To think that people are actually getting more ridiculous in their expectations??

[Youmadorwhat]

I mean ffs, 9.99 for Netflix per month Is justified because it’s entertainment but never mind the fact that you are in deficit every month🙄

Childcare, anything medical (including hospital car parks), education, school dinners and housing should all be subsidized substantially or FREE (and 24/7) I mean should the government not just collect the babies from the maternity ward and hand them back at 18!

I even saw a thread a while back where someone stated that all extra curricular activities should be subsidized for children 🙄

I know people are struggling I get that but the government CANNOT afford to prop up everyone!! Especially when a lot of people are actually at a tax deficit anyway!! Rant over!!

Wow I can't believe you actually expect people who haven't gory money not to have sex. Man alive, I'm out of here, some people are completely out of touch with reality.

Also, like I said many women don't have a choice whether they have sex or not. Ugh, I need a shower after this. What a sucky person you are that's all I can say!

It is not a human right to have a child? What about poor people?

If you do your utmost to support them, without the expectation that others should. We were poor, but didn’t feel the government should subsidise our life choice.

Ugh, I need a shower after this. What a sucky person you are that's all I can say!

I think it makes you a sucky person to choose to have children in the knowledge that you can’t support them properly.

And you have no moral high ground seeing as you want to absolve everyone of any personal responsibility in their choices whatsoever.

Reminding myself that the original question was: "Are expectations too high?", there was an article today in the Times commenting favourably on a paper by George Monbiot proposing a property and land tax to shift the tax burden away from earned income.

To quote

"Land taxation could transform British fiscal policy. The 60 million acres of land in Britain has a total value of something approaching £5 trillion. A tax of 1% would therefore raise £50 billion. The purpose of this is a fair, sustainable and secure tax base, rather than the plundering of of more revenue, so the quid pro quo could be that income tax be cut by a third, or corporation tax eliminated altogether.

"If we were brave enough to levy a tax on land at 2% we could abolish council tax, stamp duty and business rates, fix the disaster of social care and pay for care of all children between two and four. And there would still be change left to insert some proper work incentives into universal credit.

"Quite apart from the monies raised, land taxation would change the incetives for housebuilders who are quite happy to sit on their land banks in the sure knowledge that the value will rise and the wealth will fall idly into their mouths as they sleep." Phillip Collins, The Times

The strength of this argument is that it doesn't penalise hard work or enterprise, while it imposes a sanction on empty houses and unused plots. There would be difficulties to overcome: a straightforward tax per square metre/hectare would hurt the upland farmers who own vast acres of marginal agricultural/moorland where only sheep thrive. How should the value of land be monitored to reflect the changing prices of land, though economists might predict the current surge in land values would flatten and stabilise.

The statement, 'everybody has to matter or nobody matters' can be turned around to read 'if everybody matters, nobody matters'. The underlying problem is that there are too many people on the planet at 6 billion and rising, driving climate change, and all have a right to want/expect a decent standard of housing, healthcare, and education. I pay taxes with good grace as the cost of admission to a (fairly) civilised society.

Having children isn't a choice for many women same with sex. Think yourself lucky you have never been in that situation. And yes, you suck, you aren't a nice person at all.

If you cannot afford to raise, feed and clothe your own children, then do not have them but people do have children they can't afford, now what? You can't keep saying they shouldn't have done it, meanwhile in the real world - what do we do with the children of parents who can't afford to care for them, do you think we should punish the children of the poor?

I fail to understand what the OP is on about.

NA they obviously think innocent children should be ripped from loving parents and handed to those responsible 'well off' types (you know the ones who can't afford a TV package but are 'well off' Because they have a flash financed car) causing them lifelong trauma loss and attachment disorders which will effect society for years to come. But it's all preferable to helping the real parents with a pittance of money every week. Because of course the only thing that matters when it comes to having children.

*is money. Now I'm out lol.

It is unbelievably unkind to the child to bring it into the world if you cannot look after it properly and give it a decent standard of life

But I am going beyond that and to the root of the problem...It is extremely unkind and horrible for society that there are people who cannot afford to have kids, or save, or they are being cold at winter, or being hungry... That's what's really horrible and what should change.

You are saying, people who don't have money shouldn't have kids because they don't have the meand to look after them, I am saying everyone should have a decent living that would cover being able to raise a child.

“I earned a pittance anyway so I stayed home and DH worked two jobs. ”

What if your husband had lost one or both of his jobs and could not get another. What if he or you had become ill or disabled and one had to care for the other plus children so neither could work? Would you have said that there was nothing to be done, you can’t ask for people to help you because you made your choices? Even if you had been made homeless? You say you cut your cloth but you had cloth to cut. What would have happened if the amount of cloth became too small to cover your necessary (housing, food etc) outgoings? At what point would you see what support you could get because you were entitled to it, to avoid your children missing out on any more meals or losing their home?

Article 12 of the Human Rights Act states we have the freedom to marry and start a family. Having children is in fact a human right.

I mean, really, what are you don't-have-kids-if-you-can't-afford-them people really saying? Abstinence for the poor? Forced abortions for the poor? Abstinence doesn't work, ever, and forced abortions is downright inhumane, unethical, illegal and immoral.

You know what would help people afford children, to which they have a human right and are going to anyway? Better, smarter taxation, better, smarter investment in education, housing and welfare and better, smarter investment in childcare.

You cannot fundamentally change people, but you can help them have better lives and make better choices. You don't get there by berating them for being poor, which itself is a product of our ridiculously inequal society. You change society instead.

Taxes are paid the the good of the whole of society, by helping people we get a nicer society to live in for everyone?

I work in an organisation where the top person owns several estates through his birthright and pays as little tax as possible, he is worth millions. He has already passed part of it to his son prob to avoid death tax as he is getting on a bit. if land tax was applied he would pay a fairer share surely. He is not 'self-made' and it has been handed down over generations. How is that fair?

@MadeleineMaxwell I was just coming on to say that.....however...seeing as we also have the right to marry does that mean that marriage should be subsidized/paid for for those who can’t afford it?? 🤔

I’m not saying that ppl who can’t afford it shouldn’t have children BUT they should have accountability where applicable. “Having a right” doesn’t mean that you should do it without accountability or preparing for the consequences, it means that technically no one can lawfully stop you!

Our only real need to leave the land is to get petrol.
What about going to see friends? And home education visits, groups etc? Or does everyone else have to use their petrol to come to you?

@ MadeleineMaxwell Spot on!

More people could afford to look after their children better if the government put a stop to the super-rich sucking money out of the economy. Every single one of the economic problems this country has at present come down to a small, powerful minority stealing from everyone else: by keeping wages low, avoiding taxes... and using the media to convince the just-about-solvent that the biggest threat to their wellbeing and future is the people who are ever so slightly poorer than them.

“Having a right” doesn’t mean that you should do it without accountability or preparing for the consequences, it means that technically no one can lawfully stop you!

OK, then seeing as some posters object to people having children without being able to afford them, we need to look at the barriers to people being able to afford children, right? To me, these are poverty, lack of education, lack of social mobility, lack of housing, lack of affordable childcare, lack of appropriate support and so on and on.

We will never, and should never, stop people having children. We need to deal with reality. It's a huge and very complex picture. I believe the way to approach it is better taxation etc. as I said above, rather than punishing the poor for circumstances largely beyond their control.

This is because I believe, in its purest and most theoretical form, democracy and government and the associated taxation and legal systems are about the people looking after the people. This is not today's reality, but I believe it should be.

@MadeleineMaxwell I hear you and I agree but I also see OP’s point in a sense, we can’t have everything provided for really it would leave people with no drive to do more for themselves in a sense??! Maybe I’m wrong?🤔

@Youngandfree No, I'm no communist either. But basic universal income, a solid welfare safety net, appropriate wages, job security, social mobility etc. are still all very doable within a capitalist economy. This does not have to be an either capitalism or communism deal. Democractic socialism and other systems exist too.

No, I'm no communist either. But basic universal income, a solid welfare safety net, appropriate wages, job security, social mobility etc. are still all very doable within a capitalist economy. This does not have to be an either capitalism or communism deal. Democractic socialism and other systems exist too

I agree. I am not a communist either. Scandinavian countries are not communist and they are doing quite well, their welfare system is so much better. It can be done.

People have got to stop comparing the UK with Scandinavian countries. Population of the UK is circa 66million. Sweden has 9 million, Denmark has 5million, Norway has 5million, Finland again 5million.

UK GDP per capita is around $45k, whereas in Norway it's $82k. There is no way that the UK could support a Scandinavian style welfare system without a dramatic population decrease, it just won't happen.

PegLegAntoine

We don’t really have any friends, we probably go out once a month. And educational trips are taken care of by heading out into the woods.

Our government just doesn't like investing in people and would rather outsource and import people to do jobs that we should be able to do ourselves from abroad
This is so wrong! Do you know that currently 1 in 6 nurse role is a vacancy? Hospitals go abroad because they can't get British nurses.

It's so easy to blame the government for everything whilst considering that society and individus couldn't possibly be to blame.

2eternities

I hope you are ok. And fwiw I drive a knackered second hand car. Not sure why you made the assumption that I was in any kind of car at all. And yes I am well off. I can feed and clothe my children, have a roof over my head etc. I guess it's a matter of perspective.