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.

@GETTINGLIKEMYMOTHER Have you ever worked in a nursery? They use screens there too. Cocomelon before naptime in a private one I worked in.

Please elaborate where that money might come from, especially if more women then leave the labour force?

I think a more realistic option is that couples simply have less children, only as many as they can comfortably afford.

Increasing the £ value of benefits and raising the cap on number of children for whom benefits can be claimed are not the same thing.

The welfare system should be there for those who either can’t work (eg illness or disability) or for whom their circumstances have changed so yes, there should be a cap on how many children can be claimed for and absent fathers should be held more to account.

but it’s not that black and white is it?

There are lots of other things I would do to increase education (and I don’t mean schools), change societal attitudes/behaviours and changes I’d make to our tax and welfare systems centred around lifting people out of poverty and encouraging family units, but I’m not in charge of the country and that’s not what the OP asked about.

@No5ChalksRoad or the offspring of someone so openly unpleasant

@taxguru I can't argue with you there, but there seems an intrinsic quality placed on work, and I wonder where that comes from.

If you work your whole life in Tesco is that a life well spent for you? As long as they're working is that all that matters?

I think other things are far more important. I'd like to see people have a much better understanding about raising happy, well adjusted kids.

Ha! I posted something very similar on here about 5 years ago and got my arse absolutely handed to me for it. I think I referred to it as Negative Evolution where the population is becoming less fit for purpose over time, rather than better.

I note no one has had the same reaction this time. Possibly more people are starting to feel the same way….?

No one has said that because it's unpalatable and people are afraid of looking proper fascist, but the abundance of euphemisms like "taking every precaution possible" is pretty telling as in reality the only method that works is sterilisation of women, not even men as it's not 100% guarantee.

So naice people don't want to say that, they just would like those unwashed do it without being told 😁

I'm afraid the gov will have to brainwash better for this to happen.

Nail on the head. Same at my school. I was a teen in the late 70s/early 80s. We knew how to avoid getting pregnant. Can't think of a single girl who got pregnant whilst at our school. And no, were definitely weren't all nuns.

I agree, but how do you (you general, not you you) propose that they do that when they can’t afford to either? How do you propose to get blood out of a stone?

Obviously there are absent fathers who can well afford it and just take the piss but I’m thinking of, for example, a couple on a level of wages that means they can afford to pay for their kids while together, but then they split up and the cost of running two households is so prohibitive that neither can afford it. What then?

This is particularly an issue in areas where the cost of housing is so awful.

@Upsetbetty So in your view, if you want to do a job you like and find comfortable and easy you shouldn't be allowed to also be a parent?

Only those whose jobs pay about a certain amount deserve to be parents?

Would you support any legal routes to ensuring only those above a certain wage had children?

@Halloweeeeeeeeen There are plenty of intelligent people who also breed though.

The feckless and workshy have always seemed super fertile. I always wondered when I used to watch Jeremy Kyle who come those people seemed to have fertility envied by the wealthy who go about using IVF.

Almost as though evolutionarily the continuation of a species does rest on those more likely to just breed breed breed.

Then they stay together for the sake of their children. Again, it’s taking personal responsibility.

@Boutonnière We're all only human, but my point there is if people do support state restrictions on having children then it does ultimately fall to rich white men, given they run the world.

I agree, but it's not the fault of the poor, is it? So are we penalising the poor for the wrongdoings of the elites?

People need to cut their cloth. I stay in a hated well-paid job because I need it to support my lifestyle choices.

if I opted for an easy “comfortable” low-paid job, I’d have to forfeit certain things. That’s life.

Errr... It's a British-born theory but I guess Bowlby were not dissecting live brains or torturing infants so probably not scientific enough for you.

Op, you sound like a journalist. Are you looking for opinions to help write an article?

@Unrulyscrumptious But we all pay taxes towards things we don't use or benefit from directly.

We shouldn't be.

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.

Why can't people with children pay taxes to fund free school meals?

This perfectly proves you didn't study this and thus do not understand basic concept (which I hoped I had simplified enough but I guess not).

It's actually interesting that I didn't even touch on migration (although its actually a major need part of this for small island like ourselves) to avoid derailing the thread but you even managed to show some understanding of a linked concept that wasn't even raised so I do show some base understanding.

Unfortunately if no one has kids migration doesn't work either as there would still be not enough replacement youth regardless. You are showing still expecting to rely on SOMEONE ELSE having had children. Only you are expecting those children to move here from usually even more impoverished countries (with the majority of immigrants and migrants coming from the 2nd and 3rd worlds) which is interesting on an 'if you can't afford kids don't have them' topic.

Unfortunately I cannot provide years of advanced/higher education to you over mumsnet forum but if you ever feel like being enlighten there are lots of free peer reviewed resources available online.

I would take it a stage further and make sure it was impressed on all females of breeding age that they should not even think about having a child, unless they were financially, physically, mentally and psychologically prepared to bring up that child alone.

No-one knows what's around the corner.

This is a really odd way to look at things. I actually think that we should all look to cover our own costs as far as possible from the cradle to the grave. It's called self responsibility.

So if you benefited from a state education, FSMs or whatever else then you absolutely should be paying tax now to repay this debt to society. You benefitted from this stuff, not your parents. It's irrelevant whether you choose to have children or not. You don't just get to magically forget that you enjoyed an education funded by the taxpayer and suggest that now you can actually begin to pay this money back that only parents should be paying for the education budget.

Total gibberish.

The human population will continue to grow WITHOUT subsidies. That is the point. Humans keep procreating no matter how dismal the circumstances.

All we need to do is work (with other nations) to make it easy for the existing populations to spread around the globe. We don't need to subsidize the production of new human beings because it will happen anyway.

There is NO shortage of humans and never will be.

Unfortunately that cannot be said for coral reefs, pollinators, arable land, breathable air, insects, birds, and other dwindling resources that we are killing with our absurd worship of bio-breeding.

Absolutely 100 percent agree.

I spent 40 years managing my fertility amid an active sex life. It can be done. There are really no excuses.

😂

To answer your question @user793847984375948i think parents (not just women) should be encouraged to raise their children up to 3 years old so yes, the state should help by topping up wages to allow BOTH parents to to reduce their hours to be at home.

In the long run while it costs the tax payer, it raises taxes and fosters a healthy work ethic which in turn is imparted on the children/next generation.

The reason I say both parents is that I think it should be split so that it reduces their hours impact on women’s careers.

From age 3 the government should then help with nursery costs as it helps the parents increase hours/get back into their careers AND helps with child development them being around other children at least part time before starting full time education.

If parents choose not to work then the state should only help in so far as ensuring the children are fed, clothed and have a roof over their heads but I also think those parents and children should be supported through things like sure start centres and not just “left to rot”. and yes, the money should be capped.

Put simply, no children should live in poverty and parents should be supported and encouraged to work with help if needed.