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

[MrsArchieTheInventor]

"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.

Apart from having to state that I am not a version of the child catcher, i do not advocate taking money off children, nor food from their mouths. I do advocate responsible birth control by adults, I think sandy vag has won by pure stamina plus I'm dizzy now.

And I overplayed the number of children and underplayed benefit amount to avoid recogniton, but will report my own post to be deleted as somewhere there is undoubtedly a family who exactly match my description.

I do love all the posts berating hecuba for taking it personally, how the fuck could she not? This is one depressing thread, I do read around blogs about the whole financial crisis (zerohedge is good) they argue for a complete crash in first world economies. It's unlikely that 3rd world economies will allow living standards to rise, more likely that our living standards will fall in line.

It's pathetic, people squabbling over scraps whilst the super rich rape both us and our planet with impunity, they can get away with shit like the whole fukushima thing (not solved despite lack of coverage) the gulf spill (lots of people reporting symptoms, zero news coverage).

Idiotic turkeys voting for Christmas with those calling for more government control, do people actually want the government to control who can procreate and when .

I fucking despair, I'm used to Americans waffling on about socialism and communism as if it the ultimate enemy, the propaganda starts young there. But in this country it's just depressing.

I enjoyed your compliment about my stamina Rhino! I am working pretty hard to ensure that ignorance of facts is roundly blasted by some education - thanks for your understanding.

Im also really happy that you decided to 'fess up that the family of nine was a lie - God Knows how we'd manage if every family actually had nine children! HA HA.

How foolish all this is.

ducky I agree about the posts berating hec

What emotional reactions from the unemployed, are acceptable to tax payers huh?

I jsut couldn't be arsed to carry on the "discussion". Pearls etc....

CB should and probably soon will be for 2 children max. I think after 2 you are aware of costs and sacrifices required once you have children and should base any future decision to have children on how that would impact your current circumstances.

But Noddy, what about contraceptive failure? I planned 2 DCs knowing the cost. The third was a genuine contraceptive failure. Should I sue the doctor for her presence? Should I have aborted her? (didnt find out until 18 weeks so that wouldnt have been fun).

What about multiple birth? I know plenty of people who planned 2 and ended up with twins the second time.

I'm afraid that saying 'you can have 2 but after that it's on your own account' is just arbitrary and to be honest sounds petty and spiteful.

I am not being spiteful at all. I just think it will go this way. Personally if the country could afford it imo there are no more deserving recipients of state benefits than children but we are in the shit and I think for the 1st 2 it is fair.

Why should society meet the costs of your contraceptive failure, GnomeDePlume? The whole point is that the welfare state is too expensive as it is, in large part because it (unwittingly) has encouraged people not to take personal responsibility for their lives and those of their families.

Before the welfare state people were poorer and had larger families.

I agree bonsoir. It is like anything you have to cut back somewhere else.

I am not being spiteful at all. I just think it will go this way. Personally if the country could afford it imo there are no more deserving recipients of state benefits than children but we are in the shit and I think for the 1st 2 it is fair.

I agree, I think that is what the compromise will start to look like. I can see we may also go the French way where working people get tax breaks for 3 on.

One thing is for certain, the current system can't last.

Why should society do ANYTHING Bonsoir?

Maybe because it shows a common and caring decency to do so. Or don't we do that anymore?

Fact is that ANYONE could find themselves in need ....even those of you advocating stringent measures.

noddyholder - I find it quite an eye-opener to read these types of threads and see what posters take for granted. Especially when the same welfare provision is far from universal - just go to another country in Europe and things will be entirely different!

Maybe because it shows a common and caring decency to do so. Or don't we do that anymore?

We spent it all.....

The state provides massively and unsustainably. We cannot afford it and it isn't good for people anyway. It is human nature to take what others provide for granted, and from there it is only a short path to exploitation and abuse of service provision.

But I dont think that the children coming along are the problem. Picking on them through their parents is ignoring the genuine problem.

The problem we have now is that we live on too long beyond retirement. We have too many people who retire at 60 or 65 having worked 40 - 45 years. If they are paying for their own retirement then thos 40/45 years have to pay for 20 years of retirement.

The maths dont work. We need to work on longer and produce more not fewer children. Fewer children only works in the very short term.

Even with CB the decision to have more children is something you have to consider in terms of your finances.

I am not sure you will say that when you are mid 60s and knackered though.

Why should the most vulnerable in society be used to solve all the problems?

Once again people are looking at the wrong end of the scale.

We need to encourage people who are highly productive to have more children and people who are unproductive to have fewer. Unfortunately our current system results in the opposite!

It is one thing to take care of the vulnerable and another thing entirely to encourage vulnerability (which is the point we are at).

Usual they shouldn't but no one is talking about no CB just limiting it. I agree that the upper echelons are not doing enough at all. But these gits were voted in. FWIW I think any of them would have had to tackle the welfare bill otherwise it would just continue to rise.

The maths dont work. We need to work on longer and produce more not fewer children. Fewer children only works in the very short term.

What is happening is that the "squeezed middle" are having less and less children because they behave responsibly, while the rich and subsidised poor are having more and more - so the kids are in the wrong places as it were.

The reason I think this will hit the fan is now that the middle classes are seeing real incomes fall, they wil be increasingly reluctant to fund other people's children while being unable to afford their own.

France had similar issues but recognised this a while ago, and started giving child tax breaks on income to the "squeezed middle". It seems to be working.

What the UK is also doing to fill the "squeezed middle" child gap is importing "other people's children" from the EU etc as young adults, reasoning (I assume) that those who have the get up and go to come here are those we want.

What does that even mean?
Encourage people who are highly productive to have more children?

If they had more children wouldnt they become less productive?

Or do you mean 'encourage people with higher IQs and no disabilities to have more children and discourage those with lower IQs and disabilities from having more'

why be mealy mouthed about eugenics?