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.

The other aspect never discussed is outcomes. If people want the right to procreate with the taxpayer picking up the tab, the taxpayer has a right to expect decent outcomes.

If people produce (absent a diagnosed disability on the part of the offspring) an abuser, criminal, addict, illiterate, non-worker or other antisocial burden, etc., we should be able to dun them and recoup whatever we paid them to produce said offspring. How would people like it if their old-age pensions were docked to recoup what was paid out to them when they produced children they couldn't afford?

Maybe if that were part of the "social contract" people would be a bit more diligent with their contraception.

I think it's more a case of somone having loads of kids they cant afford then ending up pregnant again.

We were earning in excess of 100 grand each in 2008 and then his industry turned to shit as did mine. He got a decent redundancy. I did not.
And then, with the stress of it all we split up
So we went from being able to afford private school
To not being able to afford to pay the milkman
We had savings for two years plus the redundancy, but unfortunately the children were nonreturnable
I really don’t know how much more planning we could’ve put into them
Shit happens

That’s great for you, but very ignorant.

And if you were also sexually active, then any of you could have gotten pregnant. So, you’d think there would be a bit more empathy there.

You were just lucky enough to have access to birth control, sex education, parents who’d permit a termination, and weren’t involved with boys who took advantage/coerced/raped.

Debt to society? It was entirely our parents choice to bring us into the world, put us into education etc. none of it was optional. The tax payer is paying for kids to be raised and educated by teachers so the parents don't have to do it personally. Parents can pay for it. I'd have opted out of life entirely given the choice.

I'd like the CSA to have far more power and chase up men who apparently have no or very low income but a nice lifestyle. A joint investigation with HMRC should uncover where their income is.

Your splitting up was a choice. Unless there was DV involved, sometimes you just have to suck it up. Instead of expecting the taxpayers to suck it up

@Marshmallow4545 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.

Then I should be paying tax to the people who funded my state education. Those people are boomers and pensioners.

I should not be paying tax to other people's children, when those people have no respect for my life, and when I have not been afforded the same opportunity to have children.

It would be like if I wasn't able to buy a car, but you insisted that I pay taxes to fund your car, even though in all probability you probably earn a lot more than I do. If you think that's a strange way to look at things, then you need to go and learn how to think properly.

No we are all satisfied! 🤣

Well you said you you couldn't understand why a parent who stayed at home on government support was labelled a sponger but working parents getting their child care paid for is not seen as sponging. I pointed out why it's quite obvious what the difference is.

I never mentioned minimum wage workers not having children, you did.

I am so incredibly tired of the outcome of personal responsibility being attributed to "luck."

It takes focus, effort and determination.

@user793847984375948If you can get nursery for £1k a month you have an absolute bargain. My DD paid £1800 pcm 7 years ago for my eldest dgs. All DC deserve enough decent food, clothes and shoes to wear, somewhere warm to live, a bed and at least 1 hobby or interest as a basic need. If you can't provide that I don't think it's right to have them knowing they will live a deprived life. Wait until you can afford them. My DD saved up until they could afford her to take 1 year off on maternity leave before having a DC. Then a couple of years later saved up again for second DC.

Of course raising a child is a contribution to FUTURE society. It is not a contribution to the CURRENT society. Current society needs my skills and tax. I work in healthcare, trust me , my patients need me at work more than the rest of society needs me at home raising my child full time.

Working parents are raising their children too, that is not outsourced. I look after my child three days a week and evenings and I look after sick people four days a week. Productive adults are capable of doing more than one thing and society needs them to do more than one thing. If every woman in the country thought raising their own child was the only contribution they needed to make to society and abandoned all their other other obligations the health service, police service and economy would collapse. There would be no one to.teach your children at school either. But wait, is that responsibility to society only for other mums?

And luck.

You can have all the focus, effort and determination in the world and things can still go wrong.

this is what happens.

I think a lot of it is about priorities.

Some people refuse to go without (booze, fags, drugs, lips, nails, nights out) while the children do.

That's obviously horrific.

But if you pour all your state funds into your children then you can give them a very decent life. The basics actually cost very, very little.

But what if you prioritise your career and work 6am - 6pm and hardly see the child and then they grow up with abandonment issues?

Is she better? Just because she's earning more? And the wealthy hoard money instead of spend it. So do they really contribute to the economy more? I don't think so.

Yes, of course. But what about people who just have a very low income? How do they pay for their kids when they also have to fund somewhere to live? People who can afford to do it when splitting costs with a partner but can’t once they split up?

I don’t have the answer either, I’m just not sure there is one.

I suppose I find it sad that something that can be forfeited is having children and all because you don't want to be miserable in your job.

It ruins your life being in a job you hate. Going to somewhere you despise every single day? I'd rather not be alive. I'm sure you don't hate your job that much.

Oh okay, the single tax brigade. Honestly I don't get it. Not trying to be rude but you have a chip on your shoulder. The way you see people with kids as wanting you dead, that's quite extreme.

Do you like being single?

Why do you think PP's parents were not paying taxes? Or school fees for that matter.

Now that is an odd way to look at things.

But people who can't should just never be parents? I suppose it makes sense logically.

But while I think okay we can't all go to Mauritius on holiday is a thing you can give up and still be happy, but a yearning to be a mother could end your life if unfulfilled. I think it's really different you know?

If there's this super responsible person who thinks okay I couldn't cope with a more demanding job and really want to pour myself into motherhood, and can't, or doesn't due to this social contract, surely she'd just decide she may as well not bother with life? I think it could lead to more suicides. I think a drive for motherhood is a valid thing to need to be happy?

Why though? Why is it better to earn more? It's meaningless isn't it in the grand scheme?

It feels like you're saying people on min. wage don't deserve anything about bread and water. Is this what you think? Is this not a totally dystopian view of the working class?

No, and there are things I really want, like a nicer house, and may never have it, and that's fine, even though that affects me literally every single day.

But children are a future investment for all so I don't see why infrastructure for children shouldn't be a decent way to spend tax money.

I think a drive for motherhood is a valid thing to need to be happy?

Surely you’re not saying that women who aren’t mothers can’t be happy? That’s an equally weird position to take.

Even ignoring women who don’t have that drive for motherhood, many women can’t have children through health or through circumstance and find a different route to happiness. As adults, we do have to accept that we can’t always have everything we may want.

Having so many kids is always a HUGE risk. I don't think you can ever adequately plan for every eventuality. It's why I'd never have that many-the chances of a bloke walking away (I know that wasn't your situation) has gotta be exponentially higher the more kids you have.

So are teenagers kids or not then? Seems like they’re expected to have all the autonomy and faculties as adults despite still being in school or college.

‘Babies having babies’, as teen parents are often called, are supposed to have personal responsibility?

And yes, the family, area, culture, religion and income you have as a teen is absolutely down to luck. Only the privileged can say it’s not. Again, teenage girls:

May not be allowed to use, or have access to, birth control.
May not have sex education due to family/religion.
May come from a traumatic background that impeded their judgement.
May be coerced or raped, either by a peer or adult.
May not be permitted to have an abortion by family/religion/culture.
May just have had sex with a boyfriend and exercised their right to choose by continuing the pregnancy.