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?

The issues will come when most of the population are over 65 cause noone can afford kids. All these anti imagination people here too, to add to the the issue. So the economy will be fucked when there is no young workers to pay for the pensioners. No I don't agree with a life on benefits but maybe have a look at South Korea who's birth rate is 0.7 they are giving people money now to have kids.

I def think the cost of housing needs tacked though, it's become unaffordable. The amount of housing benefit being paid out is a problem.

Generally I agree that parents ought to be primarily responsible for providing for their children.

On the other hand it should also be possible for a couple with pretty bog standard jobs to realistically afford a decent home and a kid or two off their salaries and that is just not the case in large parts of the country. If only those that can afford kids without support have them then there won't be enough. I don't really see any answer besides keeping support in place until the absolute horlicks of a housing market and cost of living crisis can be sorted.

I think that people judge based on the benefit received.

Most people claim the discounted hours for over 3s childcare so I don’t think that working parents are judged for claiming that but I’ve seen people here complain when younger children of non-working parents get free hours that they are entitled to.

I don’t really know what you want people to say: everyone no matter their circumstances should have as many children as they like and never worry about money because the state can and will pay?

We were on minimum wage, didn't need to send dc to nursery due to our work patterns and only received CB. So I've not said people shouldn't at all.

Agreed.
No need to be rich, but having kids without the means to adequately support them is the put them at an immediate disadvantage in life.

Exactly.

There’s no “earn £X to have kids” but you do need to be able to raise and support them. If you can afford that, regardless of what your salary is, then yes have them.

We spent a period of time claiming tax credits which included some help towards childcare when our children were young.
We would not have managed without that money.
However now our financial circumstances are different ( I trained to be able to progress in my career ) and we claim no benefits aside from child benefit and pay a fair whack of tax. Which I am entirely happy with as that can hopefully fund public services and benefits for others in need.
I think there is snobbery and privilege on mumsnet. People from all backgrounds should be able to have a family and draw on some support if they need it. Hopefully temporarily, but you never know as disability, illness and other traumatic events happen .
I think the stereotype of feckless folk having child after child and being paid for by the state is a bit misguided tbh.

The idea that the population needs to constantly be growing is outdated and unsustainable. There aren't the masses of unskilled and semi-skilled jobs anymore, and there will be even fewer in coming years with AI and increased mechanisation. We need fewer people, not more.

Is this what you want people to say?

Not if the state are paying for them because it’s likely (not all the time) the kids will follow the same pattern. Choose carefully who you have a child with. Some don’t or completely ignore the red flags and go ahead anyway knowing ‘someone else’ will pick up the costs.

I also question why we need breakfast clubs. We clearly do and it’s heartbreaking why kids come to school having had nothing to eat. Where are the parents or parent and why the hell aren’t they looking after their own children.

My Mother (ex teacher) used to bring in some cereal and milk a number of years ago to feed the children who complained they were hungry. Needless to say they often turned up late or not at all. The lives were chaotic and of course I accept that some people cannot get themselves together but they seem to have no issue in having the children in the first place

@Geraldinefox I stopped at 2 because we couldn't afford more childcare & to pay for things they need. I don't think anyone would say low income people shouldn't have any children. Maybe the feeling is that they should stop at 2 max?

I'm surprised by how much state help is available. It's annoying if you are working a lot of hours in a really busy job & you then discover someone not working can get a similar amount just by staying home & not working.

I don't know what their quality of life will be like once all the children reach 18 as I imagine those benefits won't be as high.

We had very low income when our first was born as DH had just retrained as primary teacher & started on around £18k. I was back at work when DD was 4 months - not by choice.

It depends very much on the lifestyle you wish to be able to provide, doesn’t it? If someone doesn’t think £50k is going to be enough for them to support children in the way they would like to, then that’s a perfectly valid opinion. It doesn’t matter that other people manage on less.

1/3 of children in UK are living in poverty so probably some of those parents should have made other choices. But fundamentally it is individual choice.

Re the "you should be able to support them" argument, almost no one in the UK brings up children without government support. Child benefit and subsidised childcare being the primary ones. Then there are several million on Universal Credit. And that's before you include other benefits. If you were to apply the statement strictly then it really would only be the rich who could afford children.

There's also what quality of life you deem acceptable. Would you say someone could "afford" a child if they could feed, clothe and accommodate in a shared bedroom, but there was nothing extra? And if both parents worked 6 or 7 day weeks to afford that? Plenty of people on here don't believe that's enough - i.e. you can't afford a child unless they have their own bedroom and one parent working part time. So YANBU OP.

Nope

Without child benefit and child tax credits most ordinary average waged people couldn't afford to have children

It's £2,000 a month for nursery where I am

It does society good to support a broad range of society with children

If you work part time, school hours with a £15 an hour job then you will likely get your income topped up so you can pretty much afford to live

It's horribly elitist to just think people over £50k should be the only ones who should

People shouldn't have more children than they can reasonably expect to be able to afford to feed, clothe, and house. That doesn't mean you have to be rich, and obviously there are different ways to raise children, with different associated costs. Not every child must have their own room, for instance, and expensive hobbies are not absolutely necessary.

My parents were not at all rich, just very careful with budgeting and willing to live frugally. They managed to raise three children to healthy adulthood. Admittedly, this was in the 80s/90s, but they even did it on a single income. If they hadn't been in a position to afford three, however, they would have used birth control and stopped sooner.

Quite. Why should anyone else pay for the kids you can't afford but want

I think you should only have a child if you have enough to care from them properly.

regardless of whether that is through earnings, benefits or a combination. Whether you work or not. Whether they attend nursery or not.

I work with significantly neglected children and if you know in advance that there’s no way you can provide for your child then no you shouldn’t have them. It’s not fair on the child.

If you don't have a stable job, you shouldn't have a child because you are going to need to rely on the taxpayers to fund your children.

I don't mind benefits giving a top up, as some jobs are woefully underpaid but there are so many totally unemployed folk who think nothing of having a child. Those are the problem.

We end up in a situation where women are having babies with useless men, sometimes with multiple men without the stability of a long term relationship and marriage. We have men who get multiple women pregnant and then don't pay for those children.

We need to get back to the idea that children are a lifelong commitment, and if you make one your responsible for it forever! Not the state.

I grew up in poverty as my Dads business folded during the 80s, and he struggled to find work. He then left my sahm Mum to have an affair. So I do get that shit happens, and that is what benefits are for. But it should be that mum needs to look for work once baby is 1yo and there be support for childcare fees. Unless you can afford to be a sahm.

@Geraldinefox I am on the fence as we do need people doing minimum wage jobs. If this means they then need to be subsidised to have a family, then so be it.

I would normally say that one should optimise their options and as a family decide how best they can macimise their income. However, this one is a little tricky

They need to be able to save - so they have contingencies in the event of an emergency which can happen anytime, including to the child/children. It isn't snobbery, it is smart. If both are on minimum wage and 1 loses their job and they have 2 kids - you see how quickly child poverty becomes a reality. Why not save up a little over say 2 years, or aim for one partner to get a promotion/better paid job and then start a family?

Also less stressful on the relationship and possibly more likely to stay together (financial strain is a major cause of marriage breakdown).

Those people who are only able to do NMW roles will often choose not to work and with the right scenario will earn more than someone who does. So quite naturally they get the state to pay.

I’ve literally never seen that opinion on here. What.

Literally nobody has said that but you're ignoring everyone as you're determined to have a fight. If a couple can't afford to have a child then no they shouldn't have a child