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?

Quite.

The world red carpets for no one. You want something, work for it. Why is that wrong.

@SeatonCarew isn't that Social Cleansing? You are basically saying that all the low paid workers should leave the south east if they want children. How ridiculous.

many people work awfully hard in very essential roles. low pay for very crucial jobs is the problem, not people not working hard!

Unfortunately many medium earners are being "socially cleansed" from the SE. It's turning into a place only those on state support/ council housing or the rich can afford to live.

@MereDintofPandiculation but they are paid for - and more than a little bit! ! Free school , free healthcare, free prescriptions, free dental care, child benefit, paid parental leave.
I agree though there should be more substantial low cost nursery/child care provision.

Minimum wage workers work hard. Higher earners work hard. They are just born into different circumstances and have different opportunities. I don't think anyone has a problem with anyone working hard.

I'm saying no one should automatically expect others to pay for them to live in an area they may not be able to afford to live in themselves. If that causes issues in terms of filling certain vacancies then that is for the employer and the employee to sort out between themselves. You can do one with your goady labels.

Edited to add that having children is not a right, people should expect to make sacrifices if they want them.

@Geraldinefox I can't say I've seen anyone say that.

Lots of money doesn't make a good parent. Some of the 'naughtiest ' kids in the secondary school I teach in are from quite wealthy families.

It's about common sense and not having more kids than you can afford to raise. Affordability depends on your own financial circumstances which are different for everyone.

What about higher earners who use tax loopholes? I would bet the average tax evader (it's legal not gonna get on my moral high horse) owes more tax than the average person on benefits (also legal and entitled).

Trouble is a couple may well afford to have children, but then life throws a curved ball at them, illness, collapse of finances etc. some you have to go for it and deal with issues as they arise.

But that's what benefits were originally for; to help get back on your feet when life becomes tough.

And then for some, benefits have become a way of life when they could get back on their feet but choose not to.

Can they afford to raise those children on those salaries? Therein lies your answer...

@TheSerenePinkOrca

"And then for some, benefits have become a way of life when they could get back on their feet but choose not to."

How is that possible with Universal Credit?

I think you're right in most cases but sometimes people end up in a poverty trap like myself. If I get a job I can't afford my rent which is covered by universal credits. If I work full time the amount of money I lose from benefits works out that I'd be working for essentially £4 an hour. The only way to do it is to play the system and work for a certain amount of pay foe a certain amount of hours so benefits aren't as effected but the extra money still works out to around £8 an hour.

Doesn't 'society' need future contributors to the state (ie our pensions)?

All the anti-immigration rhetoric across the country... but unless something fundamental shifts in the housing market /salary brackets, then ordinary people will need state help to have kids. If the state needs children for a future workforce (aka the Ponzi scheme that is the current state pension) this has to be supported by policy. Family friendly childcare, tax benefits, etc. It's nowhere near as binary as this is posited - on a personal or a societal level.

Yes. I’m a high bracket tax payer and if i can choose no way in hell i’m gonna pay for your kids. I’m sorry even i dont want to have another kids because i feel i cant give the best for my child and my income is 100k+. I dont understand how people on lower end salary have 4,5 kids without thinking their future. Its a hard life now in the UK. Dont bring a child into it if you expect government pay for them. The way of thinking like this its really makes my blood boil and its very irresponsible to bring a child into this world but cant afford to responsible for their life.

It's shocking that we've got to the stage where people working full time cannot afford to raise a child. It's not OK to just say people who do those usually essential jobs should not be able to afford to have a child.

I bet during your lifetime you will happily make use of the services provided by those doing lower paid work. You'll probably even allow some of them to look after your own child.

Disgusting attitude.

It's constant. Any thread with a mention of benefits always has multiple posters about not having children if you can't afford them.

@Femme2804 "Yes. I’m a high bracket tax payer and if i can choose no way in hell i’m gonna pay for your kids."

But this is not what the poster asked. She asked if a couple on minimum wage shouldn't have children. If both parents are working full time on minimum wage they wouldn't be entitled to benefits apart from child benefit which anyone in the lower tax bracket can have. They would have a monthly income of just over 3k between them.

If one partner dropped hours to look after 1 child to 16 hours a week, they would be entitled to to just under 5k a year via UC (that's after a Quick Look on entitled to calculator) including child benefit. £2800 ish a month. So this option would mean they were worse off than the couple both working full time.

It's a very sad situation when the minimum living wage barely covers the cost of living to the point posters are actually suggesting they should not have children! "Work hard, but don't enjoy the privilege of life with a family because that minimum wage won't cover it" I get that's not your personal problem, but bashing each other is not going to solve anything, it just pushes poverty up.

minimum wage earners still pay tax. So if it makes you feel better, the first 3k of the UC in the second example would equate to not paying income tax of NI for the couple. So the "high earning tax payer" would only contribute 2k towards this family.

As a child raised in poverty, I do wish my parents didn’t have me. And I’m sure there are many like me. I do think it’s irresponsible and selfish to have kids just because you WANT them without consideration whether you can provide adequately for them.

Weird. I've been knocking round here about 4 years reading all kinds of threads and never seen any of these statements 🤷🏻‍♀️

We chose to have the number of children we thought we could afford. Other than child benefit, we never got any other government support. I don't think people should have children knowing that they can't afford them but for taxpayer's money.

Yes, that is exactly what is being said. Why do you keep asking the same question over and over, just worded differently ? I think the posters have been pretty clear.