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?

What are you digging at op?
Yes most agree that people should only have as many children as they are able to support. Do you disagree? On what basis?

I wonder what the demographics of birth rates are? As in those who understand they can’t afford them compared to those who don’t even consider affordability?

This is exactly it.

people have children that they are never going to afford without intervention. That's extreme different to needing to claim because you were made redundant unexpectedly and needed 6 months to get a new job.

Benefits are there so that you dont die of starvation if you fall on hard times or because you have such a severe disability that no form of sustainable employment is possible.

You should also have your own fail safes e.g. have i been worh this person long enough that i know them enough to be as sure as life gets that they will be a good parent abd osrtner forever (not i met them 6 months ago and i like to procreate with new partners)

is my job stable/ my housing stable / my health ok. Do i have insurance to cover the mortgage in the event of long term sickness or loss of spouse.

It's not about being wealthy, it's about have a cut my cloth right.

Where does the tax relief come for your heating if you work from home?

Because that's what those of us funding your life do.

I don't choose to be away from.my children for the jolly of it. I do it to pay for them to live in a house and eat food.

Not only is this a moral failure. Its a system failure. They shouldn't let you continue to claim off the state ad infinitum when you could be working.

Should you buy a car knowing from the start that you cannot afford to pay for it (either outright or in instalments)? The answer is no.

What if you can pay for it? Then yes, go ahead.
However, you may buy the car and your circumstances change. Suddenly, you can no longer afford the car. That's a different issue and if help is available, you should get the help to be able to continue making payments and maintaining the car (or sell).

While you're getting help and struggling to pay for that car (or if you had to sell it because you couldn't pay), should you go ahead and buy another car? The answer is no. That would be stupid, irresponsible and reckless.

Apply that to having a child and you see that it's worse because a child is a living being who will suffer the outcome of your reckless and irresponsible decision. A car won't.

You can call it anything you want: cleansing, snobbery, rich vs poor, etc. Labels are sentimental. Common sense tells you how simple it is.

Two people working full time on NLW? Between them they'll be taking home £40k after tax. Housing costs might be a struggle in the SE, and childcare might need to involve a lot of help from grandparents until the free hours kick in but otherwise I don't see why a couple in that situation cannot afford to start a family.

So I have to work FT and see less of my kids to support you sitting on your backside at home with your kids? Would you do that for me?! No, of course you wouldn't.

This is what is so wrong with the system!

For self-respect, to share an example with your children, to improve your earning power. One day your children will be over 18, and what will your benefits look like then?!

I’m going to fall back on a phrase my friend told me decades ago: shit happens.

Shit happens and you have a child when you least expect it and provide for it in the absolute best way you possibly can.
Nobody - nobody - should be shaming you for that.
And to hell with them if they do.

I know the posts you’re talking about, OP.
They’re the same people who say things like “why did you marry him?!” Or “why did you have a child with him?!” when the husband/partner is being a twat. Sometimes life happens and things change. Those people obviously lead exceptionally privileged lives to never consider this.

Saying that, benefits should be a temporary help and if they’re being used as a lifestyle choice (side eyeing PP 👀)something has to change.

This. It's not just money, it's time as well as two loving parents, with good mental stability! And a wider support network is helpful too. Unfortunately most probably don't fit into this criteria. People seem to put more consideration when getting a dog, than having a child sadly

This feels like a benefits bashing thread. I feel like mumsnet don't live in the real world. The majority are MC high flyers with a few working class people who 'made good' thrown in.

I know lots of people who either have relied on or are relying on UC. None of them lived in poverty.

Some, like my friend raised her children on benefits, she even planned a third when on benefits. When they were teens she went back to college. She now makes well over £100,000.

It's easy for those who grew up a certain way with lots of opportunities to make statements like 'you shouldn't have kids if...'

I grew up MC but a lot of my friends came from different backgrounds.

I think people will continue to have children regardless of finances and what other people think! So why get twisted into a pretzel about it.

I have self respect thank you.
I'm a carer for my son, I will still be his carer when he's 18. He goes to school full time so yes I could work but I don't because I'd rather spend my life doing things I want to do. In reality most people wouldn't work if they didn't have to and I think my life is so much better than those who do work.

Life is for living, not working. I've never worked and have no intention to. In reality I'd end up in a dead end job with no prospects and be wasting my life.

I suppose the issue is there is rising childhood poverty - apparently 1/3rd of children in the UK are experiencing childhood poverty, food banks are rising. Inequality gap is also widening. Employers need to pay people more, the UK government need to insitutute policies that foster economic growth but in addition, individuals need to take personal responsibility to plan for their children. It is clearly sensible to encourage planning for children financially - contributes to narrowing the inequality gap in many ways

If your friend was able to plan for and raise 3 children whilst requiring support and the kids did not experience poverty - that is great. And maybe she had family support or lived in a low cost area but for many those would be quite stressful circumstances, that may be a little easier if planned.

It isn't just moving away. Our families are local. My husband's parents still work. My mum has dementia and my dad doesn't wish to provide childcare for my 18m old at 73. We may have had more childcare from my parents in my 20s, but we would also have been on much much lower wages so we waited until more financially secure.

Society needs to continue to raise children to work jobs of all descriptions, including low paid ones and pay into pension funds. We need people to keep having children and the state needs to support them if wages are so low that people can't support them themselves.

The most well off families I know only have one child, which essentially is selfish because they are expecting other people to raise the workers of the future while they accumulate their own wealth. Who will they pay to clean their toilets or fix their roof if every couple only had one child?

So, on a nursery workers salary I'm good enough to look after the children of the rich but I'd never be allowed my own because I need UC top ups to keep up with cost of living?

Life is constantly changing. I didn't plan to be a single parent and I didn't plan to have to find work that fit around raising children single handedly. I'd imagine a significant number of people needing support to supplement incomes now were able to afford children at the point they had them.

Not selfish no, responsible. Only having the kids you can afford to have and not wanting to take time out of a career. It's exactly what I, and many of my friends, have done. In mid-40s I have no gap in my CV and can maximise my earning power to prepare for retirement. So I have always paid in through both our full time tax contributions, and we have never drawn any benefits, including child allowance. I'm happy with that, the problem in our economy is that the majority of people don't do that ie they take out more than they put in. That just isn't a sustainable way to run an economy.

Salary sacrifice is done because childcare is a cliff-edge benefit - for one pound you earn you loose several thousand pounds in benefits.
UC is tapered so you shouldn't ever be worse off by working more, you should always be keeping a decent wedge of additional earnings.

I agree with the previous poster about needing a supply of children from all backgrounds to fill all kinds of roles.

Because I assume none of the pp who have lots of savings and high incomes would be too thrilled if their Berty ended up stacking shelves or cleaning toilets. Someone's got to do it!

But those are exactly the sorts of jobs that won't be here because of automation. Shelf stacking could easily become automated. Self checkouts are everywhere and we are gradually being weaned off having a person run our groceries through the checkout.

I disagree that robots will eliminate manual jobs, but we aren't living in the future so no idea what it will be like. Certainly doesn't sound like something we'll experience in our lifetime. However if that's your argument for not having children perhaps all those in tech and other desk jobs shouldn't have them either?