having children she can't afford without thought.

[rambini]

My best friend is 21, she already has one child who is 5, and she recently got together with (another) new bloke. within 2 weeks they were "engaged" and now in week 3 they have "decided to try for a baby". neither of them work, or have any savings. her current child is surprise surprise, supported by the state, as will baby number 2 be if he/she turns up. it is just so frivolous, with no care or thought for the fact that they have not even known each other a month, they have no money, and expect other people to fund their child just so they can play happy families. it really makes me mad, am i being unfair?
thanks x

Is it alright to have a child you can only afford with the other government benefits I listed above, or not? Should I have the available cash for private school, private healthcare, etc.? Or is it only income benefit that's the issue here?

Tortoise - healthcare and education are intended to be used by all. We pay taxes to ensure that they exist, along with short term help for those needing support and long term support for those with disabilities.

tortoise - nope, no-one should have to be able to provide for education, health service etc before having a baby. But you should at least aim to be able to feed them and keep them warm and not rely on the state to do that as a lifestyle choice (as opposed to being in need due to disability, involuntary unemployment etc).

As it is, we don't know enough about the OPs friends circumstances to judge.

So is that where the line is? It's alright to factor in healthcare and education because everyone uses it?

What about paid maternity leave?

What about childcare credits (here childcare is subsidised for working parents, I don't know how it works there)?

I always ask this on these threads, and I've never got an answer I've understood.

Paid ML - interesting. Not sure how many families rely on it to feed/clothe family etc - probably not that many in the UK because its such a paltry sum.

Never been eligible for tax credits of any sort, so not sure how it works, but they are income related in the UK.

With friends like you - she certainly doesn't need any enemies.

Look you don't know how this will work out. I got (accidentally) pregnant just over 4 weeks in to a relationship (though we had ben friends for much longer than that) 13 years later we're still together and have 3 dcs. Maybe mind your own business rather than using your mate for internet cannon fodder.

You don't have to agree 100% with your friends choices and actions. It's OK to pull someone up on something you find unacceptable. Doesn't mean they'll take any notice of course - but it's OK to disagree with the way people live their lives.

I believe in olden times we called it "judgeing". 'Course, that's illegal these days.

Tortoise - perhaps you can understand this. If we all choose to have children without supporting ourselves, and I mean ALL of us. Who will pay the bills? The gubberment? Who do you suppose lines their wallets?

Yes, because clearly I am unable to understand the basic premise here, thanks for speaking to me as if I were lacking in basic comprehension.

My question is perfectly valid. We all receive government help. Where is the line? Is the line at the point where that help costs more than the amount we pay in? Or do we differentiate between those things used by all (or most, because of course not everyone does use state schools) and those things used by the minority?

Here's the thing. It is a completely unacknowledged fact that middle class welfare is both huge and invisible. People are perfectly happy to say, of someone in receipt of more benefits than they are, that they shouldn't have children. Nobody is willing to say that they themselves shouldn't have children. But if you took away subsidised housing, tax credits, ML, a lot less people would be able to have children. So these threads always read to me as if people are saying that it's alright to get the help they do, but not alright for someone else to get a bit more.

I think things are quite different in the UK tortoise - I don't get any of that and I'm a single parent (apart from the NHS and schools but I think bringing those into the discussion muddies your argument)

tortoise - I think many many people say they shouldn't have children yet because they can't afford them.

If you don't have a sensible plan as to how to financially support your family (barring the things I referred to above), either now or in the future (ie through training, studying etc), then you probably should put off having kids until you do. That's what most people do.

Maternity allowance is again, short term. And you or partner or both are working and paying taxes to ensure these things exist. Not for someone to choose to live solely off this money so that they never have to work to provide for their family. That is the attitude that is so shocking.

LadyB: Child tax credits, free nursery places, working tax credits, free school lunches, council housing, free school transport - I realise that not everyone gets all of those, and that some of them are means-tested.

I pay taxes so when I have children I will benefit from them going to school. My taxes are paying for the school. I pay for the NHS.

The state will later reap the benifits of my children going to school. They will get jobs and pay taxes. You can't compare using schools and NHS to sitting on the dole your whole life scrounging..

Oh and I forgot to say I acually think trying to get pregnant after 3 weeks is worse than having children you can't afford.

YANBU.
Most people do receive some sort of help financially with bringing up their kids, eg education, health, tax credits, BUT by working to support their children, they are contributing to the overall cost, and to my mind, it doesnt matter how big or small the contribution in terms of money into the system, but it does matter that they feel that it is right to work and contribute.

There is a big difference between that and people having one child after another without ever having contributed to the benefits system that supports them.
Also, you may say that these children who are being born to such parents are the next generation of workers - not bloody likely! with the example which is set for them by their parents, that work is something that other people do, its unlikely that such children will ever be anything but a drain on the country's resources. I'm sure there are exceptions to this rule, and much credit to anyone who manages to break out of the mould of their parents and gets a job, but it is really the exception to the rule, as I know many families like the one OP is describing, and they are now on their 4th generation, and none of them have ever done a days work in their lives, and this is definately by choice, as I, living in the same area, in the same job market, have never been out of work for more than a couple of weeks.

I should just mention here that I have no problem with people on benefits because they have no choice - illness, disability, lone parent unable to work, that is one thing, but they are most definately in the minority where I live.

"fund their child" ???? You sound like a snob and a crap best friend.

YANBU - if she's your best friend will she listen to advice about not TTC yet? Is it her that wants the baby or her brand new boyfriend? Does she not worry about bringing up two children without their fathers? Maybe they could wait until he gets a job

tortoise - in the UK only free nursery places are universal, the rest are heavily means tested or situation based.

Those are all means tested tortoise.

Yep, here too (although some of our things are means tested but with a really high bar). The only difference is that we don't get Statutory Maternity Pay at all - and of course that's based on income in England such that higher earners get more for the first six weeks.

I'm not attacking anyone for receiving any of these benefits, of course. I'm asking whether someone who worked, but did receive a number of the things listed above, would be accused of "not funding their child"?

Tortoise see my previous post. I pay taxes for school, and NHS. I pay for them. I pay for them. I pay for them. Later on my children who went to school will continue to pay taxes.

No one is saying you have to be a high earner...just that if you want a child go get a fucking job first.

I don't think so because you are funding your child, even if the state is also funding it. Different from not paying anything towards their upkeep at all.

UK - means tested with a low bar is the norm!

Tortoise - I see it this way: very few people would be able to provide everything for their DCs, private tutor, own doctor etc so we all pay taxes and the government provides education and healthcare. By all chipping in we share the cost and the benefits. The welfare state exists as an insurance to help those who need it, whether through illness, disabilty, loss of income etc. I am happy to contribute to this and would expect to recieve help should I need it. However, I contribute and expect everyone else to do the same. If you've got no intention of ever working then you don't deserve to be in the club, IYSWIM.

I just try and console myself with the fact that dole scroungers (ie those able to work but just not planning to) must have a pretty shit life, stuck at home all day in rubbish accommodation with no money, eating food from Lidl, and I hope that they're all really, really unhappy.......

I think we, society, should shoulder the burden of a first mistake, one child, but after that people should have the responsibility of funding any subsequent children.
And on the same token, all childless should be funded for IVF for a much wanted child, it would be fairer.

I'm afraid this is only a spit in the ocean of the mentality of some young women, there are hundreds of thousands of them out there.