we can truely say that the world should be grateful for them being born. I’m not one of them, nor are my siblings.

I don’t think you should count yourself as not someone the world would be grateful for - you sound lovely, level headed and sensible and your story is heartbreaking.

I think it’s parents like yours that people are referring to when they talk about people not having more children than they can afford.

It pretty much sums up how I feel - that taxpayers money would be better used to support and educate people like your parents and not just given as “free money” - I don’t know what the exact answer is but there has to be a better way than one that allows people your dad to use their children as an income stream.

Mimph · 26/10/2025 13:38

HRchatter · 26/10/2025 13:23

And you get one vote the same as everybody else and the free Will to use it allegedly I’m not sure that’s a bit is actually true. But we can pretend

Not sure what your point is

3beastiesandme · 26/10/2025 13:37

OSTMusTisNT · 25/10/2025 11:12

I do think some people have kids without sitting down and working out the true costs and making sure they have an emergency fund and critial illness cover etc. It's a stereotype but I was brought up in a Council estate and there were 'never work' types breeding like rabbits, poor kids were scruffy, dirty and had no holidays or kids club, looked malnourished and hoaching with headlice etc, their childhood was miserable.

However, I think the vast majority of people can afford them at the time but then unforseen stuff happens - inflation, illness, separations, childcare costs increasing exponentially, government policy changing, elderly parents needing care and expected inheritance never materialises.

My first baby i was 21, a student and had a coil so definitely not planned! My now husband was working but we relied on so much support from our families both practically and financially to enable me to go back to uni once he was born. Number 2 was the only one who was vaguely thought about in the sense that we spoke about trying for a 2nd baby and I was pregnant within a month. Number 3 was a whoops and permanent measures have now been taken so there are no more “whoops” babies!
There was no discussion about whether we could afford a baby aged 21. There was no discussion about not having him although it would have made my uni experience much easier. Things have changed so much since I had baby number 1 that if I was in the same circumstances now, we WOULD have had to have that conversation. 2 days of nursery and nanny every wednesday which was her day off! My mum helped with nursery fees.

HRchatter · 26/10/2025 13:23

Mimph · 26/10/2025 13:17

It is their business due to the fact that working women are tax payers - they have a view as to how the governement spend.

And you get one vote the same as everybody else and the free Will to use it allegedly I’m not sure that’s a bit is actually true. But we can pretend

Mimph · 26/10/2025 13:17

HRchatter · 26/10/2025 10:53

Maybe women that are working have got the wrong idea. Maybe they’re the fools.
Or maybe they’re doing absolutely fine and they should just concentrate on living their own lives and doing the best they can for their families and keep their nose out of everybody else’s business.
Comparison is the thief of joy

It is their business due to the fact that working women are tax payers - they have a view as to how the governement spend.

stclementine · 26/10/2025 12:46

Jellybunny56 · 25/10/2025 13:12

Another one of those threads that just shouldn’t be controversial. If you cannot afford the basics a child needs- food, shelter, clothes etc, then no you should not have one. No child deserves to be raised to struggle like that and no decent parent should want to bring a child into the world to watch them struggle- very different if circumstances change once those kids are here, I am specifically talking about those who choose to have a child knowing this is the position they are in.

I am a parent and I can’t imagine many things worse than having to watch my children go hungry, force their feet into shoes that don’t fit or bodies into clothes that don’t really fit, have to say no every time they ask for anything etc. That really shouldn’t be controversial.

That was my childhood and that of my siblings. Four of us that my parents couldn’t afford to have. We spent our childhood hiding from the rent man, hiding from the bailiff and hiding from the woman from the Provident. We rarely had new clothes and shoes and only then if our Nan took us shopping. We never had days out or a holiday. None of us were allowed hobbies or school trips. As the gas and electric often ran out we couldn’t have baths and had to wash in cold water. Our diet was basically potatoes and an egg if we were lucky. We managed to have a Sunday roast most weekends but that was because gran wanted one so provided the meat. We all grew up to hate roast dinners and chip shop chips were never a treat, but a staple part of our diets.
it was a dull, miserable existence. We have no good memories, nor do we look back with rose tinted specs. Our parents were stressed and absent emotionally. My mother was downright abusive. We were all bullied at school.
It’s not enough to say that children don’t need much because they do. They need a rich and interesting childhood, access to experiences and hobbies that will give them skills and interests that can last a lifetime.
I never had children mostly because I married the first man who showed an interest in me, but I knew that he wasn’t father material and I didn’t want to bring humans into this world unless I could give them what I didn’t have, and I couldn’t because I never had support to reach my potential and so I was well into my 40’s before I was stable enough in a good career to afford a decent lifestyle. By then the husband was long gone and my self esteem so low that I never bothered to look for another relationship. I’m now 51. I don’t stay in touch with two of my siblings who have gone on to have kids in similar circumstances to our childhoods - yes, I judge them. I care for my elderly father which, of course, means paying for everything, same as I do my younger brother.
life is ok, but, you know what? My parents shouldn’t have had any of us. I’m here now and made the best of it, but few people make such an impact on the world that we can truely say that the world should be grateful for them being born. I’m not one of them, nor are my siblings.

XenoBitch · 26/10/2025 12:43

Londonisthebestcityintheworld · 26/10/2025 12:39

There was some netflix showing a society people didn't have children. They had to import people (cue immigration) to do all the jobs society needs and young people came from a local care home (where troubled teens were rehabilitated).

You either have a reasonable birth rate or you have immigration. You simply can't have neither as eventually everyone is the same age and dead. 😂

Wayward?

snowwhiteisfeelinggrumpy · 26/10/2025 12:40

@Ubertomusic "I volunteered quite a lot of info,"

No you didn't.

You say you've been in the premises but can't say what their USP is or if they are catering to a "niche market".

You made the blanket statement that they were succeeding because "the owners weren't greedy".

I'm sorry you aren't able to put forward a convincing argument to back up your speculation.

Londonisthebestcityintheworld · 26/10/2025 12:39

zipadeedodah · 25/10/2025 12:00

The childless are getting PLENTY back.

Do you never use the NHS? The Local Authority,? Dustbins, Public Transport, Retail?, Cafes?

Who would work in those industries if we all remained childless?

There was some netflix showing a society people didn't have children. They had to import people (cue immigration) to do all the jobs society needs and young people came from a local care home (where troubled teens were rehabilitated).

You either have a reasonable birth rate or you have immigration. You simply can't have neither as eventually everyone is the same age and dead. 😂

Emmz1510 · 26/10/2025 12:32

I’ve always taken this statement to refer to people who don’t work, have never worked and are/always will be reliant on benefits, that those people shouldn’t be having multiple children.
It annoys me that people who work can often only afford one or two children, due to the cost of childcare and other factors yet some people with three, four or more children seem to sit at home all day with no intention of working, somehow qualifying for nursery for all of them. That’s not right to me.

Ubertomusic · 26/10/2025 12:32

snowwhiteisfeelinggrumpy · 26/10/2025 12:18

@Ubertomusic "Don't you see the point? It is a fact proven by everyday life that this is doable even in London if the owners are not greedy."

Not to me it isn't.

"A fact proven by everyday life"

Err no.
An assumption made by yourself. Maybe they have a "niche market", a USP that people value.
Have you ever been in this coffee shop BTW ?

When you know nothing about the business model of this coffee shop you mention, it's a bit of a reach to say that it works because "the owners aren't greedy" !

Edited

I've been going there for six years, yes, and I know the owners too as they're local people.

Sorry I'm not interested in convincing you in anything. You asked a few questions, I volunteered quite a lot of info, got nothing in return but further pointless questions and void arguments, and I think that's enough for now.

Noodles1234 · 26/10/2025 12:28

This is what Reform and some other parties are saying to abolish the 2 child benefit limit (no I don’t support reform). Labour have not yet committed and Tories say the 2 child cap should stay. However on this Reform may have a point, we actually need to boost the birth rate as in the UK it is falling. We don’t have the work age population to support the retired population, this is a popular problem in developed countries, look at Japan. Apparently it is the single biggest threat to developed countries.

Some people believe and I do see it, that some feckless parents believe the state should pick up the tab, im not sure I think it’s ideal both parents work work full time for their kids to be in wrap around childcare either. Parents work non stop to just about afford to live. The minimum wage keeps going up and then so does everything else with a higher inflation it seems.

overall we need to support more children being born, but also encourage a healthy work amount too. Maybe if you decide to have more than 2 you need to be able to have some financial ability to support, even if it is for your own mental health and showing your children of how to aim to be. Life is getting more complicated and I feel for youngsters wanting to start out / have their stake in society / wanting to buy a home and start a family. It’s always been tough, but now it is harder.

ManteesRock · 26/10/2025 12:26

MidnightPatrol · 25/10/2025 11:04

Nursery about £1k a month usually?

I wish. £2,200 - £2,500 round here.

That's cheap! It's between £3,000 - £5,000 and that's up north! I'd hate to think what it would be down south!

snowwhiteisfeelinggrumpy · 26/10/2025 12:18

@Ubertomusic "Don't you see the point? It is a fact proven by everyday life that this is doable even in London if the owners are not greedy."

Not to me it isn't.

"A fact proven by everyday life"

Err no.
An assumption made by yourself. Maybe they have a "niche market", a USP that people value.
Have you ever been in this coffee shop BTW ?

When you know nothing about the business model of this coffee shop you mention, it's a bit of a reach to say that it works because "the owners aren't greedy" !

Ubertomusic · 26/10/2025 12:08

snowwhiteisfeelinggrumpy · 26/10/2025 11:53

@Ubertomusic "Baristas have been working there for years so apparently tiny businesses can manage to pay decent money even in London if the owners are willing to "

And you came to that conclusion about all businesses from looking at one business ?

Don't you see the point? It is a fact proven by everyday life that this is doable even in London if the owners are not greedy.

If your business is not viable, I'm sorry for you but that's economic and political reality we live in and business owners are risk takers by default.

Making your business "viable" by starving your employees and getting their wages topped up by the gov is not a working economic model - or at least it shouldn't be but of course it's been in place for ages and we are about to reap what we saw as there is no money left to prop up this zombie economy any longer.

The same way BTL market that's been propped up by housing benefit is crashing now at least in London, as the gov has decided it's time to take the plug out of this non-viable monster.

Swipe left for the next trending thread