Don't have kids you can't afford!

[user793847984375948]

Hi all, this is meant to be an interesting discussion.

I keep seeing people say, “Don’t have kids if you can’t afford them.”

But in the UK, if someone works full-time on minimum wage, the state ends up paying thousands for childcare so that parent can work.
If that same parent stayed home, they would receive less support overall, yet they would be raising their own child hands-on. A single mum can work part-time and get rent and living costs for kids, around 500 a month in support if she works.

Nursery is about 1K a month usually. Then there's the wraparound care before and after school that could also be funded by UC.

So why is one scenario seen as responsible and the other as “sponging”?

Further, do people who say “don’t have kids you can’t afford” actually think only those earning £60k or more should have children, since that is roughly what it takes to cover childcare or a single income? That eradicates the above two scenarios and it's just those with independent wealth

If so, what would that mean for society long-term, both economically and socially? There would be fewer poor people over all and I think this would have an impact on our monetary system and menial jobs getting done.

And if you believe that only the wealthy should reproduce, you are effectively asking rich, white, powerful men to police women’s reproduction.
That is exactly what is happening in parts of America right now.

Genuinely curious how people justify this way of thinking.

Well simply working parents are also paying tax and paying for most of their own living costs even if they get help. Help to work is not sponging because by working you contribute to society both in terms of skills and tax. None working parents who get all of their money from the state are not paying any tax or giving any of their skills to.society. It's not difficult to see the difference really.

And if you can't afford to give your child a coat and shoes without holes in for winter I don't think you should be creating them in the first place, being born to be intentionally neglected is wrong. Child shouldn't be only for the rich at all but they do deserve the absolute basics.

Nursery about £1k a month usually?

I wish. £2,200 - £2,500 round here.

UK can't afford not to have parents work.

I don't really understand your post. Are you saying we should pay for women with young children not to work as childcare is costly? The long term impact of having a career break on your earning potential and pension is significant so as a society it's cost effective overall.

It doesn't take a massive income to provide the basics but personally I'm not sure why we're subsidising businesses to pay wages that people can't afford to live on, but we are so not much point worrying about it.

No-one knows for sure what they will be able to afford in the coming years. You could lose a spouse, your health, your job.

You have to be extremely well-off to know up-front that you have the money to cover all of this.

This is what I also think.

Anyone with a random new username that is 'genuinely curious' about something is usually an indication that curiosity isn't really that genuine 🙄

I do think some people have kids without sitting down and working out the true costs and making sure they have an emergency fund and critial illness cover etc. It's a stereotype but I was brought up in a Council estate and there were 'never work' types breeding like rabbits, poor kids were scruffy, dirty and had no holidays or kids club, looked malnourished and hoaching with headlice etc, their childhood was miserable.

However, I think the vast majority of people can afford them at the time but then unforseen stuff happens - inflation, illness, separations, childcare costs increasing exponentially, government policy changing, elderly parents needing care and expected inheritance never materialises.

Because one is an expensive luxury and the other is making some effort to contribute to your life and society.

It was fine for previous generations to have to they couldn't afford but not younger people. But look at birth rates. they have got the message.

When I say 'don't have children you can't afford' - and I do.

It's because it is not fair to children to have parents who have given no consideration to them at all - who have had children because they didn't bother with contraception, who didn't care whether they got pregnant at all or whether they had any ability to actually care for children, emotionally and financially.

Having children must be more than fulfilling a biological urge or cementing a new relationship. I think there needs to be some thought about provision to those children.

Time and time again there are threads from people who have numerous children, often in chaotic relationships where it has been clear from the outset that it was not a safe relationship for the women, never mind any children.

It's about responsibility - and if you have a child, you have a personal lifelong responsibility to do the best for that child and that includes considering from the outset how you can afford them, now and if things may go awry.

Totally agree

🤔 discuss

Lots of people are following this advice, OP. Hence the birthrate is dropping like a stone.

It would relieve the burden if fathers were made to pay for their own kids.

I keep seeing people say, “Don’t have kids if you can’t afford them.”

I've only seen this said on threads where someone has already struggled to fund/house/look after their existing DC and gone on to have more then expect solutions like a bigger house with more bedrooms to come from somewhere. People don't tend to say it off the bat from some kind of wild prejudice against poorer people procreating. It's in context and often a quite valid question, though will always be met with the 'what's done is done, can't change anything now' refrain taking no responsibility for choices. That's all it's about really. Who takes responsibility for the DC because they're the ones who'll suffer and it's understandable that people find that frustrating.

It’s a good principle in theory.

The thing is , “can’t afford” means different things to different people.

To some , it means any kind of support from the state. Considering the high amount of the workforce that is on UC (never mind free childcare vouchers and so on) , that’s not feasible.

To some, it means basic needs being met(in whatever way) , with possibly some nice to haves, which is entirely fair enough.

To some , it means that any child raised without their room , a bunch if extra curriculars , that don’t get “life” skills like private swimming lessons, get to go on all the trips, availability for tutors etc. is a deprived child , living in poverty and their parents should’ve known better. Again , not feasible or realistic.

Absolutely this. Most families I know are only one redundancy, accident, separation or illness away from being in financial difficulty. Couple that with the costs of everything going up so fast and it means it's almost impossible to predict what your financial situation might be in a decade's time when you make the decision to have a baby.

Spot on

I think people should have children when the are stable and secure and able to provide. I think struggling with a few years of nursery is normal for most people, well off or not, but ultimately that's only a few years of their lives.

Also struggling with nursery fees is not the same as not being able to afford to feed your kids.

I have no issue with people claiming benefits to top up the shite wages in this country because life is too expensive. I think people are within their rights to point out having multiple children completely reliant on benefits then pulling sad faces in the daily mail cos the council can't find you a bigger house is ridiculous. I can believe both these things at the same time.

I also believe housing should be affordable, anyone working full time should not require top of benefits because working full time should mean you can afford housing, food, bills and life's necessities.

The OP is a bit rambling but I would agree that if the state is willing to fund childcare, I think there should be more choices for parents. This should include that the money can be taken as a cash lump sum for stay at home childcare.

The idea that tiny children being raised by their own parents is some crazy luxury scenario is just bizarre to me.

I think raising children is a valuable thing for society and that those of us who do it should be supported to do it well. I'm also conscious that I'm not the best judge of the parenting of others. I don't have any myself and, at 59, never will.

So I'm happy that my taxes go to support raising children. I would like more of that money to be used that way because I suspect that the return on that investment is likely to be high. I bet £1 on, say, sure start, saves an awful lot of £££ and misery later.

This !!!

I think people just don't like people being on benefits a thousand pounds is a thousand pounds at the end of the day. I think some women do just think this like what is the point in me working

I think that most people can manage with one or two children even if in a low paid job. However, I think it becomes irresponsible to have more more than two children unless you are really confident that you have enough money to support a large family.