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?

I have friends who are carers and they all work part time around caring responsibilities

Good for them. Caring for my son is enough work for me.

Then maybe say that instead of goady comments about the fact you could work but choose not

I did say that but everyone focused on the fact that because he's at school I could work

Totally get why looking after a disabled child, except when they're at school, means you need some down time, and rushing off to a job in the only time you don't have that responsibility (although if you're called/illness/school holidays etc complicate that more so with a disability) is going to lead to burn out and potentially you not being able to care for your child, potentially costing the state more.

But comments like "I could work when he's at school but I choose not to" is inflammatory and you know it. IMO you have made the choice for good reasons but you seem to want people to think you haven't so you can argue with them about it.

I totally agree with you, OP.

All of the people saying that they have never heard that in decades on mumsnet are making me laugh.

I always read the comments saying go and get a promotion or ask for a payrise.

Assuming they are a parent (we are on MN), and the number of threads about extortionate nursery fees or care home fees eating inheritance, do they not see the direct impact on themselves of that advice?

Every nursery worker and social care worker goes into work tomorrow and asks for a pay rise, unions get involved and they get awarded a pay deal that reflects the work that they are doing. They can now raise a family to MN standards, emergency savings in the bank etc.

Nursery and care hone fees go through the roof, all of the middle earners with the good jobs go into work and request a payrise, unions and the daily mail get involved, they get their payrise. All is right with the world.

They pull the bar up under them to delineate the standard that a child cannot be raised beneath.

It's like any other spending decision: if you can't afford to have children right now, you wait, save up some money if you can and do what is necessary to improve your financial position.

I apologise if I came across goady.
I've had lots of people tell me I should work now he's at school (he was excluded at 6 and no school would take him so he was home for 7 years)
I've never had a proper job for long and the thought terrifies me so I have people telling me I can work in one ear, sheer terror inside and unfortunately the fact that I'd be worse off if I did work does play a part.
So again I apologise for upsetting anyone with my comments, it's not as black and white as I just decided not to work.

Right! So churn out more workers then. Poor Chardonnay - if only she knew her entire existence, terrible schooling and all, was to take up a spot stacking shelves and cleaning toilets for Berty and Balonce.

What a wonderful reason to have kids.

Chardonnay couldn't possibly be cleaning toilets with those freshly manicured nails. Surely she will just have to survive in benefits till she marries that footballer or makes it on x factor.

You need to rethink your phrasing and the way you think about yourself. It’s not a case of “can but won’t” and telling yourself (and the internet) that will cause so much criticism that really isn’t fair. It’s completely selling yourself short, and not acknowledging the additional stress and worry and effort you’re putting in.

We both work full time in demanding jobs and I can honestly hand on heart say I’d rather that then have the constant strain and worry you must feel about your son. All these folks seem to forget whilst we go “I wonder what [child] will be when they grow up” you’ll be wondering if they’ll be able to be independent, what will happen when you are no longer in a position to care etc. If you’ve had that kind of difficulty getting somewhere to give him an education (which is his right, as it is the right of every child to access) I can see why you need respite and feel like you need to be available when the phone goes and he needs you. It’s really not the same as most folk working around school hours when you’ve had such a struggle to access education.

I know folk say “get a job around school hours” but with a disabled child it really isn’t that easy. Holiday clubs etc. are usually privately run and can (and often do) opt not to take children with additional needs. Then there’s additional SEN meetings, education plans, medical appointments- all of these things are additional things to schedule around working hours.

Don't sell yourself short as “can but won’t”. Rephrase it as “do you know what full time care for my child would cost the state? Less than it’s paying me to do this!”

(And to those wondering I say that as a higher rate tax payer!)

But you're happy for others to waste theirs to allow you not to!

Is expecting only the rich to have children some kind of cultural/lower class cleansing. What would the future look like if only people with a high income had children? When all the well off people and their high earning offspring are old who will look after them in care homes and provide essential services?

of course if you cannot afford to have children, don't have them? It's horribly unfair on the child to start with.

Circumstances can change, true, but that's why we have a benefit system, not to support your lifestyle choice.

Normal people either wait until they can afford kids, or stick to one because they cannot afford more. That's life.

It's not about "being rich" is being able to provide a decent life for your child. Why even have kids if you are not able to support them financially? It's not even selfish, it's ludicrous.

@MyDogsPaws “Is expecting only the rich to have children some kind of cultural/lower class cleansing. What would the future look like if only people with a high income had children? When all the well off people and their high earning offspring are old who will look after them in care homes and provide essential services?”

If that happens, I will definitely come back as a ghost and see the confusion on the upper class faces have when they have to clean their own bog or iron a shirt 😂. The horror in their faces when MIL has to move in to be cared for in old age, not having the choice to go to work because they have to stay at home to look after kids as there is nobody willing to work in a nursery or as a nanny.

I used to work in a GP practice, and the more upper class GP’s always looked horrified when I suggested they wash up their own mug!

Luckily it shouldn't happen because as a PP said, benefits topping up lower earners is what happens and changing it to pay everyone better money will cost more than just topping up incomes with benefits.

Exactly! I was reading through to see if anyone else would pick up on that.

"Encourage poor, disenfranchised people to pop out more kids they can't afford and give them a chaotic, lacklustre upbringing - all so we'll have more people to scrub toilets and stack shelves for shit wages."

I've seen it a few times on similar threads recently and it raises surprisingly little objection. The fact that social mobility is so poor in this country, that you can point at a whole sector of society and say (with broad accuracy) that not just them but the overwhelming majority of any children they will have, will only ever do poorly paid, low skilled work is a travesty. But it's not really a counterpoint to the (quite reasonable, IMO) sentiment of don't have children you can't afford.

Yes, wages are dragging behind inflation, rent and childcare is extortionate. My husband and I work shifts around each other to reduce the cost of childcare, we're in a one bedroom flat with our 3 year old. We're degree educated, we both do necessary, highly skilled work, and right now we're looking at the possibility of moving back to my husband's home country, which, though notionally poorer, would almost definitely give us a better quality of life.
What we're not doing is going "Ah, fuck it!" and having a few more kids (who'd be very much wanted) on the basis that, in an ideal world, we'd be able to afford them anyway, and even in this one, someone else will eventually pick up the tab. React to the world as it is, not as how you would like it to be.

Ultimately, even if PP's creative writing exercise of "eliminating the working classes" came to fruition, and the only people entering the workforce were those from middle class backgrounds then, what's the problem? Literally anyone with arms can clean a toilet. If their parents are having conniptions over the idea, then that's their problem, and it can be solved easier than any problem in the whole thread, by them getting the fuck over themselves.

Why should there be free childcare hours. If you can't afford to pay for childcare or provide it otherwise, don't have kids. It's another form of reliance on the state for basic child needs

It might not be pretty but it is realistic. However much we push our kids, it's statistically more likely my kid will end up working as a carer, retail, hospitality than the majority of posters on here with their six figure incomes.

Precisely. And they'd probably argue you don't need as much wages or benefits because it's only you to support. Perhaps you can bunk down in the nursery with the other staff

I think it’s increasingly harder to have a child on a lower income.

The careers you have mentioned are perhaps the ones where people would say that it isn’t worth their time going back to work because childcare costs are so high.

Also in terms of lifestyle and the increase of social media people compare themselves to others and put themselves in debt to try and keep up. For example someone in my team had their child’s first birthday party, they said they spent £250 on a balloon arch, they make the same as me, they cannot afford to be spending that on a balloon arch.

It doesn't need to be growing, but birth rates are falling and are now below replacement level, so we have an increasingly aged population with not enough young people working to support them.

I think the human population of the planet needs to be lower, but if the birth rate falls too low and people are outraged at the thought of immigration (which has it's own problems if we're targeting, for example, health care staff from poorer countries), what do we do to provide income and care for our elderly? Automation doesn't fix all these problems.

This is a massive problem. I'll get flamed but many people just do not know how to budget/ live on a tight income. People hark back to the days of 1 income supporting a family & while it certainly could better than it does now, there are people who treat huge kids birthday parties, acrylic nails, tattoos, cigarettes, alcohol, false eyelashes, Netflix etc like human rights.
If you're reliant on the taxpayer for your income, it shouldn't be going on stuff like this.

Because very few people can afford to pay full time nursery costs for two children out of a single taxed income. If you take a "your kids, you pay" approach then some two-earner families will manage by working shifts around each other, some will have family support, but a lot will just have the mothers drop out of work for several years. No career progression, no employer pension contributions. The entire family becomes dependent on one income, (or benefits if they were a single parent family to start with) and if anything goes wrong then the tax payer is picking up the slack.

A couple of years subsidy for childcare is a bloody good investment to keep a large chunk of your workforce earning and skilled up.

People shouldn't be guilt tripped, just because their employers pay badly. Lots of people here complaining who wouldn't want their kids to do certain jobs, but expect someone to want to. Not everything will be AI, and training in the UK is still well below average.

In reality, how many people can "afford to have children" with 0 help from the tax payer? Where do we draw the line?

Looks like people are ok with others (themselves) receiving child benefit, but child tax credit (or whatever it is called now) is a no? Why?

Then let's get onto state schools, tuition fee loans, free birth in a hospital, NHS dentist, free prescriptions, free nursery hours. All of that shows parents "can't afford" their children without tax payer help.

I'm child free by choice, and an additional rate tax payer: I think everyone should be able to have children. I think the tax payer should help. Children aren't just for the super rich. The UK is struggling with falling birth rate and aging population as it is.

So many people on MN just think about themselves, looking down their noses at others - a whole bunch of these take government money.