Don’t have more kids if you can’t afford them!

[SportMum1982]

I’m not a raving Tory! But honestly I would have loved more children!!! I would have loved 4 kids but I know we cannot afford 4 kids.

Why do people expect the state to pay for their children? Bar education though! If I’m being really cruel tell me, but I feel I did want more kids but stopped.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67999028

There could be an intelligence and income/accommodation test before having a child is allowed.
It would weed out the profligate and undeserving.

That's sarcasm, right?

Benegits aren't really enough to affotd a decent quality of life though are they...for a child especially. People who do it just for benefits aren't very clever really.

@Dacadactyl the vast majority of people do not have critical illness cover that would clear a mortgage or provide a substantial amount for a decade etc. And as I said not everyone can get it due to bad luck when younger or not everything is covered. So I ask again should those people not have children?

I was a single mum btw...i definately didn't do it for benefits. I did stop at one though.

We get taxes from it through regulating it and letting it become a saleable commodity.

The creators of this Ai are going to be akin to the the social media moguls of today. They don't love paying tax!

I had a surprise baby after being told I wouldn't ever be able to conceive again naturally after having my first two children.
A few years later I had to give up my well paid job to care for my second child (severely autistic and learning disability) because there's no childcare for a challenging 12 year old.
Iwe really struggled financially but what would you suggest I do with the third one that still needs feed and clothing!
Shit happens sometimes despite the best plans 🤷‍♀️

What a strange thing to say.

I'm not saying they shouldn't have children if they don't have critical illness cover HOWEVER, I'd hazard a guess that the sorts of people with 4 or 5 kids complaining they can't afford them "because benefits aren't enough" aren't the sorts with mortgages anyway.

@SockieSockie I think you are confused. Who is advocating for a population boom? We need a softer landing though. There were around 5 workers to 1 pensioner in the 60s, now it's 3:1 & soon to be 2:1. That's expensive & already impacting the economy
What has lead you to believe the government are kern to reduce immigration?

Yet a lot of the big tech companies want it regulated (cynically I suspect to profit off it) because they can see where it will end up if left unregulated.

No, we need population decrease. We don't an increase of any kind.

The issue isn’t women having children they can’t afford it’s men getting away with no contributing.

Yes it just needs to be based where we can tax it

We need a higher birth rate or something to come along and wipe out the oldest.

@SockieSockie it's like talking to a brick wall 🙄. The natural population is decreasing, any growth is based on immigration.

I know of someone who has a lot (into double digits) of kids, and it’s easy to sit there and think WTF. But knowing something about this woman’s past, which I won’t put details of but involved being in the care system and a lot of rejection - you can maybe understand why she is so desperate to create a big family. There’s always deeper reasons behind things when you scratch the surface. Same as judging a single mum on benefits for smoking, for example. You could see it as someone who is taking tax payers money and spending it unwisely on bad habits. Or maybe those 5 minutes she gets to herself to unwind whilst having a cigarette is the only thing keeping her going throughout the day.

Nothing is ever black and white but one thing that is a fact is that no good ever came from
children growing up in poverty. The greater social problems this causes long term costs the economy far more.

Yes it just needs to be based where we can tax it

And that's the issue

@Yeahrightyouarethen I don't think they want that for the good of the people though as you say!

@Daphnis156

Thats never going to work.

The only thing you can do is to remove all child benefit (if you have any you get £0 from the state) or make it universal (everybody gets it).

By putting a cut off, you are opening yourself up to exactly these sort of discussions.

But again, the reason we do not do this (universal) is the politics of envy. It really has become the British disease.

Well people working don't get a pay increase for each child so I don't think it's unreasonable. But most people on MN will say you are being unkind.

I stopped at 2 because we had hardly any money at the time. Also we had 3 bedrooms. I can't see any sense in having so many that they need to squeeze into one tiny bedroom.

I think you can still get child benefit for more than 2. It's just the UC & guess things like FSM?

I think it’ll be a massive factor

How can a population thrive if jobs go and we can’t get taxes

I hope someone is thinking about it already

Income tax is what, a quarter of our revenue? Assuming ai will replace jobs rather than create different jobs (and it won't replace skilled manual work) there are options.

You could replace some of the loss in income tax revenue by;raising capital gains tax, join the EU customs Union, build council houses so that rent goes to councils rather than private landlords, invest in job creation and education etc.

There are solutions, evidence based rather than ideological, but neither of our two main parties has any interests in exploring them.

Sorry but what are you on about now?

You're saying we need to increase the birth rather and I'm telling you why not. If you don't want to listen to rational comments then you go about your day and I'll go about mine.