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 don't know where to start with your argument tbh it's so childish. How should we work it? If you haven't been to your GP this year you don't pay any NI? But how does that work when on a dime you might suddenly need the service you think has nothing to do with you that you haven't paid into? You've been a child yourself and benefited presumably from schools etc paid with people's taxes that you now pay for the next generation. Someone could argue that they supplement your council tax discount, not their problem you're single and choose to live alone and not with a housemate.

About half of children end up being a huge liability, burden or antisocial. And all of humans are damaging the planet.

Disabuse yourself of the notion that procreators are doing the world a favour. They aren’t.

Actually, it wasn’t a choice. He fucked off and left us. So I’m not quite sure what we could’ve done unless I smacked him over the head with a club and dragged him back to the cave which I was up for believe me.
He did pay child support so I suppose I was a lucky girl 🙄

@user793847984375948 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.

What you are saying has no substance. I made a legitimate point that single people have a higher cost of living, and therefore, should not be paying tax to fund other people's families and lifestyles, but you have no real response to this.

The way you see people with kids as wanting you dead, that's quite extreme.

It's not extreme. I have seen direct evidence of this, so I am speaking from experience.

There is a big difference between what people believe that they "must have" for their children, of course we all want the best. Some people believe that when they have children everything has to be new and that their are lot of things that are "must haves." Just as some people always want the new care or the most uptodate phone/IT euipment. So some of costs of children is not for essentials. I think that there is an issue with people on benefits who then go on to have many children when those who are working couldn't manage probably not due to cost but due to the fact they work and don't have the time - which does raise the question why those working should be paying tax to subsidise large families. I do for that reason support the limit on child benefits to two children

Source for that?

Genuinely are you ok? You sound almost gleeful about this dystopian fantasy of yours

That’s what people tell themselves to justify the fact that they are where they are in life with no real talent or effort and they could actually end up on their arse overnight.
Most people don’t have three months living expenses in savings.
And I’m not going to believe a single word of anybody who says they have. Because banking statistics prove otherwise

Some fun facts

• 1971 Peak: The conception rate for women under 18 reached its highest point in 1971, at 54.9 per 1,000.
• 1970s Decline: Following the 1971 peak, the rate steadily decreased throughout the rest of the decade.
• Contributing Factors: The introduction of the Abortion Act in 1967 and the increasing availability and use of contraception, including the birth control pill, were key factors in this decline.
• Subsequent Trends: While the rate rose again in the 1980s, it peaked at 47.1 per 1,000 in 1998 and has been falling sharply since 2007.

Three months of outgoings in savings would not be enough.
Banks will give you six months grace on a mortgage after that they'll come for your house. I know, I've been there.
We lost the lot in the crash (2009) and I recently suffered permanent disability so I agree life can shift on a dime. We're nearly retired, all pensions are being accessed as sickness benefit is tiny.
I'm sorry for what happened to you and I hope your family and DC are doing well.

I think having one child is a reasonable 'right' but more than that only if you can afford it, and nobody should get any state support for more than 2 kids (obviously the exception being when the second child is a twin).

But being able to afford a child isn't just about the basics, kids need to be a able to enjoy life and take part in basic extracurricular activities, there are regularly people on here complaining about not being able to afford to pay for swimming lessons at their local council swimming pool. Kids should be able to have hobbies, clothes and school trips (day trips and UK residential, not foreign trips which are clearly a luxury).

But the two child benefit cap doesn't offer support to everyone who's circumstances have changed or become unable to work, it only allows them to claim for two children regardless of if they have three for example. That's a pedantic arbitrary limit that has put more children into poverty.

Called it!

I’m going to start by saying I completely understand that for most people two incomes are required to live, house and feed a child however, I feel we have completely normalised handing over a barely one year old child to strangers to look after for five days a week from sometimes, 8am- 6pm. This is something I struggle
with.

But with UC you can afford more than the basics alongside work.

Who denied you the opportunity to have children?

60% of income tax is paid by top 10% of earners. Top 10% don't usually use the NHS with 52 weeks of waiting lists for operations or 10 hours wait in A&E with head wounds, their children often go to private schools so I assume you would agree to them claiming their tax back as they have nothing in return for it and just fund everyone else including yourself, I presume?

That would be roughly 6% of our GDP slashed, just what we need at the moment 😁

Me too. I didn't put mine into nursery until they were 2, and by then they trotted in happily. Being away from me before then was a big deal to them, and I feel like they're not special? It must be to kids who don't show it too?

What social contract?

This is true however I would be happy for my tax money to fund free childcare i.e nurseries rather than benefits

No, a child who becomes a productive adult is an investment in the future. Not all children are going to become that and there is a far bigger chance of an only child, who has been invested in by parents who didn’t keep churning out more children they could barely afford to buy weetabix for, becoming a real investment in the future.

And if you believe that only the wealthy should reproduce, you are effectively asking rich, white, powerful men to police women’s reproduction

So instead you are asking rich, white, powerful men to subsidize your reproduction? Shouldn’t they have a right to say NO?

(tbh it is weird you bring race into it. Such resentment against white people in your OP, yet you want them to pay for everything)

@Ubertomusic Who denied you the opportunity to have children?

Not "who."

60% of income tax is paid by top 10% of earners. Top 10% don't usually use the NHS with 52 weeks of waiting lists for operations or 10 hours wait in A&E with head wounds, their children often go to private schools so I assume you would agree to them claiming their tax back as they have nothing in return for it and just fund everyone else including yourself, I presume?

That's different because those people are high earners. It needs to be the high earners paying more tax, not poor people.

That would be roughly 6% of our GDP slashed, just what we need at the moment

The tax pot is not the same thing as GDP.

... I guess that's evidence that intelligence or financial literacy isn't needed to be a high earner.

@user793847984375948 Don't have kids if you can't afford them? What do you mean by "afford"?

Some of the most neglected kids I've taught have come from wealthy families who cannot afford TIME for their kids as they're too busy climbing.

The other neglected kids are from parents who have far too many kids and don't parent them properly, and the kids are left to entertain themselves.

It's the balance between having kids that you have the time to raise properly, whilst also contributing to society.

In London UC won't even cover the market rent.

But generations of children today will be paying tax that pays for your state pension when you get older, are you going to turn down their contributions and take a smaller pension than people that were happy to pay taxes towards those kids educations etc?