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.

josephine you talk as if being affluent enough to comfortably have children is some kind of character/morality reference for being 'a good parent' and that being poor means that you are unable/unwilling to raise children 'properly'

There is always and unpleasant tone to these kind of threads. I don't understand how people who think that just because they don't need tax credits means they should be the only ones to give birth.

I don't think it's about tax credits, WTC is there because wages are so low. I don't think you can compare a family where two parents work but claim top ups to a family where neither parent works and their entire income is from benefits.

I also don't think that being affluent means you are a good parent, it just means you will be able to financially provide for your child, and that's what this thread is about.

More should be done to make NRPs pay for their children, definatly.

LMAO it wouldn;t affect us!

What like the changes to disability only designed to stop people claiming that shouldn;t and won;t affect the genuines, that may well see me losing my carers status next eyar?

Forgive me, I do not have sufficient trust in the system to be that naive!

YYY to NRPs

Well to deliberately bring a child into poverty isn't the cleverest idea in the world is it? I'm not saying every parent should be in the Middleton's income bracket, just ensure you can afford the basics before having to go cap in hand to other people, eg. taxpayers.

But just to look at the NRP conundrum for a moment:

A parent walks out. The maximum they can be legally expected to pay is in the region of 20% of their income net of (yes, you guessed it) tax.

The RP left behind is assessed on 100% of their income being liable for childrearing purposes.

Apart from maintenance LineRunner.

Maybe I should express it better:

The RP left behind is expected to provide 100% of their income towards childrearing purposes.

YYhammy poor people having kids-its a dreadful state of affairs. Not a clever idea at all. But that's because most poor people are stupid. That's why they are poor.

Josephine - many people are working 65 - 80 hours + between them and are STILL getting lots in Tax Credits as that is how expensive it is to live in the UK so it is very difficult to pay in more than they take out for most people. I think thats the jobs and the cost of living not the people workings fault.

Ah but I agree with the "if you can't afford children you shouldn't have them line though"

It always puzzles me to see that people do not realise that even if you can afford to have children sometimes life gets in the way and you need some help (redundancy, death of partner...). I sincerely hope for people coming out with this comment that they will never be in situation where they are indeed in need of help, they might find they have to eat their words to survive.

Should have replied that when she's old, retired and in a care home our kids will be cleaning up after her and paying taxes to house her

Thing is, the kids born to those who can't afford them are statistically more likely to need benefits rather than pay towards others' retirement.

It always puzzles me to see that people do not realise that even if you can afford to have children sometimes life gets in the way and you need some help (redundancy, death of partner...)

IMO benefits exist to help people who land up in trouble, but continuing to subsidise more kids for those who already cant afford them is nuts unaffordable.

i fully support disabled people having children if they need state support to do so, thats part of being civilised society in which the effect of a disablility should be reduced by the state.

why? why tilly do you think we should support disabled people having children? The principles the same-requiring benefits

is it because it is not their fault that they are disabled?

And it is the fault of the long term unemployed that they rely on benefits?

Bejeezus, sometimes it is the fault of the claimant that they are long term unemployed. Obviously not always, but sometimes. It happens enough that measures should be taken to make it very difficult for people to make themselves deliberately unemployable.

Of course there is a difference between being disabled and choosing to stay on benefits long term. People don't choose to be disabled for a start.

A civilised society should do what needs to be done to make the lives of disabled people more comfortable. A civilised society should not be concerned about making the lives of people who don't want to work more comfortable, especially when they want to have multiple children that they can't provide for.

Is it the fault of the long term unemployed that they rely on benefits?

Is it there fault that for generations their family, and in fact the entire community they live in relied on factory/mill/mining/farm work and then the government smashed trade unions and ensured that these industries went over seas, leaving......um...nothing....
Is it the fault of people if they are not academic enough to educate themselves into a more white collar job, or they dont have the characteristics of an entrepreneur? Is it their fault that we live in a capitalists society that by its very nature means that their is a hugely uneven distribution of wealth? Is it their fault that there are 2.7 million unemployed people in the country and only half a million vacancies?

Yes...sometimes it is their fault that they are unemployed, about as often as it is sometimes the fault of a disabled person that they are disabled, for example disability as a result of an accident whilst reckless driving, or disability as a result of alcohol or drug abuse

Also...SHITE LOADS of NHS money is spent on treating illnesses because people refuse to take responsibility for their own health...obesity/heart disease/diabetes/smokers etc etc etc

Shite loads of NHS money is also wasted on paying managers and middle managers to do very inefficient pointless jobs

'A civilised society should not be concerned about making the lives of people who don't want to work more comfortable, especially when they want to have multiple children that they can't provide for.
'

I disagree

but ONLY becuase of the knock on effects for those children who are already with them or who are born after claim starts- a civilised society provides for children without judging a baby on the basis of their parent's actions.

It is also cheaper long term to bring up a child decently (not luxury but decently- enough decent quality food, stable housing, heating, medical care etc) and whilst the long term likelihood of needing state help might be higher with claiming parents it's not a given.

My parents have a council house- Dad worked and worked bloody hard (still does part time, he's 70 next year) but they enver quite got out the system for lots of reasons- Mum couldn't work etc- of the three children my sister runs a chain of nurseries, other sister is a senior veterinary nurse, and there's me, carer but seeking work.

I do support disabled people having state help to raise a family, I;ve worked with famillies in that position and lovely family units were the result.

Bejeezus, some reasons for unemployment may be beyond a persons control, but people still have to take some responsibility for themselves if they are able. I haven't advocated taking support away, I have just suggested that people living entirely on benefits should not be given more money when they decide to have multiple children.

Waste in the NHS is a separate subject, and people can be diabetic or have heart disease without smokeing or over eating you know. Nobody wants ill health,but some people do want to be able to have three or four or five children while they are on long term benefits. You can't compare the two things and expect to be taken seriously.

Waste in the NHS is a separate subject, and people can be diabetic or have heart disease without smokeing or over eating you know. Nobody wants ill health,but some people do want to be able to have three or four or five children while they are on long term benefits. You can't compare the two things and expect to be taken seriously

you cant keep seperating out all these issues and expect to be taken seriously

the issues are seperated out into those which affect middle class people and are therefore 'unavoidable' and 'acceptable costs' etc etc AND those which dont affect MC people and therefore 'MUST be reduced' 'need to be tackled'

I know its subconscious and insidious and will probably not ever been seen for what it is. Because if it isnt THEIR fault, then it means society has to do something about it--easier to breed them out

HTH

insidious and subconscious for alot of people

Its totally fucking conscious for some

I don't think this has anything to do with MC people and acceptable/unacceptable costs. It's about the state funding unlimited children born to two parents who don't work, and already have children that they aren't providing for.

I don't see how anyone can think its a good idea to provide unworking parents with more money every time they conceive when they already have children they can't pay for themselves. Wages don't go up with every new child, neither should out of work benefits. So yes, to me, that is a unacceptable cost.

The health service is completely different. Every single one of us will use the NHS at some point and it's about health, which is far more important than a desire to have numerous children paid for by someone else. Of course the health service is an acceptable cost.

Try making it about people who take financial responsibility for themselves and those who don't instead of making it about middle class and those who don't work.

I don't think this has anything to do with MC people and acceptable/unacceptable costs

don't you?
ok then