To think people on here expect only the rich to have children?

[Geraldinefox]

I've seen so many posts in which people say 'Oh 50k is certainly not enough to raise a child on.'

Or, 'you should only consider having a baby when you have at least a year's salary in savings.'

Many people have children with far less and the reality is they're absolutely fine.

Should care assistants, retail staff, nursery staff etc. Just never have a child then?

If you can support them, have as many children as you like. If you can’t, then best not.🤷‍♀️

Unless you can support a child without relying on strangers to fund their upbringing, then no, you shouldn’t plan to have one.

edited to add: by strangers, I mean taxpayers, who fund state benefits.

The job is immaterial. Being able to.pay for ur own children is fundamental. It is not for.tax payers to do.

I had my 1st dc at 21 and with the exception of child benefit, I've never been on income related benefits. We've always got by and we're in an ok position now. Our salaries were very low then. But so were our outgoings. Definitely haven't got a years salary in savings!!

You know that circumstances change sometimes? So unless someone is independently wealthy and able to cover all eventualities (family breakdown, disability, health crisis etc) someone should not have children?

Couldn't care less how many children anyone has, rich or otherwise. They should be able to afford them though, including having contingency for unexpected bills/expenses.

Should my colleagues on lower salaries not have had their children?

I haven’t seen these posts so can’t comment on exactly what others have said but I would hope what they meant is that it’s not wise to have children if you are not secure financially for your situation. In my mind I don’t see that as earning a specific amount but rather being comfortable in whatever your situation is and able to fully support all of those children yourselves, and having savings behind you so that whatever happens you aren’t suddenly completely stuck. My parents always taught us to have 6 months salary saved so that if either of us were to end up suddenly unemployed we have a buffer before it’s suddenly “shit we have mortgage to pay, gas and electric, food shop”. It’s really good advice and even more so once you have children to throw into the mix.

Could they afford them when they had them?

People should have savings put aside for emergencies. And the benefits system should only be there as a temporary safety net while people get back on their feet, ie for a few months, not for years on end.

I think that rich people have more choice about family size. I include people who have “rich circumstances” like free childcare (full time childcare is close to £2k per month per child here) or free/low rent /mortgages because that brings more ability to make life choices like having another baby.

Nobody is saying that. What people are rightly saying is that if you can support your children, absolutely have them. There’s no set salary for that, it’s essentially situational.

I agree! I think people think potential parents should be sensible and make sure they can give a good quality of life to their children.
But they don't think that the implications of this is some weird society where people in certain jobs shouldn't have children.
Everyone should be able to have children if they want to.

Several of them received universal credit to support with nursery fees, which are extortionate.

So are people suggesting because they can't pay thousands on nursery fees from their own wages, they should not have a child?

Except for their education and healthcare unless you don't believe in state education and the NHS.

But things like pensions are affordable only with a large enough base of workers, ditto having enough care workers to assist the elderly. Otherwise we’re dependent on immigration. So if society needs a supply of children, perhaps society should be prepared to pay a little bit?

If you can support them , of course. I have 2. Always supported them. I have family who have had multiple children and never worked. Never fed or clothed them, because the state has done it for them.
Circumstances change but no excuse to start off taking money that isn't yours.

Oh no. Being able to pay for the children you choose to have. What a controversial concept.

I think you’re trying to make something out of nothing here.

I wouldn't have a child if I couldn't afford to cover its costs however I don't think people are wrong to factor in standard government help such as subsidised child care etc.
I wouldn't because I'm a financially cautious person and I would find it too stressful to have to rely on government help in case it was removed
You can't look at people and know there circumstances but it's obviously best if kids are raised in households that are not in poverty.
Outcomes (health, education, mental health, crime etc) for children are massively linked to household wealth.
Obviously there are amazing skint parents and are there shite wealthy parents.

The problem is just the sheer numbers now reliant on benefits of some kind or other. Lots of that is high private rents, high childcare costs etc.

There is an incredible amount of snobbery and privilege here.
So a couple both on minimum wage should under absolutely no circumstances have a child, because they can't pay nursery fees nor can they survive on a single income?

@StormingNorman I agree!

@Geraldinefox in 18 years of being on mumsnet I’ve very rarely seen anyone say that only rich people can have children. You are either making it up, have a massive chip on your shoulder or you fancy a bun fight.

We don't receive state benefits currently. We are scraping by. However we didn't "choose" to have a disabled child. This has limited both of our earning potentials and as a result we pay for our food using our overdrafts and credit cards.