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’ve never said the state shouldn’t pay for children in poverty - please do quote where I have?

Do I judge people who choose to have children knowing the state (me) will pay for them? You bet your ass I do.

I don't need to look it up, I'm just offering you some food for thought.

Well you don't want to say what you mean then , because you can't say that people shouldn't have children they can't afford and they shouldn't be supported by the state of they do, without that actually meaning they should be prevented somehow, how else exactly can you mean that?

I’m not telling anyone else to live their life like me, the world was different 45 years ago there probably were pregnant girls you just didn’t know because they were sent away.

I had a baby at 16 and we have a good life now the only valid argument against what I did was the waste of tax money but like I said I didn’t know about taxes when I was 15. So it’s pretty strange you’d dislike me because of what I did almost ten years ago when I was in secondary school

They wouldn't be moving in poverty if benefit caps were lifted and were adequate. Do support benefits being lifted to raise children out of poverty?

Spot on

Sorry people think this is fake. I overshare then change my username frequently.

I am genuinely curious.

I agree that giving no thought to how you will provide for kids (though I do believe that emotional input actually means more than financial in this regard) shouldn't have them.

I don't think awful people should have kids, but that’s not really what I was asking.

It is more what do you want to happen? Would you put any laws in place?

I understand that the lazy mum who refuses to work costs less but is taking the piss.
I get that the working mum costs more but is ‘trying’.
@popcornandpotatoes this is the thing, the rent and bills are not sustainable for people. But if Karen and Pete work in Tesco and have no career ambition outside of that, and want to have a child, it's going to cost the taxpayer 1-2k/month.
And for what? So Tesco can make profit?
@ScholesPanda OMG this. Do I think mothers should be paid to raise our kids? Well yes actually. I cannot think of a better way to spend money really.

@RealPerson yes some do think this. I work part and do get UC but it means I raise my kids hands on. I could go into full-time work and see my kids loads less, bring in possibly a bit less (tax and student loan liabilities would mean I'm worse off if I went to minimum wage. And I'd be more tired and not as good a parent and I'd cost the taxypayer more via nursery fees.

Not everyone has the capacity to earn upwards of 40K. And our economy actually rests on poor people using debt and spending constantly.
If no one on minimum wage had kids again I think things would crash really quickly actually.

Again, please feel free to quote where I used those words!

Did she ever try combining the pill or coil with condoms? Or did she only ever use one method of contraception?

Society isn't coping because successive governments have successfully divided us enough that we dehumanise each other, see the worst in each other, while government leaders actively works to benefit themselves and line their own pockets and those of their wealthy sponsors. It isn't struggling because a shrinking number are having kids, and some of them have those kids while on Universal Credit.

Absolutely this. And 'twas ever thus.

If they’ve already gone to the effort of using 2 condoms and the MAP then I think it’s highly unlikely that a termination would be “against their wishes”……

There you go, HTH.

To be honest @Newmeagain I think having more than 2 kids is irresponsible anyway in a few ways. Not sure how you can mentally provide for so many kids. I know someone who has 5 and UC doesn't even increase for 3 of them! I think she's just a very broken person and there is a group of people who live like this and it's really sad. I don't think they 'should' have kids but I wouldn't want the law to ever get involved in that. I think we need to uplift society instead.

Of course I have. Right down to an entire spare house filled with tinfoil, for when the aliens come to fetch us.

Well that includes a lot of poor and disabled people so they're just not allowed children lest you judge them?

And whenever I leave my own home I wear two condoms and carry a menstrual tracking device.

And a UK tax tabulation manual.

Maybe we could just live in sex segregated societies and then the able bodied amongst us that have acquired enough money to have a child without any support can migrate to live in a mixed sex society where they can reproduce to save any accidents.

@twistyizzy I don't get this because surely the reason you're working at your career is because it's rewarding? You get pension, satisfaction, and other things that people who are lazy and not working don't get.

You could also be on benefits if you wanted.

I don't understand why you're angry at those people when you obviously choose not to be them because you believe being them must be crap, right? So I guess I'm wondering why you're envious of them? Or why you're feeling like they're getting something you're not?

@user793847984375948 Do you support, in theory, any legal routes to preventing the poor from having children?

I think you're misunderstanding where me, and many other people, are coming from. I do not have an issue with poor people, and I suspect that the average mumsnetter would consider me poor if they saw my salary.

I do not think there should be legal barriers to prevent poor people from having children. On the contrary, I think more work should be done to bring down the cost of living (especially housing) which may indirectly encourage people to have children.

My specific issue is that I, as a single person with no children, am being asked to pick up the bill by parents who likely do not consider me to be a person, and would prefer me to be dead if they ever thought my mere existence was inconveniencing their children in the slightest way.

So in that regard, I think I would be fine with financial support to help poor families with children, so long as there was a way for single and childless people to opt out of paying that tax money.

Given that it's an established fact that single living is more expensive than living as a couple, why is there no tax relief for single people?

Sooner or later we will have to pay women to have and raise children, which will be fair, as it is very hard work and society needs them.

@AndSoFinally But why is it better for children to have a mum who works her ass off, puts them in wraparound care, and she suffers and her children suffer for that?

Anyway, that is only an option up until child is 3. Then they expect you to work full-time and stick them in nursery.

I think it's better for mums to be hands on with infants, than put them in nursery full-time.

Yes. We could turn half of the country into a giant network of boarding schools.

There should absolutely be more support for single people, it boggles me why on earth the council tax discount is only 25%. But we all pay taxes towards things we don't use or benefit from directly. I'm a childless person but I wouldn't want to opt out of paying towards taxes that pay for free school meals just because I don't have any children that need them. I needed them myself when I was a kid.

@Friendlygingercat But you don't get nothing. You get continuation of a money supply, people to serve your coffee and pints, cleaners etc.

Future generations benefit us all, including child-free people.

@pinkdelight I think people are saying they can't have kids. They can't afford them. They need help from the state.

People go on about subsidising businesses to pay wages that people can’t afford to live on - having lived in Scandinavia for a couple of years I personally think the UK has got it arse about face - the minimum wage there is no more than the UK and tax is much higher- the big difference is various fixed costs are much lower - childcare is subsidised heavily and much more affordable and plentiful - around£300 a month on average - lots more good social housing, utilities and public transport slightly less - no NI, no council tax as we know it .

The expectation is that both parents work and even if a single parent - you work, even with under 1s and not just a few hours either and then expect top ups. Their system works on the basis the state make it easier as a family to ‘get by’ and you do your part by contributing to society - now this would suit some, but not others here - if you don’t want to work and can afford not to then that’s fine, but their mentality doesn’t seem to work that way -unless you are rolling in it everyone I met worked - and if not full time, not far off whether single, couple, with kids or not - it is not about poor wages here for many basic jobs , it’s about costs are far too high in relation to wages, particularly housing, in lots of the country , and there are an awful lot of people who expect to work part time on very average wages or in some cases not at all and rely on one very average wage and then wonder why they can’t manage .same with people expecting to retire at 55 without large amounts of cash behind them and then wondering why they are struggling to get by . I do get that it’s easier to work part time with a family, but that needs to be factored into the family budget that it’s a choice and not the fault of employers and the main issue is high costs relative to wages rather than wages themselves - previous lack of planning by various gvts has contributed massively - the UK due to its political system has far too much short term policy decisions driven often by electoral posturing - be that selling off social housing, selling off services to private markets, not raising income tax when drastically needed, lack of paidqyslity training in the trades, degrading FE colleges at the expense of HE , bringing in taking large lump sums at 55 - all kinds of things that are now causing various issues .