Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

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:
Dawndonna · 06/04/2012 13:59

Actually, the law states that everyone is entitled to have children.

Yes, there are some people who think they are entitled to benefits. There are people who subscribe to the something for nothing culture. The government would have you believe that they are in the majority. They are not.
Unfortunately, because of the governments release of misleading figures to the likes of the Daily Mail et al, those in genuine need are being victimised and believe it or not, they are in the majority.

We need a benefits system, we need a system that supports those in need and it is a myth that we cannot afford it, although that is what the government would like you to think. Cancelling Trident would restore the budget fairly quickly, along with both the Health and Education budget. Some 80 billiion would be saved, but it's easier to pick on carers who don't earn a wage and haven't got time or energy to protest, or on the disabled, who for obvious reasons are unable to do so.

What a delightful utopia we now occupy.

Whatmeworry · 06/04/2012 13:59

What a prejudiced view of the world you have

No, its based on reality. The outcomes of children born into families already on welfare are statistically very likely to be dependent on welfare themselves. And after 2 generations the probability is even higher.

woollyideas · 06/04/2012 14:03

'Probability' does not equal fact, does it? Your post at 13.09 was pretty unequivocal.

bejeezus · 06/04/2012 14:05

Where do you think the next generation of builders, electricians, plumbers, mechanics is going to come from? Not from you poncey lot that's for sure

It is just utter bollocks that you will remain on benefits if your parents were. Have you actually ever met anyone on benefits?

bejeezus · 06/04/2012 14:07

How about soldiers coming home, onto benefits? Are they allowed more than 2 kids?

Whatmeworry · 06/04/2012 14:14

We need a benefits system, we need a system that supports those in need and it is a myth that we cannot afford it, although that is what the government would like you to think. Cancelling Trident would restore the budget fairly quickly, along with both the Health and Education budget.

I don't think so....

2011 - UK Benefits spend PA is about £ 160bn
Health is about £ 100bn
Education is about £60bn

That's £320bn in total, of a total state expenditure of c £700 bn, which we already can't afford as we are still borrowing money to pay for it.

Total defence spending is £40bn pa, of which Trident is just a part. Trident in total is about £15bn - £20bn, which would actually be split over a number of years so would be say £3 - 4 bn p/a (assuming a 5 year - very aggressive) spend.

As you can see, £3 - 4 bn is about 1% of the total Benefit, Health, and Education bill per annum, so Trident hasn't got a hope in hell of sorting it out.

GnomeDePlume · 06/04/2012 14:18

The problem really is not at the start of life but at the end of life. We get 18-21 years of relatively unproductive life at the start with a very high proportion of the cost borne by our parents. It's at the end of life that we get 20+ years of unproductive life paid for by whom?

It's easy to attack 'feckless' parents because they are easy targets. We give them cash so snatch it back off them.

The real problem is at the end of life with pensions, expensive healthcare, expensive welfare.

I'm not suggesting that we deny our social obligations by refusing health care or welfare to the elderly.

We will all need to work on longer, pay more tax and have plenty of children!

Whatmeworry · 06/04/2012 14:23

Where do you think the next generation of builders, electricians, plumbers, mechanics is going to come from? Not from you poncey lot that's for sure

Poland?

Dawndonna · 06/04/2012 14:27

www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/may/18/new-trident-fleet-funding

www.leftfootforward.org/2010/04/fact-check-how-much-will-trident-replacement-cost/

Interesting reading.

Another point is that people seem to forget that pensions are included in the welfare bill, all those over sixty fives, feckless, workshy gits!

OutragedAtThePriceOfFreddos · 06/04/2012 15:10

Where do you think the next generation of builders, electricians, plumbers, mechanics is going to come from?

Maybe from the first two children that out of work people could have on benefits. Or maybe from parents who work and don't claim anything other than CB, or maybe even from parents that work and claim top up benefits.

Sorry, but to imply that we actually need people who contribute nothing to the tax pot to have more than two children is crap. We don't.

anewmotivatedme · 06/04/2012 15:13

I was made redundant at 26, just as were talking about TTC. However we ended up putting the date back three years, as we got our finances in order. I never considered having children, when we were not in a position to pay for them. If an accident had happened, I would have been hugely grateful for the benefit system, and really do appreciate having child benefit.

My cousin, at 21, got his 16 year old girlfriend pregnant. My mum didn't think the relationship would last, and that she would be a single mum with a large family, all on benefits. The girlfriend's parents were both living on benefits, although her Dad had worked for about 25 years previously, before claiming disability benefit.

20 years on, and my cousin and his then teenage girlfriend are happily married, with two children. My cousin always worked, and although his girlfriend did claim benefits, it was only for about two years. She went back to college, and qualified as an accountant. Their daughter is at university studying to be a teacher, and their son taking his GCSEs. They own their home, and have proved all the doubters wrong. They were always an intelligent couple, and never let being young parents define them. :)

My point is, I'm happy for tax to go to supporting those who need it, but I don't approve of living off benefits, and having a big family. I live near Wrexham, and there are lots of families, preferring to live off benefits, as a lifestyle choice, rather than work. I have even heard one man boast, that he has never done an honest days work.

Re, bejeesus:

Where do you think the next generation of builders, electricians, plumbers, mechanics is going to come from? Not from you poncey lot that's for sure

Nobody is suggesting only middle classes should have children. I find that suggestion ludicrous. My husband is an electrician btw.

Whatmeworry · 06/04/2012 15:32

Dawndonna those extra Trident costs are mainly the 20 year costs of owning a submarine fleet, you wouldn't save them in year one, and even if there was no Trident we would probably need a submarine fleet, so most don't go away. And they still just noise in the system. Another £5bn a year saved from no submarines for a generation is not going to impact a £320bn benefit budget.

Another point is that people seem to forget that pensions are included in the welfare bill, all those over sixty fives, feckless, workshy gits!

No one is forgetting it, or a bunch of other benefit related issues, its just not what this discusion is about.

bejeezus · 06/04/2012 15:56

No they aren't saying it, but you can be damn sure that's what underlies it- superiority complexes

OutragedAtThePriceOfFreddos · 06/04/2012 16:45

Isn't that you being just as judgemental though bejeezus?

bejeezus · 06/04/2012 17:06

Judgemental? Damn straight. I'm fucking outraged. The rich create a society where a working man can't support a family. Send manufacturing abroad and leave swathed of the country unemployed annd then have the fucking audacity to try and tell them how many babies they are allowed. My mum is one of 7, grandparents never had to claim benefits, but they would have to these days. I have a very good friends from large working class families who I am very sure have contributed more of worth to this world than your measly taxes. All anecdotal, but I say it again-look at the roots of the people who've ever done any good in this world. Since when has money been a criteria for anything else than being rich?

OutragedAtThePriceOfFreddos · 06/04/2012 17:17

I see what you are saying and I agree with you, but I don't think that has anything to do with assumptions that people have superiority complexes because they don't support certain aspects of the benefits system.

JugglingWithTangentialOranges · 06/04/2012 17:19

And during my life I've been paid £6 an hour (working as playgroup assistant) and £60 an hour (teaching English in Japan - variable rates of pay but this was my best), and the £6 an hour job was 10 times harder and less enjoyable than the better paid one Smile

bejeezus · 06/04/2012 17:34

It's not superior to tell people how many babies they can have, just because you have more money than them???

Whatmeworry · 06/04/2012 17:35

have the fucking audacity to try and tell them how many babies they are allowed

Again, slowly....this debate it not how many babies you are allowed to have, its how about how many the state must pay for if you can't.

bejeezus · 06/04/2012 17:37

WHILST allowing tax evasion by the rich?!

OutragedAtThePriceOfFreddos · 06/04/2012 17:39

But no ones telling anyone how many babies they can have.

I can't speak for everyone on this thread, but I thought people were saying that they didn't want to support children who were born to parents who already have children but dont work, and then decided to have more.

Telling someone that they won't pay for their child (whichwas concived while both parents were out of work and already recieveing beneifts to pay for two children) is not the same as telling them how many children they can have.

JugglingWithTangentialOranges · 06/04/2012 17:53

I'm wondering if the system could be tweaked a bit so that people were given more benefit for say first and second children and maybe less for successive children. As long as overall it was enough to live on (which I'm not sure it is ATM) From some posts above it did seem that parents are perhaps over rewarded for having large families ?

I think people will always do what is in their best interests other things being equal - that is after all a foundation of capitalism - so you have to set up the system so that it works in everyone's best interests. I guess that is, or should be, the aim of politics.

Garliccheesechips · 06/04/2012 17:56

It doesn't really matter if you have this opinion though does it?
You can't stop people having children.
Thankfully!

OutragedAtThePriceOfFreddos · 06/04/2012 18:05

Exactly Garlic. You cant stop people having children, but if the government chose to, it could stop paying for them. Then it would be the parents responsibility to provide for them instead.

Whatmeworry · 06/04/2012 18:10

You can't stop people having children.

No, but you can stop paying for other people's. Which is what this discussion is about.