Don't have kids you can't afford!

I would take it a stage further and make sure it was impressed on all females of breeding age that they should not even think about having a child, unless they were financially, physically, mentally and psychologically prepared to bring up that child alone.

No-one knows what's around the corner.

This perfectly proves you didn't study this and thus do not understand basic concept (which I hoped I had simplified enough but I guess not).

It's actually interesting that I didn't even touch on migration (although its actually a major need part of this for small island like ourselves) to avoid derailing the thread but you even managed to show some understanding of a linked concept that wasn't even raised so I do show some base understanding.

Unfortunately if no one has kids migration doesn't work either as there would still be not enough replacement youth regardless. You are showing still expecting to rely on SOMEONE ELSE having had children. Only you are expecting those children to move here from usually even more impoverished countries (with the majority of immigrants and migrants coming from the 2nd and 3rd worlds) which is interesting on an 'if you can't afford kids don't have them' topic.

Unfortunately I cannot provide years of advanced/higher education to you over mumsnet forum but if you ever feel like being enlighten there are lots of free peer reviewed resources available online.

@Unrulyscrumptious But we all pay taxes towards things we don't use or benefit from directly.

We shouldn't be.

I'm a childless person but I wouldn't want to opt out of paying towards taxes that pay for free school meals just because I don't have any children that need them.

Why can't people with children pay taxes to fund free school meals?

Op, you sound like a journalist. Are you looking for opinions to help write an article?

Errr... It's a British-born theory but I guess Bowlby were not dissecting live brains or torturing infants so probably not scientific enough for you.

People need to cut their cloth. I stay in a hated well-paid job because I need it to support my lifestyle choices.

if I opted for an easy “comfortable” low-paid job, I’d have to forfeit certain things. That’s life.

I agree, but it's not the fault of the poor, is it? So are we penalising the poor for the wrongdoings of the elites?

Then they stay together for the sake of their children. Again, it’s taking personal responsibility.

I agree, but how do you (you general, not you you) propose that they do that when they can’t afford to either? How do you propose to get blood out of a stone?

Obviously there are absent fathers who can well afford it and just take the piss but I’m thinking of, for example, a couple on a level of wages that means they can afford to pay for their kids while together, but then they split up and the cost of running two households is so prohibitive that neither can afford it. What then?

This is particularly an issue in areas where the cost of housing is so awful.

Nail on the head. Same at my school. I was a teen in the late 70s/early 80s. We knew how to avoid getting pregnant. Can't think of a single girl who got pregnant whilst at our school. And no, were definitely weren't all nuns.

No one has said that because it's unpalatable and people are afraid of looking proper fascist, but the abundance of euphemisms like "taking every precaution possible" is pretty telling as in reality the only method that works is sterilisation of women, not even men as it's not 100% guarantee.

So naice people don't want to say that, they just would like those unwashed do it without being told 😁

I'm afraid the gov will have to brainwash better for this to happen.

Ha! I posted something very similar on here about 5 years ago and got my arse absolutely handed to me for it. I think I referred to it as Negative Evolution where the population is becoming less fit for purpose over time, rather than better.

I note no one has had the same reaction this time. Possibly more people are starting to feel the same way….?

@No5ChalksRoad or the offspring of someone so openly unpleasant

Increasing the £ value of benefits and raising the cap on number of children for whom benefits can be claimed are not the same thing.

The welfare system should be there for those who either can’t work (eg illness or disability) or for whom their circumstances have changed so yes, there should be a cap on how many children can be claimed for and absent fathers should be held more to account.

but it’s not that black and white is it?

There are lots of other things I would do to increase education (and I don’t mean schools), change societal attitudes/behaviours and changes I’d make to our tax and welfare systems centred around lifting people out of poverty and encouraging family units, but I’m not in charge of the country and that’s not what the OP asked about.

Please elaborate where that money might come from, especially if more women then leave the labour force?

I think a more realistic option is that couples simply have less children, only as many as they can comfortably afford.

People go on about subsidising businesses to pay wages that people can’t afford to live on - having lived in Scandinavia for a couple of years I personally think the UK has got it arse about face - the minimum wage there is no more than the UK and tax is much higher- the big difference is various fixed costs are much lower - childcare is subsidised heavily and much more affordable and plentiful - around£300 a month on average - lots more good social housing, utilities and public transport slightly less - no NI, no council tax as we know it .

The expectation is that both parents work and even if a single parent - you work, even with under 1s and not just a few hours either and then expect top ups. Their system works on the basis the state make it easier as a family to ‘get by’ and you do your part by contributing to society - now this would suit some, but not others here - if you don’t want to work and can afford not to then that’s fine, but their mentality doesn’t seem to work that way -unless you are rolling in it everyone I met worked - and if not full time, not far off whether single, couple, with kids or not - it is not about poor wages here for many basic jobs , it’s about costs are far too high in relation to wages, particularly housing, in lots of the country , and there are an awful lot of people who expect to work part time on very average wages or in some cases not at all and rely on one very average wage and then wonder why they can’t manage .same with people expecting to retire at 55 without large amounts of cash behind them and then wondering why they are struggling to get by . I do get that it’s easier to work part time with a family, but that needs to be factored into the family budget that it’s a choice and not the fault of employers and the main issue is high costs relative to wages rather than wages themselves - previous lack of planning by various gvts has contributed massively - the UK due to its political system has far too much short term policy decisions driven often by electoral posturing - be that selling off social housing, selling off services to private markets, not raising income tax when drastically needed, lack of paidqyslity training in the trades, degrading FE colleges at the expense of HE , bringing in taking large lump sums at 55 - all kinds of things that are now causing various issues .

There should absolutely be more support for single people, it boggles me why on earth the council tax discount is only 25%. But we all pay taxes towards things we don't use or benefit from directly. I'm a childless person but I wouldn't want to opt out of paying towards taxes that pay for free school meals just because I don't have any children that need them. I needed them myself when I was a kid.

Yes. We could turn half of the country into a giant network of boarding schools.