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.

I tend to agree but then the question is whether the new working class will continue to be bled dry and whether they will be deprived of the right to procreate (and the Alpha will decide for everyone else what they can and cannot have).

We can clearly see successful brainwashing already.

I don't think I'd go that far @GelatoForMe . I could go along with 1,2,3.

People should be free to worship whichever God they wish as long as it supports a peaceful & non-violent co-existence, and recognises the laws and educational norms of the UK. (Extremists of any faith are pretty scary).

I'd put a time limit on benefits. Being made redundant is no fun, all efforts need to go into finding another job, not litter picking. Maybe community work after two solid years of unemployment.

I volunteer anyway, it's fun, sociable and I learn new skills free of charge so I can see how people would benefit.

They shouldn’t but teens can be coerced into sex; coerced to continue with a pregnancy by a boyfriend or parents; suffer from trauma that lends them to poor decisions etc.

Let’s also not forget that some do a great job despite being teens.

I have lived experience and it feels pretty awful for people to Alex assumptions about your life choices/circumstances when you didn’t even have the luxury of making a choice in the first place.

People say don't have them if you can't afford it when they keep having more kids when they can't afford it. Sure it's ok to have 1 or 2 when you are poor. But when you keep popping out kids for everyone else to pay for is the problem. Especially when the kids end up popping out kids and not working as well.

If you are poor, don't have more than 2 kids.

Again, where are you getting the "knew everything..." from?

Surely you can understand there's a vast distance between knowing the very basics of 'earning a wage you pay taxes which the government then uses to pay benefits and run the NHS, etc., etc.' and knowing "everything".

But do you hold it against someone that they didn’t know that at 15? Having a baby is Hardly a crime is it?

But I pay tax on my income, before receiving it and paying for childcare. Those receiving benefits dont. Not saying there’s anything wrong with that; it’s a fact

Have good insurance?

That principle is great until someone's dh does a moonlight flit, leaving the mum responsible for two or three children.

It happens with depressing regularity. Support for the mum, who normally then works her arse off to care & provide for her children, is not unreasonable.

No. You must have missed my earlier post where I already replied to you that unequivocally I wouldn't/don't hold that against you.

Or work hard and get an education so as to not remain poor, and only then procreate. And get married so the child has two committed parents.

That’s what everyone in my extended family did, because they wanted to provide decent lives for their children. Self-discipline is a thing.

I wouldn't say so, at least not for the discussion which was that PP thought all teens were using two forms of contraception and tracking their menstrual cycles in the 80s. Obviously teenage pregnancy rates have massively dropped now which is amazing, but did the times of teen pregnancies completely pass you by?

I was made redundant at 37 weeks it was too late to not have the baby then

Turned out she had a bad kidney that needed surgery major surgery with a 6 week recovery period every year they had me on standby every year they cancelled no job would accept that for 6 weeks I was going to be off so I stayed on benefits for "another few months" expecting a date she is 25 now still never had the surgery went back to work when my marriage failed had to come out because my youngest has sen and issues with school thought 12 months that will be sorted covid happened delays happened five years later its sorted....now my dad is dying slowly and painfully so im looking into working from home around everybody again tricky but hopefully achievable

Life isn't straightforward

Have you not dutifully planned for everything? Shame on you!

Fair enoUgh but @No5ChalksRoad does

No-one said it wasn't.

Very clearly stated umpteen times that working parents who have life circumstances but previously paid for and cared for, their DC themselves, aren't the ones being discussed.

It wasn’t that long ago you didn’t have to work until your youngest child was 12, so most certainly out of primary school. (If husband was working or you were a single parent).
Now it’s 3. Regardless of whether your husband is working or you’re a single parent. Society didn’t collapse. I don’t think it’s changed for the better.
Of course women should be supported with work, childcare if their choice. But it should also be a choice to be a SAHM until your child is 9/10, if not 12 like it was.

Self-discipline is a thing
Becoming less and less so.

Depending what your income is, it is highly likely you are not a net contributor after claiming funded childcare.

This has worded what I was trying to say so much better, people are projecting lot of choice and therefore judgement onto people's situations they know nothing about.

You are talking about a black swan situation.

if people already have children and are struggling they should make every effort possible to ensure they don’t have any more. That could mean doubling up on contraception or having a vasectomy/sterilisation.

Its unlikely that either of these scenarios would result in an accidental pregnancy.

Even without doubling up, the chances of a contraceptive failure are less than 1%.

These are not the births that posters are talking about when they say “people shouldn’t have more children than they can afford”. They are talking about people making a conscious decision to have multiple children when they are already relying on the state.

If people have made every effort to prevent pregnancy but it still happens nobody is advocating forced abortion. It’s a difficult situation to be in, but sometimes people have to make difficult decisions based on what would be right for not only their unborn child but also any existing children they have.

Your stance on abortion is clear from your language and it appears you’re deliberately trying to goad another poster into a pro-choice/pro-life debate.

Life isn't straightforward
Tou can still plan it as much as possible to limit the unpredictable and/ or prepared as much as possible for the unpredictability.

If I were managing the budget I would make nursery state funded (or at least heavily subsided so it0s affordable for all) from 9 months. No excuses then.

But will almost certainly be less of a drain than someone who's not working at all and whose entire income is from the taxpayer.

But you don't KNOW the circumstances of the people you're putting in your category of "ok for me to judge" you're just presuming. And you don't think they should get benefits anyway, you said explicitly the two child cap shouldn't be lifted, so they are the ones you're discussing.