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.

We had two children - I would have liked a third but realistically that would have meant a different kind of car, different housing, different choices along the way about extra curricular, childcare . I know it’s not the same as making the decision to have children at all but it was making a judgment based on budget as reasonable and responsible people do.

And how did the OP go from wanting this to be an interesting discussion to it’s all the fault of rich white men ? She wanted a chance for a rant.

In-work benefits are better for society. Not only is that person contributing through taxes they are also in work, doing a needed job, having a place in the community, opening their world and that of their child.

I would rather pay more to parents in work through benefits, than less to parents choosing to not be working at all.

If someone doesn't want to work (who is able to), then they need to self fund their lifestyle. It shouldn't be an option to be a SAHM funded by the tax payer.

If someone can work with barriers removed - such as subsidised nursery, then I'd rather we pay for the nursery and gain a worker. It benefits the whole of society and the child.

So raising a child is not contributing to society? Why do the government pay childcare workers to do it then, if it adds nothing to society? What if I told you that you should afford your own childcare when you work, and stop expecting the state to pay your childcare, would you think that is unfair?

We had four kids and managed to pay very little childcare by working around each other. Obviously you have to have jobs that can accomodate this. I guess paying childcare for couples to both stay in work probably saves money in the if those parents carry on working. and paying taxes in the longer term.

When people I know (including myself) use that phrase it’s typically directed at the people who choose to have a child/children that they are not financially able to look after at a basic level. Can’t afford breakfast, can’t afford clean, well fitting basic clothing. Can’t afford books/toys or play/school equipment. Then go on to add more children into the mix. No, I don’t think those women should continue to have children they cannot afford to support to a reasonable level. We’re not talking about childcare. We’re talking about the very basic things that will enable that child to live a full life. We not saying that a couple who have fallen on hard times, had a catastrophic death/injury leaving a parent to raise children on their own with only one leg, half an arm and no job shouldn’t receive the help they require of course they should. But no one should be bringing children into the world if from the get go they can’t afford to give that child clean clothes, good food and the ability to enhance their education through books and toys. That’s not for a welfare system to fund, it’s for parents to fund and if you can’t, then don’t have any.

Ok so my Mum had 4 kids. Which of my siblings should she not have had?

Get the Taxpayer to pay for the latest Smartphone and
game console , school fees and uniforms ........

Everyone pays some sort of tax, e.g. Council Tax, VAT etc etc.

Women's and mother's unpaid care was so valuable to society that we have not, and will never, find something that can replace it. No idea what the solution is

What people mean is don’t have successive children when you’re struggling.

Nobody judges a single mother with two kids to her ex-husband and a recent divorce getting UC. People absolutely do judge a single mother with four kids from three relationships who’s never worked.

Any she conceived whilst the older ones were going without.

The ones she couldn't afford clearly.
If she managed to afford them all then there's no problem is there? The problem is an entitled attitude of some to have as many as they personally want, irrespective if whether they can afford those DC because the taxpayer will foot the bill. That's the issue.
Some of us only have 1 DC because that's the number we could afford.

Why are people on MN utterly incapable of arguing without dramatic appeals to emotion and personal circumstances

At what age? Do you want people handing over their newborns and going back to work? Are we still allowed maternity leave? And if someone doesn't want to go back to work what then?

Well, it’s simply really isn’t it? If she couldn’t afford 2 then she should have stopped at one, she couldn’t afford three, she should have stopped at two etc. It’s called planning.

It’s a tricky argument but I think the most frustrating thing for me is the amount of kids people have, without any regard for what can change in the future.

As soon as you get to 3+ kids in particular you’re making yourself (and children) very vulnerable if there are drastic life changes like divorce, death or disease. I appreciate you can’t live your life as if something terrible is going to happen, but equally, when you have children you have to consider them over your own desires. So that’s the thing for me I struggle with.

Was your mum the queen? If so, she shouldn't have had Andrew. Beyond that, it's wilfully missing the wider and well-made points to be getting indignant about your personal situation. No one is going to exterminate your siblings. That doesn't mean there's no issue to be debated.

I agree if someone has 5+ kids and lives in a cramped home and the kids lives are horrific. But you know I had a child at 16 and obviously wouldn’t of been able to afford it without “the dole” but luckily was such an ignoramus i didn’t even realise people thought this way until I was in my twenties and had a job.

So no self hating procrastination for me.

I wonder about this too. With the introduction of the very generous childcare funding (and from 9 months old!), there will be so many people working but not actually contributing anything from a tax perspective. Raising your own children rather than dumping them in childcare as soon as you can is contributing to society. Early and intensive institutional childcare (vs being at home with a parent) causes long term mental health issues. We would all benefit from a mentally stable society.

Owning a house is out of reach of a hell of a lot of people these days, even for people who earn a decent amount.

Having children should not be a hobby and no having children is not a community service thr whole world needs less children not more, people go on about climate change

This mindset baffles me, and It’s so common. The childfree are getting a civilised society, everyone’s literal survival depends on people having children. It’s not just about someone looking after you in a nursing home; it’s the food we eat, the water you drink, the buildings we live in - everything that keeps your life comfortable depends on a workforce - and as you get older a YOUNGER workforce ie other people’s children. The older generations seem to have a mindset of “I’m alright jack” because the generations in their 20s-40s now will be ensuring their nice comfy old age. If people don’t have (enough) children, then future generations will slowly start starving, society as we know it will fall apart. Miserable, painful deaths. Not caring about that because
it won’t affect you is the most selfish thing in this discussion. Not people having kids.

Ten years ago MC people thought they would be able to afford two children and comfortable lifestyle, now they cannot afford much comfort, next they will be struggling to pay the bills (pretty soon).

With the crash now almost unavoidable, no one can be certain of anything.

Because parents should absolutely be able to afford the basics for their own offspring. It is not fair to have a child or children when you already know your circumstances were dire and appalling when pregnant with them (during the early stages).
I have nothing against people who have had children and their circumstances have changed drastically because people do not have the power of prediction but I am 100% against those parents who arent housing their existing kids properly and yet, they have proceeded to add another one into the mix. Hugely irresponsible and they are not putting their kids best interests at heart.
Having kids is a massive responsibility and if as parents we are not putting our existing kids first, no body will. There is no higher power looking out for them, its just us parents and families
Shame on those parents who expect the state to bail them out every bloody time they mess up. (When they already knew their situation was bad enough as it is)

I worked full time from pretty much the first year after my daughter was born. I paid for childcare. My career was still ultimately damaged by it. Don’t be fooled that returning to work as a working mum protects your career.