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.

IMO the current narrative of "parents shouldn't be out of pocket" etc is highly dangerous because it completely negates parental responsibility for raising, feeding and clothing their own DC.
It's like Labour want people to have DC and then hand them over to the state.

It's insidious.

Children are expensive, time consuming etc and this should be taken into account when having them. I'm not talking about parents being made redundant etc once DC are here because that's what benefits are for. I mean parents who have never contributed to the system yet are happy for stretched working parents to pay for their DC. I honestly believe we should move to a contributions based benefits system (excluding severe disability).

Parents have a responsibility to feed, clothe and parent their DC. If they fail to do that then there should be targeted support in place until they are able to do those things. Just handing out taxpayer funded freebies isn't the way to go but yet here we are with Labour and their supporters wanting more and more state control over parents and parenting.

We then create yet another generation who don't know how to parent properly so rely even more on the state

A recent study revealed you need to be earning more than £55k before you are actually a net contributor to the state.

I don't want to live in a society where children are rationed by wealth. (And I speak as someone who has always earned well).

Are we realistically saying that a postman and healthcare assistant could get married but not have kids?

(to pick two socially useful but lower paid jobs)

I know people who have built up their careers, waited until they are financially stable in their mid thirties to start a family and have unfortunatley experienced fertility problems.

I had my dc in early/mid twenties and although money is tight at times, I am happy I had them youngish, especially as I have gynaecological problems.

Having said that, I was financially stable when I had my two dc. I know there is no way I could afford a third in my current situation. If I were ever to fall pregnant unexpectedly, I would opt for a termination.

Compulsory state funded nursey that is free at point of access for all and private options for those who can pay (as happens with schooling now) would fix this problem and remove the need for debate.

There's a chasm in difference between someone who has the means to support their own child(ren) and falls on hard times via redundancy, illness, etc., compared to those who have no intention of supporting their own children and have them knowing they're planning to be reliant on the state,

Most people are fine with someone having 1-2 kids and having help from the state but having litters of kids you can’t afford is a whole other story. I plan on having one child as I doubt I could afford more and live comfortably on my salary.

I saw a news story a few months ago about this woman whining about how she couldn’t afford to raise her kids. She had FOUR kids and was working PART TIME in a cafe on minimum wage?! How on EARTH did she think she could have supported four kids on that?! But obviously she knew she couldn’t and was expecting taxpayers to fund her lifestyle! I cannot imagine being so entitled I’d have so many kids whilst on minimum wage and expecting poor mug taxpayers to have to fit the bill.

So non-contributers get it for free and the people who fund that free provision have to pay? You can't see the issue with that and why so many middle earners are utterly fucked off at the moment? We are the ones who pay for everything that Labour claims is "free" yet get nothing back ourselves and are constantly vilified for daring to earn just above thresholds for help! What's the fucking point?

I don’t think the 30 free hours is really comparable. The government pays nurseries something like £3 an hour for these. If you could have that as a lump sum, I doubt £90 a week would be encouraging people to give up their jobs

The situation that annoys me most in this scenario is people who have a job and are working successfully (albeit with some government top up in whatever form), who then have children and work out they’d only be £20 a week better off working after paying childcare, than staying at home and claiming all the benefits. I don’t think that should be an option. If you can fund yourself by working you should. Or fund yourself to be a SAHM. Expecting the tax payer to fund a lifestyle choice seems very entitled

Realistically, I don't think anyone is saying that. That's a strawman example.

Meanwhile the unselfish people who are child free are funding everyone and getting nothing back in return! 25% off council tax does not really cut it.

Very few people can be certain about how many children they'll be able to 'afford' in the future. Death, injury, illness, financial crisis, industrial changes... almost everyone can find themselves in a bad spot with drastically changed circumstances through little/no fault of their own.

Most reasonable people would accept that.

But I think the people usually on the brunt of the phrase 'don't have kids you can't afford' (especially here) are those who aren't in difficult circumstances by chance, but through - often repeatedly - making poor decisions.

I struggle to have sympathy for those people and I do feel justified in pointing out the obvious to them when they complain about how hard life it.

With that said, ultimately it's not the kids fault. I have no issue whatsoever with my taxes being spent on free school meals. A hungry child is a hungry child regardless of how irresponsible their parents are.

In addition, parents who are working and don't have long breaks to be a stay at home parent are more likely to progress their careers (the fact that even for highly paid professional careers taking even a few years out can blight your career prospect is a whole other discussion), and so end up paying more tax/NI into the system and potentially with more income may end up with a larger private pension, meaning more spending power, which is better overall for the UK.

That's the problem facing the country in a nutshell. People doing what the hell they want to, assuming and expecting taxpayers to fund their lifestyle choices. We can't afford it and will have to change sooner or later.

This doesn’t make any sense? We have a childbirth decline… young people aren’t having children now, certainly not enough

People forget that things change, and not just personally. This rhetoric had been around forever. When we had my son nearly 18 years ago the household income pre tax was around 50k and we were very lucky and could rent in the suburbs of London for around 1k.
We were both also very lucky and had career development paths.
However the salaries for the equivalent jobs have probably only gone up about 20 to 30 percent in that time. Whereas costs are up around the following.
Rent 150%
Utilities 300%
Food 200%
Travel over 100%

The cost of living issues have genuinely pushed a huge proportion of people over the edge into poverty.

Of course, but that’s rather different from people who know they can’t support even one child - and maybe themselves, too - without depending on the taxpayer, but go on to have more anyway.

Though having said that, if childcare were a lot more affordable, as it is in sundry other European countries, e.g. France and Sweden, IMO a good many more women with young children would choose to work at least part time, while at present it’s often out of the question, since it would v likely cost rather more than they could earn.

Not to mention that a nursery setting for pre schoolers is often very beneficial, especially if otherwise they are occupied with screens for much of the day.

The childless are getting PLENTY back.

Do you never use the NHS? The Local Authority,? Dustbins, Public Transport, Retail?, Cafes?

Who would work in those industries if we all remained childless?

The wrong people are having children, and the right people aren't. We need the ones with a good work ethic to have children so that their children will also work in the future. What we don't want are more feckless people who don't work, having children who in turn are unlikely to work, causing bigger drain on the taxpayer. We need quality not quantity.

People are not having children they can't afford/don't want, and as a result the birth rate is tanking alarmingly.

Actually, you don't have to lecture people to reduce the birth rate below 2 children per woman. All you have to do is give women access to reliable contraception and other economic choices.

I am amazed people are still spouting nonsense around "people need to stop having lots of kids".

Almost all of us have stopped having lots of kids, many of us have stopped having kids in the plural and an increasing number of us have stopped having kids full-stop.

The message has been heard and received. Don't sweat about a few outliers. Sweat about the abolition of the state pension and social security system as we know it in the near future.

You could apply that logic to people choosing not to have children too. It's equally offensive either way.

Honestly…yes I do think people should wait until they earn more then minimum and better still have savings and own a home before they have children. I really don’t think it’s too much to ask…

Other than the use of infrastructure, healthcare etc, funded collectively, when people retire, they still need public services like healthcare, pensions, and social support. Who do you think funds that? It’s the working population, which will, at that point, include the next generation, i.e. other people's kids, if you don't have your own. Even if you’re childless, you’re still part of the same system that relies on younger generations to keep things going.

Rather than a lump sum UC should just turn off work commitments till a child is 5 so that parents have the choice. Work and get childcare paid for and have a higher UC award or be a sahp and get less.

Children are expensive both in terms of time and finance. People should be thinking very hard about bringing them into the world.

Where I’ve seen the phrase mostly used seems to be in relation to blended families and throwing another set of kids into the mix. There are loads of threads on here where the older kids get a bit of a raw deal compared to the ‘new family’.

This is a bit worrying because this is intelligent ones with common sense and forethought who are choosing not to have children so is the human race going to get less intelligent? 😬