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.

When a child is caring for two parents, at say eight, which means cooking, washing, dressing and housework on top of homework, playing and attempting friendships I really don't see how a childhood can be achieved. When you watch those charity things and they show you those children it's so very sad, I cannot see how it is defensible. Of course accidents and illness is not planned and so could happen to any one of us, but to enter into parenthood knowing what is in store is dreadful.

Those charity things are exaggerated. Yes there are groups for young carers and it's not always easy, but most really do have a life. I'm sorry, I see no reason why people with disabilities cannot have children, and to say otherwise is surely advocating eugenics.

I did not say people with disabilities should not have children, I said people that have children knowing that they will be their carers, ie both parents, are incredibly selfish.

gives up

I don't think people with disabilities should be denied children, but disabled people wouldn't have to be any different to anyone else. They could claim for two children, then no more. Same as people who work and have a third child. Their wage doesn't go up so why should anyone's benefits?

I really don't want to be shown as saying people with disabilities shouldn't have children, I've said people should not have children knowing that they will have to care for them during their childhood.

Do people really have kids so that they can start being their carers as soon as they are old enough?

I'd hope that was exaggeration, because its nothing short of planned slavery if not.

'would that mean that there is more money available to get to those who go through general shit that life can sometimes spread?

'

Nah, never works like that. The changes to what is defined as disability isn;t meaning extra cash can be given to people who hit the new definition, there's an aim of saving 20%.

We claim for 4 kids; all of whom born and conceived under a damned good income. Then dh was made redundant. And I couldn;t carry on my career becuase of 2 having a disability. We're trying to get up and going, Dh has started a business that nows pays enough to take a wage and I am trying to find work (even with an imminently complete MA bloody hard atm) and looking at the possibility of self employment. Our options would have been FAR harder without having been able to care for all the kids, actually Dh would never have been able to start up for himself as we'd have had to spread the money too thin to have been able to find the new rent (tenancy, we lost owned house, can't work from here). Always worth recalling that the more you make people struggle, the less options to get them and their kids out of poverty are available. it's a proven fact that poorer kids have worse outcomes in terms of health, education, employability- so shoving more famillies into that poverty as some kind of moral punishment is pretty daft in terms of long term financial stability, Far better to remember WHY so many people are claiming right now, invest in jobs and education / retraining, and do everything possible to make sure those claims are for as short a time as possible. Better all kids for 6 months post redundancy than 2 kids for 7 years after all!

Oh and sort out childcare; becuase there isn't any my asd boys can access, my job hunting is restricted severely to the hours my (working but low paid) DH can cover- this emans that on avaerage I am fidning less than 2 jobs a week to apply for. Many of those are fired right back at me becuase I have been a Carer for two years and therefore lack paid references, even though I have been in education and have education references throughout (my degree, but within the critical past 2 years I have been doing my MA in ASD at night class). Chances are next eyar with UC I will HAVE to work or be placed on workfare, as theya re changing what counts as a carer, at which point I presume Dh will have to pack in work to look after the boys!

My to children were conceived and born within a relationship. ExH walked away. He pays a small minority of his salary as 'child support'. The taxpayer pays much more than he does to raise his chidren - and yes, I work full-time, and give it all to raising our children. No holidays. No plasma TV. Just bills and invoices and payments for keeping a roof over the heads of my faimly and making sure they get chances at school and activities outside of school.

Why does no-one ever froth about men who walk away?

If he paid more, I wouldn't need tax credits, would I? He has a fucking great lifestyle.

two sorry

Still interested to hear whether the idea that benefits are rescricted to 2 children per women or per dad or per household or per couple?

From what I understand of wasabis post regarding step families, it is 2 children per individual- so 4 in total in a household? What is the status then of the non-resident biological parents? Do they get to have another 2 children each to live in their respective households?

I think it should be two per person. I have two children that are not DHs, but as we have two children living in our household, we should not be given benefits for anymore (assuming I claim any that is). If dh had wanted his own children, he should have had to go out and find someone who didn't have children if he wasn't working and was going to have to claim benefits. My ex also wouldn't be able to have any more children, and any woman that chose to have children with him would have to do so knowing she wasn't going to be entitled to benefits if she was having a child with someone who already had two children that were supported by the state.

I know people are likely to come back at that with a million different scenarios as to why it's unfair, maybe there will be one that persuades me. But at the moment I really can't see why any man or woman should be able to conceive a child while the state is already supporting their first two children. Any new partners are free to make their choice to conceive based on the knowledge that they will not be able to claim benefits if their partner has children they already don't provide for.

The only reasons we claim is because 2 of our boys are autistic, NONE were conceived on benefits and I don;t think that's a decision I woudl make. Dh DOES work but is low paid after a reedundancy, fortunately when made redundant he had his FT demanding job and a start up PT business, he is now turning the PT business into a proper job. I am looking for work, but even a good degree and an almost MA counts for very little these days especially where I live wrt unemployment but as we are dependant on special schools we cannot move.

We already lost £25 PW from ds3's disability support his week, despite him being severe enough to need lifelong care. You want us to lose more? Ta then we'll lose the rented house of course and need to go into council, which would rewuire us to be in a homeless accom block and the two disabled boys to have to go into foster care whilst we are there as they couldn;t cope but hey, just because we have NEVER been a jobless family, ALWAYS tried our best and the like, why should anyone else care?

But yeah, make larger famillies lose their rented homes, make them move away from what work they do have because of housing...... force carers with kids away from their support networks..... disabled parents of more than 2 children away from THEIR support networks and carers....

I presume people whose second pregnancy ends in twins or even triplets will get less as well?

That's not 2 children pet person though freddos

That's 2 kids per 3, possibly 4 adults (you, your dpi, your ex and your exs potential partner)

It's not a case of coming up with scenarios of why that's not fair

But if you propose a system, it clearly needs to be a workable system, otherwise it.....wouldn't work

It is simple as: if you are not eligable for benefits, you look at your finances and work out what to do. All I am proposing is the same across the board. I do understand that csa is crap and needs to be sorted asap, so this could only work in a post decent csa world.

the population is growing and a child in the UK use 6 times the worlds resources as e.g. An African child. And the UK population is set to grow by 5 million I think by the end of the decade......you think house prices are high now...

So we need to fairly allow everyone to have children but we dont need lots more people. So the state helps everyone to have two children. If you have more, that's your choice, we aren't china, but you need to be able to provide for them not just now, but until they are 18. So everyone gets to be the bio parent to two. if your relationships change, fine, but you provide for the ones you have before wanting support for more.

You could say to make it fair, families not eligiable for benefits who had say 4 children, had to pay more tax on the basis that if they needed benefits in the future, they would need greater support.

The goal is fairness and a slowing of population growth.

Peachy, if your family was conceived while you weren't on benefits, then this wouldn't effect you. Yours is exactly the sort of family that needs the benefits system to be a safety net, because you wouldn't have done it as a lifestyle choice.

Bejeezus, why is it not fair to tell people that they shouldn't conceive more children if they can't financially support the ones they already have. If a new partner chooses to have children with someone who is already having two children fully supported by the state, then all they need to do is be in employment before they conceive. Which would be a good idea anyway.

Haven't bothered to read the thread, will do, but everyone is entitled to have children, rich or poor, coupled or single, able or disabled. Even if nature is against you our wonderful welfare state will strive to help you obtain your human rights to a family life.

"Entitled" Now there's a word.

Haven't bothered to read the thread, will do, but everyone is entitled to have children, rich or poor, coupled or single, able or disabled. Even if nature is against you our wonderful welfare state will strive to help you obtain your human rights to a family life.
Yeah but this isn't sustainable in the long term. This country and the world are overpopulated now, let alone in the future, and there are too few people paying taxes for too many people taking out of the system.

I think there should be some kind of incentive for people not to have children, as well as some kind of advertising asking people whether they are really want to be parents, because far too many people just seem to have children for the sake of it, without really caring how their kids are going to end up.

Everyone may be entitled to have kids and of course we shouldn't stop people doing so. But I will judge those who have kids but are not in any situation to care for them properly.

I think a lot of people have babies without thinking about them becoming children and adults.

Just to say, have a friend who is paraplegic and has a son. Her DP has always done lots of the childcare and she has lots of family who help out. So I think this is fine - he is certainly not her carer. But it would have bu imo for her to have had her son on her own as he would have ended up being her carer.

And yes people do have kids in this situation. 1 women I used to work with is paraplegic and chose to have a child. She worked in admin, but had carers coming in to help her with washing, dressing, etc. She had extra carers coming in to help her look after her baby as she couldn't physically do this and was on her own. Unless her situation changed, it is likely that her son would end up as her carer. And like Posie I do think it is wrong to plan to have kids in this situation.

I agree with freddos

Why does no-one ever froth about men who walk away?

If he paid more, I wouldn't need tax credits, would I? He has a fucking great lifestyle

Couldn't agree more. It's the joint responsibility of both parents to support the child. If the marriage breaks down it doesn't mean the guy can swan off and abandon his duties and leave the state to pick up the tab. Unfortunately so many women are left is such desperate circumstances because of this and it pisses me right off. This is the area they need to target.

I also agree with halfpastwine