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?

It is up to the parents to fund the children they decide to have it is a choice to have children and it costs money sure it takes 2 seconds to get pregnant so maybe more thought should go into it?

It is not up to government or anyone else to raise your children for you

If you have one and have financial issues don't keep on having more and if you do stop whinging

@Noodlehen 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.

There is a benefit cap of £1835pcm, and the Op is talking about lower income families not families completely reliant on benefits. Of course there will be people who play the system, but you get that in all walks of life.

State Pensions are 9k a year - not means tested but I bet every higher earner will still claim this when the time comes. higher earners putting more into work place pensions to avoid paying higher tax bracket, parents giving children money while they are still fit and healthy to avoid inheritance tax etc. signing over houses early to avoid care home costs etc. also costs the tax payer money. Tax relief for your heating if you work from home, tax relief if you wear a uniform etc. I'm not judging any of the above, but I also don't judge anyone working hard on minimum wage needing a bit of help right now, especially if that means they can stay in work because of a cost of living crisis.

Living on the dole isn't easy - I would never want to. You should have as many children as you want. Obviously they cost money but you could lose your job/become homeless/anything could happen. I understand working people are struggling but if living off the dole is that good - why don't you do it? Holier than thou attitudes towards the destitute.

@Chichimcgee with respect & assuming I've understood your post correctly, I think you do have some moral problems to answer.

You're suggesting you could work more & therefore not be as reliant on the taxpayer, but you feel it isn't worth your time & effort?

Taking from the tax payer when you don't need to is morally wrong. You should want to provide for your family & should feel ashamed that you are expecting the tax payer to foot the bill because you'd only be £4/ hour better off.

Many people, after work travel costs, high taxes, student loans etc only "net" £4 for extra hours worked above a certain level (myself & husband included). We still choose to work those extra hours to provide for our family. It's quite disgusting to think of saying "well, might as well just let the taxpayer pick up the bill".

You're not in a poverty trap. Get to work, climb the ladder & stop relying on other people to provide for your family. This shameless mentality is what's wrong with the country!!

No, you should have as many children as you want, provided you can afford them!! Benefits are a last resort, safety net for when things go unexpectedly wrong. They're not to be factored in when considering having a child.

Yes, it is a safety net and no, they shouldn't be factored in. But if it's there for the taking and you can manage on the dole - go for it. It wouldn't be for me personally.

Nonsense, if you get a job paying £12 an hour....you're earning £12 an hour. If you get a job paying £25 an hour, you're earning £25 an hour.

Comparing it to what benefits pay is daft. You should work full time hours and push to improve your earning potential not "play the system".

Benefits are an amazing system, and I am grateful to live in a country that helps (some) people if they fall on hard times but it shouldn't be there to prop you up because you'd rather the tax payer pays your living costs than you going out to work for 35 or 40 hours a week like millions of other people do (and many barely scrape by, but get no help btw).

If you get £100 a week for doing nothing or you could get £120 but you have to work 20 hours - you're working 20 hours for an extra £20

I could work 40 hours, be financially worse off and have less time with my children and less time for myself, why would I do that?

Im not entirely sure what any of that has to do with what I’ve replied / asked the OP? I’m also not sure it’s answered their question(s).

@Chichimcgee because that's the responsible thing to do... to set the example to your children that you work & don't sponge off others... to gain experience in your job so in the future you can earn more.... so that you're not a drain on other people? I am genuinely surprised that you don't feel guilty & ashamed about it. I know that sounds really rude but I just can't imagine being so blasé & feeling ok taking from others when I don't need to.

I work 32 hours a week . I have no requirement to work because I am a carer for my Ds with SN

I am absolutely at my limit of what I cope with .. however working more I earn practically nothing more . I pay tax and Ni on my earnings - then UC take 55p out of every £1 I earn . I don’t see the difference so no .

your point is the same as salary sacrifice to get free childcare , child benefit.. but it isn’t demonised in the same way .

People should remember that every time you take £1 of a benefit there is someone else working for nothing to give you that £1.

It should never be a choice for anyone in receipt of any benefit not to earn the extra £1 if they are capable of doing so.

Well firstly your UC is calculated after tax and NI and pension deductions are taken off. So for each extra £1 you earn you still get 45p more. So really I don't understand how you are seeing no difference?

The benefit bashing on here is so disappointing. A lot of people have no choice but to do a lower paid job. It's not the fault of the people doing these jobs that they don't pay enough for a reasonable basic standard of living. Most of these jobs are essential and require hard work - what do people think is going to happen if everyone doing these jobs manages to retrain and get a better paid job? There is still going to be a need for care staff, retail workers, security staff, cleaners etc?

Our economy and society depends on people reproducing so it'snot feasible to make it only a privilege of the wealthy. Look at the crisis in places like Japan with a low birthrate.

Whilst I don't have to work I won't, I don't understand why anyone given the choice would choose to work

Because I am on low wage by the time I have paid tax insurance , pension and 55p To Uc it is barely noticeable .

you have ignored the point that other people use loopholes to increase income but that’s ok obviously .

you also ignored the fact I could work Zero hours and I also pay tax 🤷‍♂️

So if your boss said they wanted you to work an extra 10 hours but they're going to pay you 55% less you'd not notice a difference?

I agree, OP. I've always found those posts to be baffling. The burden of childbirth and raising children falls disproportionately on women. I feel that's its absolutely reasonable for taxes to be raised and given to mothers to compensate them. The fault is not the mothers but the capitalist system that ignores the work women do. I don't understand why mothers themselves would argue against this kind of redistribution of resources. Sometimes they argue passionately against it. It's hard to understand.

I’ve never seen the comments you’re suggesting.

I certainly don’t believe that you’ve seen them consistently, regularly or by even a decent-sized minority of posters on a thread.

I come from a working class background where nobody has ever raised a family with only one person contributing financially though. It’s never been possible for some.

But it's an interesting premise

. Follow the logic of posters on here.

No one who requires UC top up despite working full time, no one who needs the CB has kids. So all those low income people don't have kids who will take on similar jobs (not all will follow but many) and the traditional WC will die out.

Those population holes need filling so the MC and UMC upwards need to have MORE kids to fill the population issue. The more MC you are Vs UC, the fewer kids you can afford, obviously because you can't rely on family handouts either.

So now the majority of babies born are to very wealthy families, who on average society will need at least half of to go into low income jobs like carers and hospitality, who are thus barred from procreation despite generational wealth.

The others will of course need to do well in life l, earn lots and have tons of kids.

So families would need to focus their spending accordingly. Genetic testing for academic potential etc., to choose who goes to private school and Uni Vs who's given a basic education and kicked into the workforce at 16, having been sterilised

Happy utopia eh 🤔

These days, children and pets are a luxury. It’s that simple. I see people on FB begging for money to help with vets bills, and that’s wrong. If you don’t need to pay for childcare (or can afford it) go for it, but if not, it’s not fair to just expect others to pay. I’m happy paying for education, NHS, police etc, but not propping up people to have kids.

Looking at birth rates people aren’t really paying to prop others up who are having lots of dc….

it’s very hard for people to “afford” dc now if looking at housing & childcare costs. There is a lot less social housing so younger people face high rents or high mortgages & childcare is ££££.

Do people not think it's cruel to bring a child into the world without the means of giving it a decent life?

People say they don't want child poverty but are still happy to create it.

This. And also as someone who worked with kids in foster care I’m unhappy at the idea of the government trying to push or cajole people to have kids for economic reasons. So many parents across a range of social and cultural backgrounds, adoptive and biological, were wholly unsuitable to raising kids. Less people need to be having kids, not more.

Re. Korea the reasons for their declining birth rate are many. Some are economic but some are cultural.

There’s a movement of women who basically feel men don’t pull their weight so they can’t be bothered putting up with their crap basically and are now saying no to having kids.