Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Don't have kids you can't afford!

895 replies

user793847984375948 · 25/10/2025 10:57

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.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
5
Zavettimexico · 25/10/2025 17:52

taxguru · 25/10/2025 15:52

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.

Nonsense there’s always been teen pregnancies just back then they were sent away to have the baby in secret.

I had a baby at 16 and the only thing you can say about me and my family now is we were a waste of tax money back then. But what 15 year old even knows about taxes? @No5ChalksRoad hates people for things they did years ago before they even knew about the waste of tax payer money argument

No5ChalksRoad · 25/10/2025 17:53

RingoJuice · 25/10/2025 17:35

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)

Good point.

The village, if it's expected to subsidize, should also get a say in the actions of those they are subsidizing.

BatchCookBabe · 25/10/2025 17:53

MidnightPatrol · 25/10/2025 11:04

Nursery about £1k a month usually?

I wish. £2,200 - £2,500 round here.

Good grief! It's not worth going out to work if nursery is that much!

£30,000 a year for NURSERY?!😱 Glad I had mine when I did. (More than a quarter century ago.)

.

Unrulyscrumptious · 25/10/2025 17:54

No5ChalksRoad · 25/10/2025 16:33

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

It takes focus, effort and determination.

That's quite a horrible thing to say in response to PPs point about sexual assault

No5ChalksRoad · 25/10/2025 17:57

SlobbinBlob · 25/10/2025 17:04

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.

Keep making things up.

Unless they are raped, the solution to all of the above is to not have sex. It's not complicated. I know all about hormones but it's still possible to be a celibate teenager if abortion and contraception are off the table.

And I am no prude, I don't care if people have sex with 10 others on the hour every hour in the middle of the market square. But use multiple means of contraception and don't expect those who are more prudent to support you. Period.

Ubertomusic · 25/10/2025 17:59

shuggles · 25/10/2025 17:40

@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.

They are paying 60% of all IT already, and how exactly is that different? I'm not in top 10% but I haven't been using the NHS or state education for years, where can I request my tax exemption? I'd rather spend my money on my child than on your state pension, and as you say we all want you dead anyway.

Unrulyscrumptious · 25/10/2025 17:59

shuggles · 25/10/2025 17:08

@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.

But anyone could argue your singledom is a lifestyle choice, you don't have to be in a romantic partnership to split the cost of living with someone rather than choosing to live alone. Why should you have less tax liability because you don't want to with someone else to save money? That's how you sound when you talk about other people's life choices.

No5ChalksRoad · 25/10/2025 18:02

user793847984375948 · 25/10/2025 16:54

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.

I'm starting to think you are 13 with all of your immature, disingenuous nonsense.

There are nearly 9 billion (billion with a B) human beings on this earth, all competing for shelter, food, water, heat, breathable air. And a livelihood. The childish notion that everyone can have everything they want and a fun, easy, fulfilling job is laughable.

It's the fault of procreators not hardworking, contributing people like me that we are where we are. I'm not inclined to indulge them any further than we already do.

SlobbinBlob · 25/10/2025 18:03

No5ChalksRoad · 25/10/2025 17:57

Keep making things up.

Unless they are raped, the solution to all of the above is to not have sex. It's not complicated. I know all about hormones but it's still possible to be a celibate teenager if abortion and contraception are off the table.

And I am no prude, I don't care if people have sex with 10 others on the hour every hour in the middle of the market square. But use multiple means of contraception and don't expect those who are more prudent to support you. Period.

I’m not making things up, I experienced multiple of these and I know others who have, too. What a nasty response.

I’m amazed at some of the attitude here, because MN is usually a very feminist space until teen pregnancy comes up then it’s a big fuck you to underage girls whose only crime was being pregnant.

40weeksmummy · 25/10/2025 18:04

MidnightPatrol · 25/10/2025 11:04

Nursery about £1k a month usually?

I wish. £2,200 - £2,500 round here.

This! I'm in East London, paid £1254 for 4 days in 2020 . I'm pretty sure full time costs around 2k now. Nursery opened 7.30-5.30 . I used to work 8-5 in Central London, so had to pay even more for wraparound. Crazy.

user793847984375948 · 25/10/2025 18:04

No5ChalksRoad · 25/10/2025 18:02

I'm starting to think you are 13 with all of your immature, disingenuous nonsense.

There are nearly 9 billion (billion with a B) human beings on this earth, all competing for shelter, food, water, heat, breathable air. And a livelihood. The childish notion that everyone can have everything they want and a fun, easy, fulfilling job is laughable.

It's the fault of procreators not hardworking, contributing people like me that we are where we are. I'm not inclined to indulge them any further than we already do.

But why didn't you just write Billion with a capital B?

OP posts:
Ubertomusic · 25/10/2025 18:04

shuggles · 25/10/2025 17:40

@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.

The income tax makes roughly 11% of our GDP if you failed to see how the two are related.

user793847984375948 · 25/10/2025 18:05

Ubertomusic · 25/10/2025 17:44

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

Oh London? Yeah things are wild down there. Rent prices are just not sustainable are they?

OP posts:
Unrulyscrumptious · 25/10/2025 18:05

No5ChalksRoad · 25/10/2025 17:53

Good point.

The village, if it's expected to subsidize, should also get a say in the actions of those they are subsidizing.

We're all benefiting from the taxes of others in some way or another, which way do I get to have a say in your life? Can I send you for some empathy lessons?

No5ChalksRoad · 25/10/2025 18:06

HRchatter · 25/10/2025 17:07

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 🙄

When you decided to produce four human beings, did you contemplate what would happen in the event of job loss, economic downturn, divorce? Or just proceed with indulging your "wants" without planning for worst-case scenarios?

How did people with such high incomes end up with so few assets? Were you married?

I can't muster much sympathy for people who just blithely assume the world will always go their way, and if it doesn't, someobody else will pick up the costs.

user793847984375948 · 25/10/2025 18:08

RingoJuice · 25/10/2025 17:35

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)

No, it's taxpayers who pay for it. Rich white men store their wealth in low or no tax offshore accounts.

OP posts:
Unrulyscrumptious · 25/10/2025 18:08

SlobbinBlob · 25/10/2025 18:03

I’m not making things up, I experienced multiple of these and I know others who have, too. What a nasty response.

I’m amazed at some of the attitude here, because MN is usually a very feminist space until teen pregnancy comes up then it’s a big fuck you to underage girls whose only crime was being pregnant.

Edited

The vitriol on here towards young girls in a very vulnerable situation is shocking. I'm sorry for your experiences

user793847984375948 · 25/10/2025 18:09

40weeksmummy · 25/10/2025 18:04

This! I'm in East London, paid £1254 for 4 days in 2020 . I'm pretty sure full time costs around 2k now. Nursery opened 7.30-5.30 . I used to work 8-5 in Central London, so had to pay even more for wraparound. Crazy.

So, in the week how much quality time did you have with your children?

OP posts:
SlobbinBlob · 25/10/2025 18:09

Unrulyscrumptious · 25/10/2025 18:08

The vitriol on here towards young girls in a very vulnerable situation is shocking. I'm sorry for your experiences

Thank you. I see it all the time online, and I usually just assume people have other things going on in their own lives. In real life, most people are kind.

Illbethereinaminute · 25/10/2025 18:10

I would struggle to put a roof over mine and my children's head if my husband and I divorced. I'm on minimum wage, wouldn't get any kind of mortgage, even for a shared ownership with a 50K deposit and rentals are so expensive and the demand is so high that given a choice, most landlords would choose a professional rather than me.

I've never been able to afford kids though, I've never earned that much even in my mid 20s when we decided to start a family. Due to my wages and an unsociable hours job I didn't want to stay in (and progression with children is almost impossible) it made sense to drop down to part time evenings and weekends so that no childcare fees were necessary.

As a result I'm finding it almost impossible to find any kind of job above minimum wage, I've been applying for loads on and off for 3 years now since my youngest started school but I'm not even getting interviews for jobs that don't require experience. I have experience, I have a degree but I'm almost 40, my CV probably makes it obvious I have children due to my jobs/age so I can't compete with people who have been doing the job for years who are younger and more flexible than me.

Should I never have had children in a marriage because if shit happened I couldn't afford them?

I think most of the population would struggle to afford them without relying on some kind of handout because housing and childcare is just so expensive.

Even my husband would struggle to provide them with the same lifestyle they have now and he's earning above average.

I don't think people should have kids without putting some thought into how they will provide for them but if only people who could afford children without any kind of top up from the government if they were to find themselves single, barely anybody would have kids.

GoldPoster · 25/10/2025 18:11

The problem is multi faceted. Are people who have little resources and have multiple children without considering the consequences more likely to neglect the children? You can’t assume that he children will be brought up be poor but loving parents or parent.

Wealthy parents can be neglectful too and unloving, but sufficient money may smooth over the worst effects of that.

YorkshireGoldDrinker · 25/10/2025 18:13

Since women became a good chunk of the working population, that's more money being raised in taxation, therefore more money is passing through more hands, then consumer confidence increases and prices rise. This in turn boosts GDP which then fuels confidence in the economy. Everything is great! Brilliant, even! But is it?

There are now two incomes (assuming both parents work), prices have risen, but that's fine because we now have dual income households, it's all perfectly well affordable. Confidence grows and because of the propensity for governments to borrow, inflation then also takes hold, so prices rise even further, more specifically, your money is no longer worth the value the BoE maintains the illusion of. They print the money, it's also their job to tell you a fiver is still worth a fiver. So then being able to service (let alone pay off) a mortgage on a single income before retirement is now impossible. What you end up with is a smaller house, probably even rented accommodation, a decent but expensive car (often leased) and fewer foreign holidays. Children barely factor in anymore once you add up the cost of the aforementioned. Remember, rampant inflation + taxation eats up dual income in no time.

I've always thought it a bit strange that a woman can work 5 days a week and 2 of those days will be enough to pay for 2 days of childcare (is it? I've heard it costs a fortune in some areas), then that's 3 days where she can't afford childcare. So big daddy government steps in to force more taxation to pay for wraparound care, means tested of course. Can't have people abusing taxpayer money, can we? Government does it all the time, but you're not allowed.

Anyway, my point is women were better off working in hospitals, restaurants and generally any job that doesn't involve a high power career being subservient to a big and powerful, wealthy man (or woman, there are plenty of female bosses out there) who can and most certainly will get rid of you for someone younger, fitter and with more energy and vitality than you. But none of that is affordable now, so women have no choice but to go to work. Unless their husband has a juicy and bullet proof income, they're more or less sentenced to a full time job hoping to be able to retire. Yes, 'sentenced', because after years of getting up at the arsecrack of dawn, barely eating breakfast, getting your kids to school, dealing with the congestion on the roads, and merely surviving, it does really feel like a punishment. It's not meant to be like this, but this is how things are now.

The most heartbreaking aspect of all of this in my humble opinion is abortion. People can't afford to raise children, their contraception fails and a pregnancy occurs. A new life is conceived! Praise God! But that little life is going to be ended before they're born because their parents can't afford to raise them. About a third of Gen Z don't exist because of elective abortion. 1/3 of a generation aborted.

We're killing our own families off before they're born because we can't afford to raise them. We can't go on like this. Oh but yes we can, it's called immigration. Right, so you're admitting population replacement. No, you ignorant racist. We need more people. We can't afford to have babies and don't like our bodies going through hell, so we import people who can.

Sigh. I need to go and have a pick-me-up....

Lemonadepie · 25/10/2025 18:20

HRchatter · 25/10/2025 16:23

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

How about taking out insurance that insures you against exactly those risks?

twistyizzy · 25/10/2025 18:25

Lemonadepie · 25/10/2025 18:20

How about taking out insurance that insures you against exactly those risks?

Exactly. I thought everyone who has a mortgage had to have life insurance? We certainly do, at the highest rate possible just for this eventuality. It will cover the mortgage plus 1 year of living. Plus many people in employment get a death benefit, both DH and I get 2 years salary if the other one dies whilst in employment.

Do people not know this? Or plan for it?

Algen · 25/10/2025 18:36

twistyizzy · 25/10/2025 18:25

Exactly. I thought everyone who has a mortgage had to have life insurance? We certainly do, at the highest rate possible just for this eventuality. It will cover the mortgage plus 1 year of living. Plus many people in employment get a death benefit, both DH and I get 2 years salary if the other one dies whilst in employment.

Do people not know this? Or plan for it?

You don’t have to have life insurance as a condition of your mortgage in the UK.

While I agree that insurance can be really valuable, not everyone is able to get insurance they can afford - it really depends on health conditions. And then we’re getting back to the argument that disabled people shouldn’t have children, which is not an avenue I want to go down.

Swipe left for the next trending thread