the "don't have kids if u can't afford them" mentality...

[MermaidCheeks]

Who exactly do this lot think are going to be looking after them in hospitals and care homes when they're elderly and infirm?

If only those who could really afford to have kids had them - a decreasing well-off demographic -we'd be even more fucked than we already are.

Immigration is not a long-term solution when 80% of elderly are going to be spread across low and middle-affluent countries by 2050, either. Every country is going to need their own citizens.

Instead of resenting people who need their wages topped-up by the government in order to afford having a couple of kids - maybe embrace those who are making sacrifices to have kids at all, especially in the face of the overwhelming decrease in value that society and successive governments have placed on the role of raising children.

@ulteriorbread out of curiosity what kind of life do children deserve?

Stupidity more like!

The state. It's what a civilised society should do, via a welfare system that looks after everyone.

I'm happy to pay tax to a system that looks after the poor and will give the less fortunate opportunities.

Unfortunately UK system simply isn't good enough to look after everyone and we have one of the largest wealth gaps in the world. Embarrassing for one of the richest countries in the world.

Well who knew that carrying shopping is a sign of poverty?

@Lunar270

The state absolutely should help those that need it.

The problem we have is that too many people use the benefits system as a lifestyle choice and we simply can’t sustain it. The benefits system was introduced to help those who fell on hard times, not fund the lifestyle of those who aren’t prepared to work and have multiple children.

Unfortunately it's the reason I only have 1......childcare costs are crippling us

@DottyPeacock

That problem lies squarely with the government and how it chooses to manage the poorest of our society. Create a society where more people give a toss and they'll be fewer freeloaders.

Welfare may have been introduced to cater for certain situations but that was long ago, before we had the understanding we do now.

I'm with @ulteriorbread . If we provide an environment where poor children don't feel excluded because mum/dad are poor, we might just end up with poor children who grow up wanting to contribute to a system that has given them more opportunities. A life that is better than the bare minimum would be a start but better education/support for parents to break these cycles would be great too.

Welfare may have been introduced to cater for certain situations but that was long ago, before we had the understanding we do now.
Can you elaborate on this quite bizarre statement?!

We wanted kids. Couldn't afford it so didn't.

@Lunar270

Why is it the fault of the government? Why isn’t it the fault of those who choose not to work and claim benefits?

And why are you so sure that if we provide an environment where children don’t feel excluded because their parents are poor, they will want to contribute to society in the future? The state of our current society suggests that they may well think we can live the life of Riley without ever having to go out and earn a living.

As a child of someone who was poor and on benefits, I find your statement awful and disgusting.

Transactional = only thinking about things in terms of contributions to society which I read as churning out little workers etc etc. as if money is the most important thing, without a serious think about what that means?
do we only value people who can earn a wage?

What's bizarre about it? Perhaps you can elaborate?

No... you shouldn't have babies if you cannot afford to care for them.

Yes, there's a demographic time bomb ticking away.

But having babies and relying on taxpayers to bring them up = less money to care for elderly.

Does that answer your query?

The concept that welfare was introduced as a safety net while people got back on their feet and became self supporting again, rather than an optional alternative to working for a living.
You claim this was in less enlightened times and we have "better understanding now".
Ridiculous.

Yabu

Dont have kids if you can't afford them is good advice. For the parents. And the kids

And who says kids will look after you when you are old. That's just nonsense too.

Money is not the most important thing, but if you want to spend it it's best if you actually have a hand in earning it yourself.
Earning a living is indeed quite transactional in that something is expected from you in return for being handed this unimportant money.
Do you not feel you should contribute to society? Why should some people, but not you?

There's a difference between being poor - which plenty of working people are - and making a career out of benefits. Very few people resent benefits being paid to people whose circumstances have changed or who are working but simply can't afford to live. But a lot of people resent supporting families who aren't working (and often have never worked) who can't afford the two children they have and go on to have a third, fourth, fifth... I saw an interview on the news years ago with a woman who had three kids. She openly said 'I was struggling with the two kids I had and then this one came along' as though the baby arrived by stork one day.

I think you live in a very blinkered bubble OP.

Children born into poverty quite often stay in poverty all of their lives. It's a self perpetuating cycle.

They don't have access to the same things other children have. No support network, often resulting in poor education results. Parents often can't afford things like bus fares for college so they drop out at 16 and either do NMW jobs or end up in the benefits system like their parents.

Children born into poverty are highly unlikely to be the doctors and lawyers of the future, ones caring for the elderly or contributing to society further down the line in the ways you are suggesting.

There'll always be someone who wants to defraud the system but the system has to enable it in the first place. There should be systems in place to track this and have solutions to remedy it. Not just financially but behaviourally.

You're saying that our system can't cope i.e. there isn't enough money. But the government is in control of it, not the public.

Regarding children, obviously there are no guarantees but you stand more of a chance of developing rounded and productive people, if they all have the same opportunities irrespective of their financial backgrounds. It's not rocket science and shouldn't be controversial. Make people feel valued and supported and you'll get people who want to contribute.

There are people who cannot contribute to society from an economic point of view and and that just be because of them being a certain age (eg children or elderly) or unable due to disabilities. Are these people of lesser worth?

and people of working age may not be able to contribute at a particular moment. But that doesn’t automatically mean that they can’t or won’t at some point (or haven’t in the past).

What makes you think I don’t contribute to society? And do you think a contribution is only a financial one?

It’s also driven by prejudice. People have pre conceived ideas about those who are poor even though having less money in your pocket does not make you a lesser person.

There are people who cannot contribute to society from an economic point of view and and that just be because of them being a certain age (eg children or elderly) or unable due to disabilities. Are these people of lesser worth?
This thread is specifically about having children when you know you can not adequately provide for them financially.
Not about elderly people, or those who are children themselves.