Don't have kids you can't afford!

Ok but did you terminate pregnancies to stay at one child for example? It's very easy to day on principal someone should have a child they can't afford but it's quite alarming in a forum frequented by women for posters to act like no one ever falls pregnant unplanned. We don't know if all PPs siblings were planned -are you saying their mother had some kind of moral duty to terminate a pregnancy or sterilise herself against future ones?

Ten years ago MC people thought they would be able to afford two children and comfortable lifestyle, now they cannot afford much comfort, next they will be struggling to pay the bills (pretty soon).

With the crash now almost unavoidable, no one can be certain of anything.

No we simply used contraception. It's the 21st century and contraception of all kinds is easily available. We knew we would struggle affording 2 comfortably so made the decision to double up on contraception.
Of course accidents happen but it is perfectly easy NOT to fall pregnant. Or there is the morning after pill etc.

Ok but did you terminate pregnancies to stay at one child for example? It's very easy to day on principal someone should have a child they can't afford but it's quite alarming in a forum frequented by women for posters to act like no one ever falls pregnant unplanned. We don't know if all PPs siblings were planned -are you saying their mother had some kind of moral duty to terminate a pregnancy or sterilise herself against future ones?

Why are people on MN utterly incapable of arguing without dramatic appeals to emotion and personal circumstances

The ones she couldn't afford clearly.
If she managed to afford them all then there's no problem is there? The problem is an entitled attitude of some to have as many as they personally want, irrespective if whether they can afford those DC because the taxpayer will foot the bill. That's the issue.
Some of us only have 1 DC because that's the number we could afford.

This mindset baffles me, and It’s so common. The childfree are getting a civilised society, everyone’s literal survival depends on people having children. It’s not just about someone looking after you in a nursing home; it’s the food we eat, the water you drink, the buildings we live in - everything that keeps your life comfortable depends on a workforce - and as you get older a YOUNGER workforce ie other people’s children. The older generations seem to have a mindset of “I’m alright jack” because the generations in their 20s-40s now will be ensuring their nice comfy old age. If people don’t have (enough) children, then future generations will slowly start starving, society as we know it will fall apart. Miserable, painful deaths. Not caring about that because
it won’t affect you is the most selfish thing in this discussion. Not people having kids.

My exh earns too much to get any funded childcare but still appears to have had kids he can’t afford - I would call claiming not to be able to contribute to school trips for my eldest two not being able to afford two more kids anyway!

Society never judges these men though.

I’m in my late 30s with a solidly middle class social circle and nobody has more than two kids.

So they don't have 2+ kids then. They only have the ones they can afford at that moment. If your current DC are doing without food/clothes/heat then you shouldn't be having more, it's very simple.

The kids are already here.

I wonder about this too. With the introduction of the very generous childcare funding (and from 9 months old!), there will be so many people working but not actually contributing anything from a tax perspective. Raising your own children rather than dumping them in childcare as soon as you can is contributing to society. Early and intensive institutional childcare (vs being at home with a parent) causes long term mental health issues. We would all benefit from a mentally stable society.

So they don't have 2+ kids then. They only have the ones they can afford at that moment. If your current DC are doing without food/clothes/heat then you shouldn't be having more, it's very simple.

My exh earns too much to get any funded childcare but still appears to have had kids he can’t afford - I would call claiming not to be able to contribute to school trips for my eldest two not being able to afford two more kids anyway!

Society never judges these men though.

Ten years ago MC people thought they would be able to afford two children and comfortable lifestyle, now they cannot afford much comfort, next they will be struggling to pay the bills (pretty soon).

With the crash now almost unavoidable, no one can be certain of anything.

I don't really understand your post. Are you saying we should pay for women with young children not to work as childcare is costly? The long term impact of having a career break on your earning potential and pension is significant so as a society it's cost effective overall.

It doesn't take a massive income to provide the basics but personally I'm not sure why we're subsidising businesses to pay wages that people can't afford to live on, but we are so not much point worrying about it.

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.

IMO the current narrative of "parents shouldn't be out of pocket" etc is highly dangerous because it completely negates parental responsibility for raising, feeding and clothing their own DC.
It's like Labour want people to have DC and then hand them over to the state.

It's insidious.

Children are expensive, time consuming etc and this should be taken into account when having them. I'm not talking about parents being made redundant etc once DC are here because that's what benefits are for. I mean parents who have never contributed to the system yet are happy for stretched working parents to pay for their DC. I honestly believe we should move to a contributions based benefits system (excluding severe disability).

Parents have a responsibility to feed, clothe and parent their DC. If they fail to do that then there should be targeted support in place until they are able to do those things. Just handing out taxpayer funded freebies isn't the way to go but yet here we are with Labour and their supporters wanting more and more state control over parents and parenting.

We then create yet another generation who don't know how to parent properly so rely even more on the state

Meanwhile the unselfish people who are child free are funding everyone and getting nothing back in return! 25% off council tax does not really cut it.