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.

There's a reason why there has long been (regardless of what people tell themselves) a strong stigma against out of wedlock births. And it's not because we're prudes or care who has sex with whom.

it's because most societies have recognized that where there isn't a committed couple raising children, it falls to the rest of society to pick up that slack, and we don't want to. when people bother to get married before conceiving offspring, there is a better chance that those offspring will be reared by two parents. many scholarly and scientific studies have proven beyond a doubt that outcomes are better for people raised in a two-parent home, even when adjusting for stress in a home with two unhappily married parents. It's still better.

there really is absolutely no excuse for producing additional human beings outside of a legally committed marriage.

She did get married. Irrelevant when. Didn’t actually make a difference did it ?

Yep, got your point, stop the UC and send your children do her job for her wages. Shouldn't be a problem at all.

We will do our best to be as ungrateful as you are :)

My sister got married about a year after having her kids. They have been married for over a decade now. But I imagine if my BIL left her, then certain people on here would still say it is her fault and that she "popped out kids for the tax payer to fund".

Well no, she expected herself and her husband to support their children and eachother, like with childcare for her night shifts. That was the plan. He fucked off. That was not the plan.

And are we really at the point where a career in the NHS is seen as feckless and irresponsible when it comes to having children? Who exactly should have kids then? Only people on 50k+ wages?

Sorry I can't explain to you why that is arrogant, your parents should have done that but they obviously forgot.

I don't begrudge any couple with atleast 1 person working full time having 1-3 children but requiring benefits for top ups.

I understand why many women don't feel it's not worth working if they don't bring in much more than what's paid out for childcare. I read the arguments, pension, career progression etc, but not everyone has a career, many just have jobs. If I was in that position, I'd not want to go back till children are school aged.

I do take issue with people knowingly being in a shit financial situation, not having appropriate housing, not in any form of employment, basically as a couple having a baby knowing it'll be 100% tax payer funded. Which i unfortunately do know a few women/ couples who have had usually multiple children in this situation.

Getting married BEFORE conception is the key. It demonstrates a mindset that is oriented toward commitment, stability and establishing a household unit. And a commitment to your community that you (general you, not you you) are going to be stable and mature members of society.

Going through the motions after producing four kids out of wedlock isn't even remotely the same.

@TwinklyStork im of a centre left mentality and totally agree- i only had 1 child with my H( now 27) simply because I knew we would both need to work full time to have a pretty ok lifestyle and look after our son well- also as it was my 2nd marriage I’m well aware that if I ended up on my own I wanted to be able to cope - unless there is a lot of wealth in the family and you are married these days I wouldn’t personally risk ‘big families’ - and I certainly wouldn’t expect others to go round paying me for making those choices .

Perhaps that's because they were too busy paying their way instead of sitting on their arses at home all day while expecting the state to keep me.

Again, you're very touchy about this without having a coherent argument to back up your position. How many of your kids are funded by the taxpayer?

My child goes to a private school and I pay for private healthcare. It's not your business at all though, is it?

Your parents were clearly absent, no need to prove it further.

Considering the divorce rates( I’ve heard they’re getting lower though) do they really demonstrate any of that?

Of course. But her post reads as if she had four kids with him without the financial protection of getting married (but again, it's really badly written, so I could have interpreted it incorrectly). So either a) they only married eight years into the relationship by which time they already had four kids and he left her six months after they married, but any time during having those four kids, he could have walked out and left her penniless and that's a really vulnerable position for her and the kids or b) that or they were married when they had the kids and he cheated on her six months into the marriage, in which case she went on to have four kids over eight years with an known unfaithful husband. Neither are particularly smart, are they? I don't have much sympathy for that, because both show an extraordinary lack of judgement.

And no, an NHS career isn't feckless, of course, and it's scanadlous that wages in this country don't allow people to comfortably afford families, but that doesn't change the fact that a single, trainee-level NHS salary is not enough money to support four children on. Clearly it isn't, because she's now raising her four kids on benefits, presumably because going to work at her salary level doesn't pay enough to do so. And those children were planned, over the course of eight years. She/they had four kids, deliberately, knowing that they couldn't support them themselves (unless he was earning 6 figures plus, which I highly doubt) and the state would have to pick up the tab for them. And that's just entitled and stupid and wrong.

You know nothing about me. Please explain how you deduced that? I'd love to hear your reasoning.

And yes, I'm sure your child goes to private school; you're not even bright enough to string together a coherent or logical argument, so I doubt very much you're able to earn enough to pay for that.

Whatever makes you happy 🤷‍♀️

See, you can't, can you? You can't even string together a logical counter argument, let alone explain how you deduced that my parents were absent. And yet you expect me to believe you're educated enough earn enough to send your child to private school and pay for private healthcare.
Of course you do.

Having an abortion is a burden on society.
If anything having kids you cant afford and expecting the taxpayer to pay up is a burden on society.
I dont understand the point of your post?

Sorry I meant having an abortion IS NOT a burden on society

I don't need to present any arguments to you and couldn't care less if you believe me or not. You kept asking intrusive questions, you got an answer, you're unhappy with it but it's not my problem, sorry.

Double posting

Exactly-the well off and highly educated are the ones stopping at two or three kids because they know if things went south they wouldn't be able to afford more. Why should they have to limit their families whilst others pop out as many as they like?

There is nothing actually stopping them having more.

It's not single mums it's big family sizes. Everyone should be able to have one or two kids and I don't think anyone would begrudge someone that but four is a luxury most of the country wouldn't even be able to afford.

I'm not. Not at all. I've not said that once. There's a HUGE difference between not having children at all on a minimum wage job and deliberately planning and having FOUR children on a minimum wage job when you can't afford to feed them. Huge difference. Massive. It's the difference between getting by, which most people do, and expecting other people to fund your life choices, which most people do not.

Again, bit dim in the comprehension department, aren't you? Point me towards where I've said that nobody on a low wage should have children. You won't be able to, because I've never said that.

As intrusive as declaring that my parents neglected me, you mean? My parents did nothing of the sort. You, on the other hand, from your vehement, furious posts on here: obviously popping out kids you can't afford to pay for or care for with no thought or care for who will. Hope that helps.