Page 34 | Don’t have more kids if you can’t afford them!

SportMum1982 · 2024-01-31T12:43:04+00:00

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

eastegg · 01/02/2024 22:54

mitogoshi · 31/01/2024 13:01

Circumstances change so you need to think what if before conceiving extra children. I would have loved more but I knew I couldn't afford them

Where do you stop with the what ifs though? Do you just ask yourself fairly minor what ifs, or do you push the boat out and go for really big ones like what if I or my partner dies? If you don’t put a limit on the what ifs, no-one would have kids. So you have them, and the what if you didn’t allow to stop you from having kids altogether, happens. What then?

threatmatrix · 01/02/2024 23:14

Beezknees · 01/02/2024 20:31

I'm fine with my tax going towards children, yep. Rather that than going towards an MP's breakfast.

Show quote history

Which screams you’re one of them. Probably never paid a tax in your life. Goodbye.

izimbra · 01/02/2024 23:14

ThePeaAndThePrincess · 01/02/2024 18:22

I said nothing of the sort. No "moral authority". 🙄 I only mentioned my own experience because you were attempting to patronise me as thought I don't know what I'm talking about. It's also hugely offensive to all of the people who grew up with abusive and neglectful parents to insinuate that there is some kind of deterministic inevitability about them becoming terrible parents themselves which is manifestly true in many cases. Quite the opposite because they are even more determined to become very good parents themselves.

At no point did I say that all parents in poverty are neglectful and abusive. It is so ridiculous that it is often impossible to discuss serious issues here without people deliberately misrepresenting what other posters say or apparently failing to read posts properly. What I said is that a subset of them are, and for these people giving them more money won't fix it or make the lives of the children who are unfortunate enough to be in their care decent. That in these cases - which would be easily identifiable by a properly funded children's services with competent social workers (a million miles from what we have now) - money should instead be spent on providing the children with a decent life away from their parents. International evidence proves that this can be done, with good outcomes for those children. Unfortunately this subset of the families living in poverty, where the poverty is not the cause of their troubles due to unfortunate circumstances but a symptom of the parents being incapable of functioning like normal adults and prioritising their children over themselves, is larger than many people realise.

I also stated that addressing this by removing those children at a far lower threshold and earlier stage would not only benefit them but free up the budget available to be able to help responsible parents who have simply fallen on difficult financial times due to simple bad luck (i.e. where a lack of money is the cause of their problems and more state funding would realistically improve the outcomes for their childrendue) so that more generous help can be provided to them to enable them to improve their situation and make it sustainable.

What I am proposing it a rational way to prioritise children and actually help them. My objection is to the "think of the children!" posts to emotionally manipulate people into supporting throwing more money at all parents when we know a significant proportion are not fit to be parents and this will make no difference. Providing more mone is an appropriate solution for some people who are poor, for others it will not help the children involved whatsoever, hence the polarised views on the thread. My view is that you distinguish between the two groups and take view different approaches to each one, centring the needs of the children, not the adults. The pretence that giving the parents who are neglectful and abusive more money and that will fix it simply prolongs the torture for the children living with these parents who I am certain you'd never allow to look after a child of your own.

Show quote history

So basically you're saying you don't agree with the two child cap?

That stopping most larger families sliding into deep poverty by lifting the two child cap would be reasonable, except for a few wrong'uns?

Can you say what evidence you've seen setting out how many very very poor families actually have such intractable problems they can't be helped and should have their children taken off them very early?

"money should instead be spent on providing the children with a decent life away from their parents. International evidence proves that this can be done, with good outcomes for those children." Are you talking about forcibly adopting out their children from birth? You say that the families who can't be helped can be 'easily identified' - can you give some idea how this could be done? What would be the criteria?

"I also stated that addressing this by removing those children at a far lower threshold and earlier stage would not only benefit them but free up the budget"

So you would remove children from homes before there's evidence of neglect or abuse? So what would be the criteria for removing them?

Also - how would putting a child in care 'free up money'? It costs a fortune to put a child in care. The average cost of a residential placement is over 4K a week. Foster care will be about £1000 a month. For a single child.

"The pretence that giving the parents who are neglectful and abusive more money and that will fix it" - nope, didn't say that or imply it.

Why don't you start a separate thread about how utterly inadequate some parents are. And it'll have nothing to do with how the sh*tty two child cap is increasing suffering in some of the poorest families in the UK, it'll just be about you saying some parents are rubbish and how you want their children to be removed from them.

threatmatrix · 01/02/2024 23:14

WithACatLikeTread · 01/02/2024 21:02

You are talking about people, you know.

Show quote history

Not very intelligent ones though.

threatmatrix · 01/02/2024 23:16

winewine · 01/02/2024 22:13

In my line of work children of parents on benefits are not starving.
It's the parents who earn just over the benefits to qualify for no help that struggle.
If you work and need childcare for the holidays is £50 a day. On benefits it's free.

I get people coming through my door all the time asking for work, but they can only do ‘16’ hours but if I pay them cash ( which I won’t) they can do any hours I want 🙄 yeah the system really works doesn’t it.

izimbra · 01/02/2024 23:17

threatmatrix · 01/02/2024 23:14

Not very intelligent ones though.

Show quote history

Does that make it ok to dehumanise them?

Gloriosaford · 01/02/2024 23:18

Tazmania77 · 01/02/2024 19:51

I’ll probably get linched for this but I totally agree caveating that by saying that circumstances can and do change, which when conceiving multiple children people won’t know, nobody can predict future situations, but I always wonder that if we lived in any other country without nhs and even without free schooling would people choose to have as many children as they do? Because essentially we are all paying into the education and nhs system to fund other people’s choices and just like you I would have loved a 3rd child but for financial reasons aswell as the over populating of the planet already, we stopped at 2, would the parents of the 22 children have had as many if the free schooling and nhs cover stopped at say 5 children? They always bang on about not claiming any government funding but essentially they are as there are 22 school places and 22,nhs and dental places used by one family which would cost them hundreds of thousands to fund if we didn’t have either, and the nhs is on its knees already, how long might it be before it collapses and those families with multiple children struggle even more than they do now to get the basic nhs dentist and doctors appointments and school places?

if we lived in any other country without nhs and even without free schooling would people choose to have as many children as they do?
@Tazmania77
that would a 3rd world country, not even any schooling, pretty rough life for everyone, especially women, barefoot & perpetually pregnant, no rights, owned by the menfolk

izimbra · 01/02/2024 23:24

"I get people coming through my door all the time asking for work, but they can only do ‘16’ hours but if I pay them cash ( which I won’t) they can do any hours I want 🙄 yeah the system really works doesn’t it."

The benefits system is designed to keep people poor. As an incentive to get off it and get a full time job. But many people can't get full time, decently paid, secure work. So what's the option? Stay on benefits + occasional cash in hand work, so you're not living like an absolute pauper, or take insecure, part time and usually poorly paid work, and risk a 5 week wait to restart your UC when it all goes to the sh*t?

Bululu · 01/02/2024 23:24

If the govt made it MANDATORY for men to support their children after a break-up, it would be much better.

This as well.

Some Mumsnet posters are very quick to advise LTB and see what you entitled to from the welfare state.

izimbra · 01/02/2024 23:27

The average family size in developed countries is vastly smaller than the average family size in countries where people don't have access to socialised healthcare.

AnnieSnap · 01/02/2024 23:44

Beezknees · 01/02/2024 20:17

That wouldn't work. You can't pay rent on less than minimum wage. Kids would end up homeless.

Show quote history

I didn’t say less than minimum wage

threatmatrix · 01/02/2024 23:50

izimbra · 01/02/2024 23:17

Does that make it ok to dehumanise them?

Show quote history

The poor children no. The uneducated thick adults yes.

Serrina · 02/02/2024 00:01

Gruffallowhydidntyouknow · 01/02/2024 19:24

Our welfare state is awful. We have so many healthy working age people who don't work and claim benefits with lots of children. It's not a daily mail myth. There are a lot of them. It is a lifestyle choice.

Benefits should only ever be short term when you lose a job and need a footing back up. Only a tiny minority of people are genuinely unable to work.

It's an appalling start for children to have an example of parents that do nothing. I genuinely feel that vouchers rather than money is the way forward. An allowance for uniform, healthy whole foods (I.e. pop, squash, cereals etc can't be bought with the food vouchers). That way the children are not missing out but the adults cannot abuse the system.

Edited

And how are people supposed to top up their gas and electric meters with whole foods vouchers?? Or pay bus fares to get to school? Or buy school equipment and uniforms (grants aren't always provided for this). You clearly haven't thought this through.

Serrina · 02/02/2024 00:03

Africa2004 · 01/02/2024 21:01

Personally I don’t think anyone should have more than two. However much you earn, your children will use healthcare and education. If circumstances change, even more so. The world doesn’t need exponential growth.

Yeah, that worked out well for China, didn't it? NOT!!

Serrina · 02/02/2024 00:10

threatmatrix · 01/02/2024 23:14

Which screams you’re one of them. Probably never paid a tax in your life. Goodbye.

Show quote history

And "probably" you haven't either. Probably got it all squirelled away in some offshore account.

AnnieSnap · 02/02/2024 00:11

threatmatrix · 01/02/2024 23:14

Which screams you’re one of them. Probably never paid a tax in your life. Goodbye.

Show quote history

What a ridiculous thing to say. Of course it doesn’t scream that 🙄

threatmatrix · 02/02/2024 00:18

Serrina · 02/02/2024 00:10

And "probably" you haven't either. Probably got it all squirelled away in some offshore account.

Show quote history

I’d love to but no, unfortunately I’ve paid 40% tax most of my life. I don’t use the NHS, or state schools so I really put in and don’t take out. Oh I also employ lots of people. But not the ones that can only work 16 hours but don’t mind doing extra for cash.

SamPM · 02/02/2024 00:26

You are the exception. But saying that, there are things people can do better to prepare for things like this, such as insurance.

ThePeaAndThePrincess · 02/02/2024 00:53

Hmmmmaybe · 01/02/2024 21:05

@feelingalittlehorse provkding for children whose parents are failing them is EXACTLY what the state should provide

Yes, but not by giving those failed parents more money to fail the children again. The children of those who fail to be decent parents should be cared for properly by the state with sufficient money provided to children's services to do that properly.

ThePeaAndThePrincess · 02/02/2024 01:03

Not very good at reading are you @izimbra ?

Most of your last post to me is (again) made up and has nothing to do with what I wrote.

Do you always have such comprehension issues? Or is it only when you attempt deliberately (and farcically unconvincingly) to misrepresent what someone else has said and pretend you don't understand? How tiresome and boring. 🥱

ThePeaAndThePrincess · 02/02/2024 01:05

izimbra · 01/02/2024 23:24

"I get people coming through my door all the time asking for work, but they can only do ‘16’ hours but if I pay them cash ( which I won’t) they can do any hours I want 🙄 yeah the system really works doesn’t it."

The benefits system is designed to keep people poor. As an incentive to get off it and get a full time job. But many people can't get full time, decently paid, secure work. So what's the option? Stay on benefits + occasional cash in hand work, so you're not living like an absolute pauper, or take insecure, part time and usually poorly paid work, and risk a 5 week wait to restart your UC when it all goes to the sh*t?

"Benefits plus cash in hand work" has another name: fraud.

Lavender14 · 02/02/2024 01:41

threatmatrix · 02/02/2024 00:18

I’d love to but no, unfortunately I’ve paid 40% tax most of my life. I don’t use the NHS, or state schools so I really put in and don’t take out. Oh I also employ lots of people. But not the ones that can only work 16 hours but don’t mind doing extra for cash.

Show quote history

How incredibly privileged you are @threatmatrix to be in a position to do so. Interesting that with the brains and education you class yourself as having you still can't garner up an iota of empathy for people in a less privileged position than yourself and recognise the reasons why someone might find themselves in that position. Your statements are ableist and cruel. Calling people uneducated and thick? If they're uneducated then there's a reason for that since all children should be accessing a decent level of education. But then I guess paying for private education kind of undermines that doesn't it - which from your post it sounds like you do pay into. Sounds like you don't really have much touch with the real world from your lofty tower of privilege.

Some of the comments on here are disgusting and people's wealth bias shows.

anothernamitynamenamechange · 02/02/2024 02:50

Its all YOUR fault, a public information notice brought to you by the Tory party:

Don't have kids if you can't afford them
but also
Selfish women aren't having enough children, Feminism is creating a demographic time bomb.

The majority of people on housing benefit, child benefit etc are also working... Women especially are vulnerable to poverty. This is because:

Women choose to work in lower paid jobs. There wouldn't be a gender pay gap if everyone chose to be an investment banker,
but also
Aaaargh, why aren't the lazy British public doing the important but lower paid jobs. This entitlement is causing a shortage of care workers etc etc

Kindest Regards,
Reese Mog and Friends

shearwater2 · 02/02/2024 06:01

Yeahrightyouarethen · 01/02/2024 12:10

For a left leaning forum there are a lot of very far right views and opinions being posted.

AIBU is not a left leaning forum full of naice middle class mums - it attracts all and sundry, many frothing right wing nut nut Sun, Daily Mail and Telegraph readers. Lots of misogynists as well.

YMZ · 02/02/2024 07:46

My thoughts exactly when I read this. I also felt I had to stop at two for a variety of reasons despite wanting more so I certainly don’t feel I should be supporting someone else’s!
One thing that I would like to see changed is the law regarding parental support. In Canada support payments are linked through social insurance number and then taken directly from income source.