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.

That's exactly my point - we have no money but we can afford to line the pockets of those already wealthy?

Oh but they are on a different level from people who genuinely cannot support themselves - the latter don't actually matter.

That is the underlying message from this government.

"There would be more money available to support the people in that list if we didn't have to pay for long term benefits claimants to have as many children as they wanted. There would also be more money available for disabled people and their carers."

This should win a prize for the funniest thing on the thread; it's almost sweet that anyone believes this would happen while this government is in power.

Perception, yes, I do know people that use benefits as a lifestyle choice. I'm related to two people that do exactly that. One of my cousins is 28, and has never worked. She has deliberately spaced out her children so that as one is starting school, another is on the way. She freely admits this because it's what all her friends have done, it's what many people do in the area she lives in and it's normality for them.

So while I accept that those people are a minority, I think they are a significant enough minority that they should be addressed. And no, I wouldn't want that lifestyle, I wouldn't want to live in that area. But when there are people out there whose only area of expertise is the benefits system and how to get the most out of it, there is something wrong with society, and the system that allows them to do this.

I'd rather my taxes were spent on keeping children fed and housed than on the Royals/keeping bishops in the house of lords/come on, insert your own unjustified waste of government money here.

YANBU I have no wish to fund others peoples children to the detriment of my own by paying huge taxes

"YANBU I have no wish to fund others peoples children to the detriment of my own by paying huge taxes"

So extending that argument, you think people without children should pay less tax, because it's unreasonable to fund children out of general taxation?

cjbk1 I take it that you don't get the £20 a week child benefit then?

Because of the valid point that has been made about the fact that society needs children for the future, I think those with children should pay less tax whatever income bracket they are in. That would help everyone's children equally.

Is that not the point of tax credits? In the 'olden days' there was married man's allowance which meant people (men!) with dependents paid less tax.

Now that doesn't exist, but we have tax credits instead. A lot of posters on here describe tax credits as a 'benefit' and think you shouldn't have children if you receive them and rely on them.

Outraged - are you saying that even people earning, say, £150K should have some sort of tax advantage if they have children?

Anyway I still think this is all a red herring - we are talking about a pittamce compared the pension commitment nightmare this country is in.

And what next, all elderly parents to be cared for at home, without expectation of social care and health support from the state? That'll be another debate that strangely excludes men sharing actual work.

I'm sure they'll allow euthanasia in soon, Linerunner. You know, like Baroness Warnock suggested about those with dementia, so the elderly can "do the right thing" and not be a burden to their families.

Margo MacDonald has been trying to get what is effectively a bill for euthanasia passed through the Scottish Parliament.

Can someone please explain to me how you downsize to smaller accommodation, take in and look after all your elderly relatives. Could be 4 or more adults if you have childless Aunts and Uncles, be full time carers for these adults and work full time in a job high powered enough to be over the CTC/WTC limit. The Government seems to want us to all of these at once but I am rather confused as to how anyone would do this on a practical level. How can you be 2 places at once ie at work and providing 24/7 care for an adult with dementia or physical needs.

Time turners?
Time machine?

Perhaps David Cameron has pretentions to be HG Wells or Cornelius Fudge?

It is all beginning to sound a bit nuts, isn't it?

It is because as usual the politicians seek headlines and sound bites rather than looking at the big picture and spending the time it would take to make all the little steps it would require to affect real change and to really benefit society.

What's more those living without hope are statistically less likely to vote so politicians don't consider them worth the effort. When those who do vote are statistically less likely to vote Tory then David Cameron definitely doesn't consider them worth bothering about. So to save the effort the conveniently forget that society would benefit as well if these people had the opportunity to contribute more. As long as his cronies are still rich he doesn't care. He can't see that when the poor have been killed off his rich friends will struggle to find people to exploit in order to make their millions. They will then turn on today's middle class who by then will be at the very bottom. Yes the Government will prosper but not the country as a whole. All they need to do is distract everyone with the 'all benefit claimants are lazy scroungers' lie long enough that they don't see it coming.

Think about that one, it's worth thinking about.

I find it a bit uncomfortable that woman's votes enable governments like this to shit all over women, but hey ho.

Rest assured, Linerunner - even if women didn't have the vote, the Govt would still shit all over women. It's not voting women's fault (well not entirely anyway).

All my mum's friends vote Tory. They ought to wear tee-shirts saying, 'I'm not oppressed, I'm respectable. '

I always planned to be married and in a good financial situation before I had children but unfortunately that didn't happen. I fell pregnant with my daughter when neither myself or her father worked. Her father is now searching for work whilst I concentrate on looking after my daughter. I feel guilty that I brought our child into this world while we don't work but I wouldn't change it for the world. At the end of the day, as long as my daughter has what she needs that's all that matter to me and her father. We hate relying on benefits but it's not as if we want to stay on them forever! We want her to have a good life and see us going to work, not sitting at home every day doing nothing. People who think you shouldn't have children if you can afford them are ridiculous because in all honesty, who can actually afford children?

Woolyideas, tax credits are a benefit that isn't linked at all to the old married mans tax allowance. You can get them without paying tax so they aren't connected to the amount of tax you pay.

Although TCs are a benefit, I don't see them as the same as other benefits because you either have to be working or have children to receive them. It's ridiculous that we need WTC to subsidise wages, but we do need it so it's a good job it does exist.

I do think everyone should have a tax advantage if they have children, especially nowadays when it's only the very poor that get any help to send their children to university. Intelligent rich kids are as valuable to society as intelligent poor kids and I don't think they should be discriminated against. We have higer rate tax for a good reason, but I do think the threshold should be higher if you have children than if you don't. Everyone deserves consideration by the government, even if they are rich. I realise that won't be a popular opinion, but there you have it.

Outraged

I meant working tax credits, obviously.

You might be surprised to know exactly who gets help to send their children to university. Where bursaries exist, often there is not only an income criteria that has to be met, but also (as in the case of the university I work for) students have to come from specific named areas of known deprivation, ie. it is not enough to have a family income of, say, £14,000/year; you also have to live in a specific geographical area to qualify. Furthermore, the bursary is worth a total of £7K when the course fees are £27K (assuming a three year course) so the students still have to take out an enormous loan. Students who can pay the annual course fee upfront, on the other hand (rich families, one assumes,) get a discount of 7%, so already enjoy an advantage.

Intelligent poor kids have been discriminated against for centuries. I would be totally against 'intelligent rich kids' having 'help' to go to university, particularly financial help. Who would you expect to pay for this subsidy?

the current level of unemployment is a red herring. It is temporary and will pass. And many jobs created in the last boom were taken by migrants who were not supporting families so more mobile and flexible.

income limits family size for many families in the UK already. This thread is just about applying the same limits to families supported by the state.

I dont see why anyone be should be funded above the average family size. Only apply to children born at least 9 months in the future.

Tax credits replaced the married mans allowance, fact

Hmm, my son wants to be a doctor. As does my sister's son. So, she should get the same help as my son. We're on benefits, she earns over £200,00pa. As does her dh.
Really Freddoes?