to think that 20 grand on benefits a year is loads

[MrsBucketxx]

considering they dont pay any income tax.

just watching we pay your benefits program and worked out that this is over 30 grand if it was a normal tax paying salary.

why was this not mentioned.

'Children are the economic future' is a pretty meaningless statement per se

We certainly need children who will be the doctors, teachers, builders etc of tomorrow, but to suggest that we just 'need ' lots and lots of children, at a rate which is increasing, not just maintaining this already over populated planet, is absurd

I see Call Me Dave is still harping on about tax breaks for married couples. That pisses me off too, as a childfree singleton.

I'd like to be married one day, although I did live with someone for nine years. However, been single 3 years now and no one on the horizon. I have already said, I don't mind the fact that my taxes pay for schools and that because some of those kids may end up being my doctors and nurses one day. A certain amount of social responsibility is required.

But I worry about the workplace situation too. When someone goes off on maternity or paternity leave, firms very rarely employ someone else in the meantime. Their work gets handed out to others for no additional reward or benefit. And parents constantly taking time off for children who are sick and going to the doctors, or school sports days. In many offices, parents get first pick of holidays. Single people and those without kids get asked to do overtime because "well, you don't have kids so don't need to get home" or to work Christmas because "you don't have family, do you?"

We get the raw end of the deal too often which is why I get pissed off with the entitled attitude some parents have with regard to tax credits and benefits, let alone some of the 'scroungers' (minority though they undoubtedly are). In fact, sometimes, I get more cross about entitled parents than the scroungers!

"to suggest that we just 'need ' lots and lots of children, at a rate which is increasing, not just maintaining this already over populated planet, is absurd"

Which would be why I haven't suggested it?

Erm, you guys are aware that people die, too, right? "Child being born" does not equal "population increasing"...

Erm: are you seriously suggesting the world population isn't increasing?!

but we do have a growing population.

Regardless of whether a country's population is currently in growth, stasis or decline, raising children is necessary for the economy (unless you're planning to use immigration for population replacement).

Therefore to talk about children in terms of pure individualism is bunkum.

janey - oddly enough, I raised the fact that the world population has increased from 3 billion to 7 billion in just over the last 50 years, whereas it took almost the same length of time to get from 2 billion to 3 billion. And in the last 50 years the advances in contraception have been quite significant. We are intelligent creatures, supposedly, but look at the state of the world and its ecology, pollution etc. Madness.

Actually, I think it's time that people were given tax breaks for NOT having kids or for at least only having one child.

Jessica that's a little intrusive!!

Morethan has already said in this thread that she hasn't worked for over 20 years

So I'd guess not too many years as a tax payer...arf..but somewhat beside the point. It isn't morethan that is the issue. Apologies. It is all the adults that make a choice to sit in the house and not work that are the problem

Not those with necessity but those with desire to simply mooch about whilst they are supported by the state

Ronald - I asked, she answered. She didn't need to. Nor have I made any additional comment based on her answer.

Maybe what might help slow down the rate of an increased population is to only give help for 1 or maybe 2 children then after that you are on your own? Only have a 3rd or 4th of you can afford to.

I know so many people who are struggling but then go on to have a 3rd or 4th. I stuck with 2 because i get no help and that is what dh and i can afford without over stretching ourselves.

peanut - my parents only had me because they couldn't afford more children. That, to my mind, seems eminently sensible. Unfortunately these days most people seem to think that they are entitled to have whatever they wants, regardless. Half the reason we are in the financial mess we are is everyone wanting everything now, and buying everything on credit whereas in the old days people only bought what they could afford or saved up for it.

We had two children because that's what we could afford. It might have been nice to have 3 or 4, but frankly, love and fulfilment don't increase by having more children; it doesn't work like that, so I don't know why more people aren't content to limit their family to one they can afford. I guess like Jessica says, some people just want something immediately and feel they have a god given right to it. I also suspect that for some people , particularly if they have been out of the job market for many years, having more children can become a validation for them; it serves an immediate purpose

Current UK age pyramid.

UK population is increasing, but not because of high birth rate. Number of children born in UK is still below replacement rate, despite having recently increased.

Some of that's immigration, some of it as a PP pointed out is the ageing population.

right so as we live longer, we have more old people alive.

which means everyone of working age needs to work.

we still don't need more children as that will put even more pressure of e.g. house prices.

fancy house prices being 25% higher than now? what about 50% higher?

"we don't need to pay people to have children. we have more than enough already"
and
"we still don't need more children"

I didn't actually understand these two posts. The first sounds as if you mean "we can stop giving birth." I'm sure that's not what you meant.

Explain?

(BTW, house prices aren't primarily a function of population - if they were, Gideon wouldn't be engaged in dodgy schemes to prop up prices for fear of a property market slump.)

That is so true Jessica. Gone are the days where people moved into a run down property and did it up as and when over decades. Now people expect to move into lovely new properties all kitted out with nice furniture and decor. People also expect to have all the gadgets known to man - expensive phone contracts, laptops, ipads, x boxes plus the amount people spend on takeaways is ludicrous instead of cooking a proper meal at a fraction of the price. If i want to afford this stuff i have to work, budget and save for it.

People will look at me and dh and think it's alright for them - what they don't take into account is our house was bought a reck and we did it up over years, not going out or having luxuries so we could put the money into doing up the house. My dh also works a 60+ hour week and i work as well. It's not alright for us like people chant (as they think people like us have it easy) because we do everything ourselves with no help at all.

peanut - you should see the looks I get from some people when I tell them I don't have, and never have had, a credit card. It's like I have been beamed down from another planet. I have a pay as you go mobile that takes pictures but it wasn't expensive when I bought it and is about 4 years old now. Like you, the one-bed flat I bought three years ago needed a fair bit of work doing to it, internally, as did the garden. Did it myself, with my dad's help (a builder) over the course of a year.

It's like when I see babies and toddlers wearing bloody Converse trainers. Now, I like Converse, I have several pairs myself. But they will last me for years. Unlike toddlers' ones. Just a stupid waste of money.

But by all means ignore the economic figures and get back to talking in terms of personal morality again.

Oh, look, you have.

Jessica you are right about the access to credit being a big part of the problem, but you can't put that genie back in the bottle. It's a bit like arguing that fossil fuels have caused global warming and therefore we should all give up having electricity.

These things are here to stay. The top 5% in this country have built their wealth off the back of easy credit. They will not allow that to be taken away in a bid to encourage the less well off to live within their means and create a more stable economy and lower cost of living for the masses because that would remove their source of wealth. And ironically, we need their wealth - however unfair/unwise it may seem - because it is taxation on it that pays for much of our infrastructure.

I don't know what the solution is though.

I am like that too - i have a modest pay as you go phone which i top up with the O2 Go Go Go deal for £10 each month. It does me fine and it's affordable and it's also 3 years old now. There is something really satisfying about doing things yourself, putting a little bit of money into things slowly to build something up over the years.

My friends give me funny looks when i say i don't have ipad because i cannot afford it - i mean they are 3 - 4 hundred quid each! They probably look at me and think i am rich or something but when you pay for everything yourself; full bills, nothing free or "topped up" - it takes up most of your money! I may start saving for one if i can but for now i don't see it as essential.

When I was reliant on the childcare element of working tax credits for help with childcare bills (no other benefits other than child benefit), I didn't have an ipad either. Or a newish mobile phone, or an ipod, or a DVD player. I repointed my house myself because I couldn't afford a builder, likewise I replaced my taps myself.

Do you know what? I still couldn't afford to eat properly.

Going without the latest gadget is not comparable to being unable to afford to eat, which is the reality for many on benefits and also many of the working poor reliant on top-up benefits.

The "personal morality" is part of the reason things have gone wrong though.

There has always been poorer people and there always will be. The difference is nowadays people expect and want more and they want an upperclass lifestyle doing 16 hours per week.

Poorer classes used to mend and make do. They used things as much as they could and only threw things away when they were very used and broken. They cooked proper meals and used up leftovers, they mended clothes and handed down, they never expected things to be brand new. They knew hard graft was the only way forward and didn't expect a thing and had to save for anything. Poorer classs has pride in themselves, their community and their family.

Money, family and material things were looked after and spent wisely.

Now imagine not having help with childcare bills either.

I recall spending alot on childcare bills when mine were of that age.