Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

If you can't afford children you shouldn't have them.

960 replies

MrsArchieTheInventor · 05/04/2012 12:28

"If you can't afford children you shouldn't have them" [and] "child benefit and tax credits should be abolished" with the mantra that if she choses to be childless she should not be forced to pay for the 'breeding' choices of others.

A Facebook friend of mine. I didn't retaliate.

Hmm
OP posts:
CrystalMaize · 05/04/2012 19:31

How do you propose to do that wicketter?

oohlordylordy · 05/04/2012 19:34

I agree with Wicketter and would actually have a system of getting benefits (for 6-12 months MAX) of the level of income you had previously enjoyed.

If you pay 40-50% tax for 30+ years and then lose your job, then damn right, I think you should expect a bit more than your average joe. Sorry, but I do.

wicketter · 05/04/2012 19:37

Easy. if you have proved to work and pay your taxes for a reasonable amount of time you are entitled to extra help. it should be very easy to check your employment history. if you are a blatant blagger help should be restricted to two children

tethersend · 05/04/2012 19:37

I have been away from this thread for HOURS, and not one person who supports limiting benefits to one or two children can tell me what we do with the third, fourth and possibly fifth children born to parents who, for argument's sake, refuse to work. The 'feckless' if you will.

What happens to them?

How do they get fed?

molly3478 · 05/04/2012 19:38

A lot of jobs are essential but will never make much more than mimimum wage so that would mean those people should never have kids. Some jobs you could work in for years and you will never get a wage that would support yourself without some state help.

Rhinosaurus · 05/04/2012 19:39

Tethers, perhaps the parents need to do what working parents do, sacrifice their own luxuries in order to put food on the table.

wicketter · 05/04/2012 19:39

if have never worked then i am sorry but that is your fault and you should maybe consider using some protection

tethersend · 05/04/2012 19:40

"Tethers, perhaps the parents need to do what working parents do, sacrifice their own luxuries in order to put food on the table."

Yeah, but what happens when they don't?

They only have enough benefits to feed two children.

What happens to the subsequent children?

tethersend · 05/04/2012 19:41

You can't use contraception retrospectively.

The children exist.

Who feeds and clothes them?

oohlordylordy · 05/04/2012 19:41

I think it really should be up to a mother and a father to work out how they intend to feed their child. Not Davey boy, as people like to call him.

littlemisssarcastic · 05/04/2012 19:43

I guess the same happens to them as presently happens to the children of alcoholics, drug addicts and gamblers, the ones who choose to spend their money on their addictions rather than feeding their DC.

Unfortunately, it is a sad fact, but a very real one, that children have to bear many consequences caused directly by feckless parents. This is going on in thousands of homes even as we speak on here right now. Do we honestly have the right to dictate how a parent should spend their income in relation to their child? Where would it end? That is a very slippery slope imo.

tethersend · 05/04/2012 19:43

Oh, ok, so the third, fourth and fifth children of feckless parents starve?

Just so I'm clear.

HappyMummyOfOne · 05/04/2012 19:44

It would be very easy to implement a system based on contributions, so those genuinely needing state assistance after redundancy would get it but those chosing to have a family with no means to support them wouldnt.

"If I went to my boss and demanded more money because I wanted another child, do you think I would get a pay rise?" Exactly, so why should those on benefits get extra.

littlemisssarcastic · 05/04/2012 19:45

molly3478 As I said before, I honestly believe that parents who are working in low paid jobs should absolutely be supported by the govt if their wage as is quite often the case does not pay enough to live on.

There is a difference between not working at all, and working in a low paid job. A huge difference imvho.

wicketter · 05/04/2012 19:45

the world is not perfect and there is no one answer for everything but as it stands the people who go out to work seem to be the worse off and that is not right. it also sends out a very bad message to our children. if i truly knew what to do i would not be sitting here but running for prime minister

tethersend · 05/04/2012 19:46

wicketter- why not then make working people better off?

wicketter · 05/04/2012 19:46

completely agree littlemisssarcastic

tethersend · 05/04/2012 19:46

"I guess the same happens to them as presently happens to the children of alcoholics, drug addicts and gamblers, the ones who choose to spend their money on their addictions rather than feeding their DC."

Which is...?

wicketter · 05/04/2012 19:46

wish i could

Rhinosaurus · 05/04/2012 19:46

tethers, they have to budget, perhaps drop the Sky subscription to free view, don't have holidays, don't have nights out, don't buy yourself new clothes unless essential, don't go to expensive salons for haircuts go to student nights, don't have beauty treatments. These are all things I have had to cut down on in the past due to work hours decreasing/bills going up.

Just because they are on benefits why should the money magically keep increasing on production of a child when it didn't for the rest of us?

It's something called taking responsibility for yourself. And if they were struggling to keep the third child, perhaps they wouldn't decide to have a fourth. Might even stop them being "feckless".

CrystalMaize · 05/04/2012 19:47

Rhino

"Tethers, perhaps the parents need to do what working parents do, sacrifice their own luxuries in order to put food on the table."

How do you know they don't?

oohlordylordy · 05/04/2012 19:48

Well said, Wicketter.

ANd Happymummyofone.

You cannot have a child and then just ASSUME that someone else will take responsibility for everything from clothing to childcare, healthcare to education.

YOU CANNOT. IT IS NOT RIGHT nor should it be the message society sends to 'feckless' parents.

If another parents wants to piss their money away on alcohol, I can't stop them, but I CAN bloody well resist paying for THEIR children as well as my own.

Rhinosaurus · 05/04/2012 19:49

Obviously if such a measure came in, it would have to be set ten months at least in the future, and not be retrospectively as those children already exist.

tethersend · 05/04/2012 19:50

"tethers, they have to budget, perhaps drop the Sky subscription to free view, don't have holidays, don't have nights out, don't buy yourself new clothes unless essential, don't go to expensive salons for haircuts go to student nights, don't have beauty treatments. These are all things I have had to cut down on in the past due to work hours decreasing/bills going up. "

And, for argument's sake, what happens when they don't?

They are feckless, remember...

OutragedAtThePriceOfFreddos · 05/04/2012 19:51

I agree it should be up to the mother and father to work out how their children get fed. If they are the sort of parents that would go onto have third fourth and fifth children knowing they were going to have no money to support those children, then they are probably the sort of parents that should have SS onto them anyway.

Swipe left for the next trending thread