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?

You're asking the wrong question. It should be 'should wages be subsidised by the state?'

It is nuts that in our country you can have people working several jobs and still not earning enough that they have to have their wages subsidised by benefits.

Of course working people should have children. Not so many that they are unable to provide a decent life for them of course. Poverty is however the result of long term collaboration between employers and the government that has got out of hand. This is what needs addressing. Not the birth of children which, after sex is probably the most fundamental human urge.

Well, bottom line is I cannot afford to to house and feed DC without the tax payer. not really sure what is different. Some of the most important jobs attract the lowest pay (such as carers). really awful of some to suggest that people on low incomes shouldn't have DC.

Work should pay.

40 years ago two 25 year old teachers in the SE were able to buy a 2 bed house and afford to have one or two children.

There’s no way they can do that now unless they have a retired grandparent to provide full time childcare.

It’s become a race to the bottom.

Can anyone in their 20's ever have a child if they are waiting to earn over 50k?! Kids are cheap as chips, I've got no idea what people waste money on. Maybe a £5000 nursery room or a £200 high chair. God knows.

People have the option to insure themselves against most risks, they just choose not to.

I think it's childcare primarily! Which isn't helped by many people moving away from family so many need full time nursery as need 2x wages and no family support.

The government shouldn't be subsidising wages.

Why doesn't Labour who are best buddies with trade unions compel employers to pay their staff a decent wage.

Why should the state pay whilst the employer makes huge profits

I understand what you mean OP - it's complicated. TLDR answer, I think everyone in the modern world should have the opportunity to have children if they are capable and offer a good home.

Assuming you are a couple, one earning minimum wage full time and one earning minimum wage for 16 hours a week you should be able to bring in £33,026.08 or around £2274 a month after tax etc. that's including child benefit, tax free childcare and 30 free hours. I'll be honest, not sure on the criteria for UC but I think it's something like partner earning 27k and savings under 16k for the minimum benefit? (Happy to be corrected).

£2274 "should" be enough for a family to live on. But realistically, the lowest 2 bed rental in my local area (well away from London) I can find is £950 pcm. Bills in our house come to around £1400 (that's including subscriptions, insurance, utensils etc. nothing unusual or sky TV so take a few non essentials away I could get it down to the basics 1200). That's just over £100 for everything else? Food? Petrol to get to work etc. minimum wage workers need UC because life is too expensive to work on minimum wage without help. And instead of blaming the benefit system we need to start looking at why that is.

The rich also have loopholes in tax. If you're self employed you can give yourself a wage just below the higher tax threshold for you and your partner, claim the tax free childcare and free hours and child benefit too. I would bet there is more but that's the only example I can think of on the spot.

This rich vs poor needs to stop. People from all backgrounds use loopholes/claims etc. we're not all born equal, not all education is the same and opportunities look different per person.

Much of it comes down to what external support you have.

I have no wider family support for childcare so knew that either me or DH would have to either work less or spend huge amounts in nursery fees. All in all it equated to about 75k in nursery fees.

Personally I planned to wait until my own income was over 100k before having a child as I also wanted to be able to provide full private schooling for them as well.

My 'fate' was 2 disabled children. what insurance could I have possibly had????

In that case it would be never for most, then!

I think it’s because the kind of people who say stuff like that just don’t factor in any kind of state assistance. I don’t think it’s meant to be hurtful, it’s just in their head they don’t qualify for any help so x income is how much they need for nursery etc and y amount of savings is required etc.

How much does it cost to raise a child nowadays? It was £250,000 years ago, it must be close to double that nowadays with the increase in prices of everything.

To be fair I knew my career would likely lead me to that position so was happy to wait. Had I not had that level of earning potential I’m not sure what I would have done. I imagine I’d have reassessed and taken the plunge when I was in a less secure financial position.

given that 100k per annum puts you into the top 5 percent, it would make having children for 95% of the population unaffordable. not to mention that some of the most valuable jobs are the lowest paid. what a nonsense and entitled crap that is @Charlie2121 .

People should have only the number of children they can afford to support.

The benefit system should not incentivise people to produce children they cannot afford to support or reward them for doing so.

That was my position. No child benefit, no 30 hours funded childcare, no access to tax free childcare savings etc. The bills are huge if you have to fund everything yourself and have no wider family support.

It’s not nonsense. The point I was making is if you have to pay for everything yourself and receive no state support in terms of child benefit, 30 hours funded nursery, access to tax free childcare savings and also have zero family support it is very expensive to fund it all yourself. 35k of pre tax income goes on nursery for a start and that’s before I’ve even thought about putting a roof above my head or eating.

Family support makes a huge difference. If you have the likes of GP available then you can make it work on a far lower salary.

This is an entirely different situation from someone having children knowing they cannot afford to support them from the get go. This is exactly the kind of situation benefits were intended for.

Doesn't make it ideal. Also all people can do is plan well. Unexpected circumstances is what benefits and safety nets are for.

So situations where disability occurs/loss of work etc happen are of course not planned and there should rightly be help. But no one should be planning a family expecting to require state help to support them (beyond free healthcare/education etc). If it is required, the safety net should be there to make it happen

There are vast swathes of the country available to live in which are not in the south east. No one has a God given right to live wherever they want at the taxpayer's expense.

@Charlie2121 I get your point it's frustrating if you are just over that threshold of not getting anything from the state and no tax loopholes etc. it's the bummer middle ground which makes a lot of higher earners think "what's the point!" and a career with a high earning salary means you would be undoubtedly working the full 37.5 hours a week + for around £57000 take home? Assuming most full time nursery fees are on the 15k a year mark in the Uk that's a single wage of over 40k (plus employees benefits/pention etc.) that's assuming you work 9-5 and have no need to a nanny.

£3k + take home a month is pretty decent in my opinion for a single person to support a family, minimum wage doesn't even come close to this take home which is why they need that UC benefit as a top up. It sucks for a few years but with the career progression you have in front of you, it's not comparable to a minimum wage earner with no career progression and minimum opportunities to change their situation + unfair landlord rentals.

I think you have proved your point Op ..

I think the work harder mantra is engrained in some people

What is wrong with working harder?