Don't have kids you can't afford!

Owning a house is out of reach of a hell of a lot of people these days, even for people who earn a decent amount.

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.

I agree if someone has 5+ kids and lives in a cramped home and the kids lives are horrific. But you know I had a child at 16 and obviously wouldn’t of been able to afford it without “the dole” but luckily was such an ignoramus i didn’t even realise people thought this way until I was in my twenties and had a job.

So no self hating procrastination for me.

Was your mum the queen? If so, she shouldn't have had Andrew. Beyond that, it's wilfully missing the wider and well-made points to be getting indignant about your personal situation. No one is going to exterminate your siblings. That doesn't mean there's no issue to be debated.

It’s a tricky argument but I think the most frustrating thing for me is the amount of kids people have, without any regard for what can change in the future.

As soon as you get to 3+ kids in particular you’re making yourself (and children) very vulnerable if there are drastic life changes like divorce, death or disease. I appreciate you can’t live your life as if something terrible is going to happen, but equally, when you have children you have to consider them over your own desires. So that’s the thing for me I struggle with.

Well, it’s simply really isn’t it? If she couldn’t afford 2 then she should have stopped at one, she couldn’t afford three, she should have stopped at two etc. It’s called planning.

At what age? Do you want people handing over their newborns and going back to work? Are we still allowed maternity leave? And if someone doesn't want to go back to work what then?

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.

Any she conceived whilst the older ones were going without.

What people mean is don’t have successive children when you’re struggling.

Nobody judges a single mother with two kids to her ex-husband and a recent divorce getting UC. People absolutely do judge a single mother with four kids from three relationships who’s never worked.

Women's and mother's unpaid care was so valuable to society that we have not, and will never, find something that can replace it. No idea what the solution is

Everyone pays some sort of tax, e.g. Council Tax, VAT etc etc.

Get the Taxpayer to pay for the latest Smartphone and
game console , school fees and uniforms ........

Ok so my Mum had 4 kids. Which of my siblings should she not have had?

When people I know (including myself) use that phrase it’s typically directed at the people who choose to have a child/children that they are not financially able to look after at a basic level. Can’t afford breakfast, can’t afford clean, well fitting basic clothing. Can’t afford books/toys or play/school equipment. Then go on to add more children into the mix. No, I don’t think those women should continue to have children they cannot afford to support to a reasonable level. We’re not talking about childcare. We’re talking about the very basic things that will enable that child to live a full life. We not saying that a couple who have fallen on hard times, had a catastrophic death/injury leaving a parent to raise children on their own with only one leg, half an arm and no job shouldn’t receive the help they require of course they should. But no one should be bringing children into the world if from the get go they can’t afford to give that child clean clothes, good food and the ability to enhance their education through books and toys. That’s not for a welfare system to fund, it’s for parents to fund and if you can’t, then don’t have any.

We had four kids and managed to pay very little childcare by working around each other. Obviously you have to have jobs that can accomodate this. I guess paying childcare for couples to both stay in work probably saves money in the if those parents carry on working. and paying taxes in the longer term.

So raising a child is not contributing to society? Why do the government pay childcare workers to do it then, if it adds nothing to society? What if I told you that you should afford your own childcare when you work, and stop expecting the state to pay your childcare, would you think that is unfair?

In-work benefits are better for society. Not only is that person contributing through taxes they are also in work, doing a needed job, having a place in the community, opening their world and that of their child.

I would rather pay more to parents in work through benefits, than less to parents choosing to not be working at all.

If someone doesn't want to work (who is able to), then they need to self fund their lifestyle. It shouldn't be an option to be a SAHM funded by the tax payer.

If someone can work with barriers removed - such as subsidised nursery, then I'd rather we pay for the nursery and gain a worker. It benefits the whole of society and the child.

We had two children - I would have liked a third but realistically that would have meant a different kind of car, different housing, different choices along the way about extra curricular, childcare . I know it’s not the same as making the decision to have children at all but it was making a judgment based on budget as reasonable and responsible people do.

And how did the OP go from wanting this to be an interesting discussion to it’s all the fault of rich white men ? She wanted a chance for a rant.

This is a bit worrying because this is intelligent ones with common sense and forethought who are choosing not to have children so is the human race going to get less intelligent? 😬

Children are expensive both in terms of time and finance. People should be thinking very hard about bringing them into the world.

Where I’ve seen the phrase mostly used seems to be in relation to blended families and throwing another set of kids into the mix. There are loads of threads on here where the older kids get a bit of a raw deal compared to the ‘new family’.

Rather than a lump sum UC should just turn off work commitments till a child is 5 so that parents have the choice. Work and get childcare paid for and have a higher UC award or be a sahp and get less.

Other than the use of infrastructure, healthcare etc, funded collectively, when people retire, they still need public services like healthcare, pensions, and social support. Who do you think funds that? It’s the working population, which will, at that point, include the next generation, i.e. other people's kids, if you don't have your own. Even if you’re childless, you’re still part of the same system that relies on younger generations to keep things going.

Honestly…yes I do think people should wait until they earn more then minimum and better still have savings and own a home before they have children. I really don’t think it’s too much to ask…