Is it a right to have Kids you can’t afford!?!

[KN2212]

I am totally fed up of listening to people complain about how broke they are after having kids. Babies and childcare are cripplingly expensive but that’s pretty much common knowledge, right?

I fell out with a long term friend of mine about a year ago. Since the birth of her DD all she did was complain about the situation she’d orchestrated.
Her and her (now ex) partner had no home of their own, low income, high debt and no savings when they decided to go ahead and have a child (though granted had been together for 7 years). The poor boyfriend busted his butt working 13 hour shifts 6 days a week in a call centre whilst they all lived in one cramped room at her parents and she complained he wasn’t doing enough. Due to her crippling shopping debts and inability to hold a job they were never going to make enough to live and knew that pre getting pregnant.

(Other friends are in similar situations, complaining about how they ‘can’t afford to go back to work’ because of childcare costs but equally can’t afford to live if they don’t go back to work!!! Come on and take some responsibility you knew this was going to be your situation.)

Whilst she was complaining over coffee one day about how the benefit system wasn’t giving her enough free money I called her out on her obvious poor planning and asked why she didn’t wait and save pre child. She got very defensive and said that they were never going to be able to afford a child due to their financial situation so why bother waiting?

It just got me thinking really hard, since when did having children become a right? It seemed so clear to her that she deserved to have a child despite not being able to afford one and that the government should now support her because she deserved to have her daughter.
Am I wrong in thinking that having children you can’t support is completely irresponsible and shitty and entitled?

I know a lot of women who want kids but are having to wait and plan and save and do it ‘the right way’ it seems unfair to them. When women like my ex friend do exactly what they want without planning and then hold the government over a barrel saying that their kids don’t have food and clothes. It just sucks like the children shouldn’t have to suffer but the tax payer shouldn’t have to pay for your unfair choices.

To clarify I have empathy for unplanned pregnancy’s no contraception is 100% but that’s not the kind of situation I’m talking about here. I’m talking about planned pregnancies.

And, of course we all know how important benefits are for allowing women with children to flee from abusive partners.

What advice could we give a mother in a dangerous situation if these benefits were not there?

I think its selfish to continuously have kids when you're in a bad situation but one no things happen

I do think it's a right to have children. I don't think it is a right to have the state fund your lifestyle.

I'm a big fan of state-subsidized childcare and benefits that enable families to have a decent lifestyle (I'm not familiar with what's currently available in the UK as I'm now in the US and there's nothing here unless you're in desperate circumstances).

What bugs me is when people make a choice to have a baby with no real intention of trying to support them. I know someone who's had IVF on the NHS and hasn't worked for years (both before and after their child was born). That seems entitled to me, as if having a child is a right, but trying to support them is an option!

I waited ten years before even thinking of having children as we couldn’t afford them. We had a house to bring the baby home to and, with many sacrifices, could just about manage the childcare.

I read that very rich people have four children as do very poor people (because they are state subsidised) and those who wait until they can afford kids have between one and two as they have not got the resources for more. This is an interesting statistic as it suggests that productive, taxpaying, prudent citizens whose children would grow up to be, likewise, productive citizens, are being restricted in contrast with another group - of which I will say nothing as the numbers say it all.

I think that it is not kind to the children themselves when parents chose to have them knowing they cannot give them a good start. However, I know I will be shot down in flames for so saying. It is true that there is no ideal time to procreate and there is a time clock ticking for women and I freely acknowledge that.

Sorry, that ‘with’ should have been ‘while’.

I agree with Teacher.

To answer the OP, I wouldn't judge someone for having one or two children if they couldn't really afford it because otherwise you're effectively saying poor people shouldn't breed.

But I'm one of those people in the middle, waiting to do it "the right way", and I doubt whether we will have enough time or money to have more than two children.

I think it's morally wrong to have five or six children and keep claiming benefits.

It’s the comment that it’s not fair on the children that rankles me the most. You can make the claim that it’s not fair on society (though I think it’s misguided) and the claim that it will ruin the parents lives and they should have realised that. But the children? Although a small percentage of people (some rich as well as poor) are so discontent with life they wish out or to never have been born the vast vast majority (poor as well as rich) are glad to be alive and for patronising onlookers to be wishing their lives away because of resentment of their parents is to me utterly odious and even more so when they put on the pretence that it’s for the ‘poor child’s’ benefit).

person A reads one sentence of a 2 paragraph post and immediately takes offence to said sentence. Person A enjoys being offended... Don’t be like Person A.
( I think you know who you are Person A)

I’m gonna use this as an example to fully explain the original point I was trying to make.

A wants a baby
A earns £1200 a month and relies on £1000 of that to be able to pay rent/bills/buy food and live.

A has £200 left over each month.
A shoukd receive £300 a month in support benefits.
In total A will have £500 each month left over.
A will HAVE to go back to work post maternity as their circumstances make it impossible not to.

A knows that childcare will cost £1000 a month.
Therefore A only has £500 available to cover a £1000 cost.

Option 1: A is smart and recognises that They are £500 short pm of being able to afford a child. A makes the smart choice to wait and improve the figures in the above calculation until they CAN afford a baby. (Earn a little more, reduce monthly outgoings, retrain for a new career, meet a partner who can contribute...etc)

Option 2: A has a baby anyway! Because they DESERVE it and they’d rather spend the next few years complaining about the price of childcare, refusing to accept responsibility for their lack of planning, getting angry at the government for not providing more and making excuses about how their circumstances couldn’t possibly have been improved pre baby for 101 reasons (most of which have a strong basis in ‘I don’t want to change my life’) because they’re entitled and irresponsible and want what they want right now!

The point I was trying making with this whole post was that it’s wrong for people to make informed decisions KNOWING in advance that they can’t meet the basic financial requirements.

Would you walk up the cash register in a shop with a £100 dress knowing that there was £5 in your bank??? Would you? Jeez it’s common sense surely?

If you CAN afford a child and then the unpredictable happens, job loss, illness, divorce, partner runs off with a parrot he met on gumtree...those are really unfortunate and unforeseen circumstances, you didn’t know that was going to happen and you and your kids hands down deserve support.

But why, if you KNOW you can’t afford a child at the time would you make the decision to have one, do you think that’s fair? To the people paying taxes or the women out there waiting and saving and being sad everyday because they need to wait another 2 years to afford the precious child they desperately want?

What makes you different and why do you feel entitled to do it anyway?

I eagerly await those who will totally ignore the point of this comment and no doubt critique the figures in my clearly made example. Please insert your own figures.

Maybe get pissed off with what passes as a living wage and the prohibitive cost of childcare?

This, basically.

DH and I both have salaries that put us in the highest tax paying bracket. We bought a house with enough bedrooms and a garden before we started trying for our two DC.

We had one DC and I went back to work and we were still comfortable, but couldn’t afford holidays, for eg.

We had a second DC and I was just totally floored by the cost of childcare for two. We timed our DC so that our oldest would be eligible for the 30 free hours of childcare when DC2 came along. But the 30 hours turned out to be a joke. Saved me a couple of hundred at most, off a childcare bill that ran into £1,600.

It got to the point that we were barely breaking even with me working and so I took the decision to quit work and look after the DCs myself instead of running myself into the ground to hand over nearly all of my salary for someone else to do it.

Apart from childcare, our other crippling expense was our mortgage. WHich we’d stretched ourselves on because we wanted to do it ‘right’ for the DCs. The obvious solution would have been to move house to somewhere cheaper but we needed to stay living in our expensive area because of having to care for a relative.

So everyone’s circumstances are unique to their situation and it’s not always simple. We did everything ‘by the book’ and were a £100k earning household and we still couldn’t really afford it. Where’s the threshold?

Now the DC are at school things are a bit easier and I’ve gone back to work but took a bit of a pay cut in exchange for more flexibility around school hours. But I realise I’m very lucky.

I’m sure there are some people on benefits who have children with no thought as to supporting them without help. But I sort of feel that the state should look after all its citizens, especially the vulnerable ones with fewer chances, and not just the naice hard working ones.

And also, where are the jobs that pay a decent living wage anyway? There aren’t enough. The answer isn’t for people to deny themselves a family. The answer is for the government to sort the economy out.

On the whole though I’m actually very reassured that a majority do seem to have their heads screwed on an plan sensibly. Even if he 40% baffle me

Yes OP I can see why it annoys you if A constantly moans over the same thing when they were aware of the situation pre baby and did little to rectify or change it and thought the government would have a magic wand.

Unless they have very nice relatives who want to offer child care then its a problem of their own making. On that I have to agree.

In A case the ship has sailed so to speak and they will have to reexamine costs and budgets, potentially move etc which is the hard way around learning the lesson. Personally I wouldn't listen to the moaning and would reply with it was always going to be that way and what did you expect.

In life there are always going to be those who save for something and those who will just go ahead be it a car, holiday or baby!

I don't think we should take away funding or child benefits (even though I will never see CB) as the ones that lept in will come to the same conclusion as those who save just the harder way around which is a massive lesson in itself!

I do think the child benefit cap is putting people off my DB and SIL have 4 children between them 1 together SIL had 2 previously DB had 1. SIL would like another but freely admits it's not going to happen due to the change in rules.

What if person A will never be able to find another £500 per month? They already live an incredibly frugal lifestyle but they just don't have the earning capacity. Should person A just shrug their shoulders and say "oh well I guess I'm just too poor to have children" or should the government support them so any child they have is provided for?
I have no issue with my taxes supporting children in this scenario, I think it's a good use of them.

I have four kids, I had my first at 16, I know I know, teenage parents are useless and soooo class less, however, I can't afford to go back to work, I would love to, and Just to clarify, I don't NEED to, but I would love to, the childcare bill for three kids, school drop offs and pick ups and and three hours a day childcare would cost us £1300 a month, I can't afford that!! And why should I pay someone more than two thirds my standard wage, for my job, when I can do it myself and me and husband are a little better off? He gets marriage tax allowance, which he wouldn't, and I get the child tax credit, kids pre 2017, which although not loads, is enough for me to take them out and treat them a few times a month, £1300 in childcare is ridiculous, especially when all these family's you are posting about get it for free, well between 15 and 30 hours of it. If we got that, paid to a qualified childminder I could go back to work, pay my tax and our childcare would be free, but it never works that way for the people who want to work.

The system is not here for you to stay home and produce children your entire adult life.

This brings to mind a film I managed to sit through a while ago, think it was called Idiocracy. An average chap and a woman had taken part in a secret military experiment whereby they were put into stasis, but the military base closed down and they were forgotten. They came out of stasis 500 years later and he was the most intelligent man in the world because all the "dumb" people were just having kids regardless and all the intelligent ones were planning and ran out of time, so all the intelligent people died out. No-one knew how to run anything from power stations to the government. I have to admit it rather hit home, had me slightly concerned that it could come true.

I also recall a conversation I overheard (sitting at the next table) between a mother and daughter. Daughter wanted to go to college, mother wanted her out of the house ASAP. Daughter's school uniform meant she was no older than 14 (unless she was in wrong uniform, the school took up to 16 but changed uniform in year kids turned 14). Anyway, mother was telling daughter she needed to get pregnant now so that she could have two kids in a short while and this would give her extra points to get a place of her own. Now THAT is disgusting, I can only hope the daughter managed to fight back, or even that someone had got social services involved. To take away someone's future just so you could get them out of your house is not nice.

You have kids, you take them on until such time as they feel ready to leave, maybe youngster's simply do not realise that they are likely to hang around for 25 years or more.

@jane

"You have kids, you take them on until such time as they feel ready to leave, maybe youngster's simply do not realise that they are likely to hang around for 25 years or more." - I agree with this. I've seen people who seem to think you are responsible for your kids only for as long as the government gives help for them.

Obviously you should expect to make sacrifices for children, and you shouldn't expect to "break even". And I'm a massive advocate of limiting number of children for the sake of the existing ones. But I think everyone should be able to have at least one, even if that means relying on state help, especially in the pre-school years.

Again, free universal childcare would solve many problems.

I've seen people who seem to think you are responsible for your kids only for as long as the government gives help for them.

Mind-boggling.

But with all the best will in the world, I earn 1212 a month. That's it, that's all I've earnt I've never had a payrise and I can't progress - I've tried, and got knocked back. I can't even afford to go to tech to do extra qualifications because I am working and I can't afford the course fees.

So by your reckoning OP I should never be allowed to have children.

And it still doesn't answer the deserving/non-deserving poor part of your scenario. So I would be "deserving" poor because I was with a partner and able to self support when my kids were born but if I had another one now I'd be undeserving? Who gets to decide that? What if I was raped? Had a contraceptive failure?

"retrain for a new career"

This gets trotted out all the time on here. Where does the money to do those courses that you retrain in a new career come from?

Fees for a degree are extortionate, even part time, I can't afford it. My employer won't fund it because they're not exactly rolling in it either.

I've seen people who seem to think you are responsible for your kids only for as long as the government gives help for them

DS and I have been talking about this re many of his old school mates. We've seen quite a few youngsters being kicked out of asked to leave their parents' homes age 16-18. It's like the whole family drops off a cliff, financially, emotionally, domestically.

The young people then sofa-surf and get shunted around hostels, are lucky to gain and keep any kind of employment, and tend to drop out of education and training. It's a massive issue but there seem to be no resources to solve the problem.

I guess people just don't always think ahead to those demanding teenage years.

Childcare is expensive compared to other countries yes but we have a regulatory body that ensure they receive the best care - whether that be a childminder or a nursery - surely that's worth paying for?

I'm a SAHM returning to work part time. My DH will do more childcare than before. We can afford it and in fact will be earning less but it will mean more stimulation for me and less stress for him. We have one child. We know 2 would be a stretch.

The story a PP told about a young girl being told by her mother to her pregnant is horrific and is an example of how bad it can get for some families.

I know someone who keeps having babies and keeps having SS take them away. The last one was 4 days old when she was removed. A child is not a meal ticket and we have the luxury of contraception!

If I ever wanted to have child, then I'd do as OP advocates - only when I'm financially stable, has somewhere to live (and not renting). However, I never wanted one :) but as a full-time worker and taxpayer I never minded my money going to other people's families, the kind of people OP describes. OK, they haven't thought properly, maybe were complete dumbarses but that's not the reason to leave them and their kids on the street. The state has a responsibility for that. The fucking Costa Coffee, Google and other billion-making scum who avoid paying tax do too.

Should person A just shrug their shoulders and say "oh well I guess I'm just too poor to have children Yup. There are things in life I want but can't afford them so don't have them. No, I don't have children. Far too expensive.

So I would be "deserving" poor because I was with a partner and able to self support when my kids were born but if I had another one now I'd be undeserving? Who gets to decide that? What if I was raped? Had a contraceptive failure?

Well, setting aside the rape scenario which account for a vanishingly small fraction of unplanned pregnancies - being whimsical about birth control and/or feeling sentimental about embryos are expensive options, as well they should be.

Rarely are successful people willing to completely explode their financial stability for unplanned children.

Its money management that is the issue more than income quite often, second hand baby equipment is fairly cheap, clothes from primark/George etc also are.
6 year old DD does 2 clubs that equal about £45 a month.
If one of us bought a coffee out each day it would cost around double that a month for example, but some people will just view it as £3 for a coffee and not take into account how their spending adds up.

There needs to be more money management and debt avoidance taught at schools, if children grow up seeing luxuries as necessities and debt as normal then its a lot harder to adapt from that.

Why are middle class people being highlighted as the only group in society to afford children. There are loads of working class people who can fund the cost of children. I do believe folk should have housing not saying owning, be able to exist covering basic nescessities e.g. fuel, food, clothing before even thinking of having children. Would have lived a bigger family but knew there was no way I could afford a bigger house and all the associated costs never mind childcare. It's what's called taking responsibility for your own actions in life albeit life can throw you a curved ball now and again. At least if you are accustomed to being responsible you will be more likely to cope. There seems to be an awful lot of "I am entitled, someone else's responsibility, someone else's fault, and someone else has to fix it". We know what the world is like and have to adapt unless of course you have a magic wand.