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.

No, it’s not fraudulent.

But ‘using the system’ to claim benefits means others have to pay more even taxes to fund that ‘system’

Therefore many feel that people should take more personal responsibility for their actions and life choices rather than rely on ‘the system’. We would all benefit and all have to pay less in taxes!

You have issues mate.

Social security (working age and children ) is about 10% of the budget. Do you honestly think it would make a difference, to the point of taxes being lowered? Really?

The overall welfare budget is more like 25% of overall spending and, yes, every little saving we can find will help!

That’s because pensions take up the rest.
It’s not bloody Tesco. That’s not how it works. Even if no one was on benefits tomorrow, that money would just be redistributed(and a lot of it would go into dealing with the consequences of benefits not being there anymore),rather than taxes being lowered.

Actually, that IS how it works. The more we spend, the more we either have to borrow or raise money through higher taxes!

And yet, the few instances of taxes being lowered were AFTER benefits were introduced. Funny that.

a lot of it would go into dealing with the consequences of benefits not being there anymore

And what are those consequences exactly? Is this supposed to be some equivalent of the Danegeld 😆😆😆 better pay these people money or they’ll come burglar you.

While a rise in crime is a very likely outcome, it wouldn’t be the biggest concern. Healthcare, social care(adults and children) , education etc. would see the biggest effects , and not in a good way. Long term, the country would be poorer, in more ways than one.

I'm surprised you @No5ChalksRoad aren't getting the hint that your POV is incredibly insular without the amount of times you've typed "this was the case for me so I assume it applies to everyone else" "I did this so everyone should do X" "This didn't happen in my school" "every job I ever had"
You both sounds incapable of looking outside of yourself and your own experiences. Not sure how old you are but at @No5ChalksRoad big age, it's embarrassing.

This is such a load of tripe, clearly our have absolutely zero idea about the rate of divorce and separation from marriage or even the reasons that lead to that. Funny ou keep posting you're not a prude yet you're only here posting old fashioned, and frankly misogynistic tripe about women getting married and abstaining from sex that has no actual evidence in the real world. Getting married does NOT ensure you don't split up, and staying together in an unhappy or abusive situation or even just trying to force a partner who wants to leave you will only end up in further health costs for those children raised in an absolutely unhappy situation. We have evidence that proves this. We also have evidence that proves the optimal outcome for children and it's not actually two married parents even, but dont let doing any research prevent you from posting your old fashioned patriarchal ideas about society. Your repeated assertions that society "doesn't want to" be responsible for eachother is also just your own opinions we've literally evolved and survived as a species BECAUSE of communities having paired but not 100% monogamous bonds and the "village" investing in evert child. Literally nothing you've posted here (even about the environment which you claim to care about so much more) has been factually correct at all.

This is essentially the bitterness underneath PPs comments "I have self imposed X restriction on my life, by choice, and I'm unhappy with my choices. Everyone who doesn't self imposed this misery on themselves and who claims any support from the government that is there for that reason, and that I could access too if I wish, is wrong and evil. How dare they do what I want to do" 🥱

It's not others money, they are also paying their fair share of taxes. It's a system they've bloody contributed to and are using as per it's rules and guidelines! They're using the welfare system for exactly what it's created for. This race to the bottom attitude of yours and your ilk is exhausting

@Unrulyscrumptious now I don’t agree with everything that @No5ChalksRoad says - however I’m a little baffled by your assumption that anyone receiving benefits is paying their fair share of taxes , plenty are paying absolutely zilch and have for many years, simply taken from the system . Now that indeed ‘is’ the system, so it’s not illegal as you say, but the assumption that all are contributing in taxes and NI is way off the mark - a great many are not and if they have lots of kids are purely taking significant amounts out of public money

Yeah with the largest proportion of it paying out pensions, are you advocating cutting the state pension then? That would be the biggest saving. Those elderly people should have taken personal responsibility and ensured their own income for retirement right?

Oversimplified nonsense and completely misunderstanding of government spending. Cutting spending brings down the nations income. How this isn't obvious when we've been living through years now of austerity and we've only become poorer with less money to spend (duh any economist would have said so) why on earth do you think taxes still haven't gone down despite services being cut for over decade now? Because it's only made us poorer.

People can’t help aging, and everyone does it. Every citizen benefits from a state pension, not just people who have made imprudent lifestyle choices.

Becoming a parent is 100 percent a choice. As is not working in one’s prime years. (absent significant disability).

Comparing welfare for preventable circumstances to the state pension program for the aged is absurd.

What are you basing that on please? We know that 38% of people on UC for example are in work. You have no actual evidence for the assumption that the majority claiming UC have never worked at all,.do you? 58% of UC claimants are women and we know women are usually claiming because they have had to reduce hours or stop working due to caring for children or others, do you have some evident that those 58% of women have never worked or paid into the tax system?

Also, for the nth time, when discussing someone who has never worked that includes a lot of disabled people - and it's absolutely fair that they will claim from a system set up to care for them whether they've personally paid in or not. Applying worth it value to being physically able is inherently discriminatory against disabled people and people should be careful how they talk about people being a net negative or drain etc. Hell, maybe their parents paid in a lot, maybe they didn't. We all pay into a system where we are able to work and earn an income, that will support any of us who may need it.

Every citizen benefits from a state pension, not just people who have made imprudent lifestyle choices.

Well by your logic - why should they sponge off the state of they have their own investments? Just because it's possible and allowed don't they have a moral duty to not to? And those people who didn't make prudent financial pal a for retirement and need to rely on the state pension - well that's their fault right? We all need to plan ahead I thought? Plus retirement is a lifestyle choice, you don't HAVE to stop working, why should we fund your choice to stop working ? ( See you how sound?)

Becoming a parent is 100 percent a choice.

Except it's not always but given you replied to PP discussing being sexually assaulted, I'm not expecting a new level of empathy or understanding from you there.

As is not working in one’s prime years. (absent significant disability

Again it's not always, if you have someone to care for, but you refuse to look outside your own perspective.

I'm not the one comparing them because I'm not the poster cheering on cutting the welfare bill to cut taxes. Surely cutting a small portion of the welfare bill isn't the massive saving she wanted.

@housethatbuiltmevery good points

The vast majority take out more than they'll put in but if we want to live in a civilised society we should at least try to balance the books. I hope I never have to rely on the state and do my best to avoid it as they can change the rules without notice.

I certainly did not suggest to cut state pension. I would suggest that we may need to raise the age at which we can access it, again to reduce the overall Government’s spending

Have they really ALL contributed and paid their fair share of taxes?

The welfare system is not a magic money tree or some ‘system’ that just pays out money. All OUR taxes contribute to that fund!

Well you said that the "welfare bill" is 25% of our spending and we would all have lower taxes if we cut it. The majority of the welfare bill is pensions so if you don't want to suggest cutting pensions maybe don't suggest cutting the welfare bill!

Precisely I cluding the contributions of many of those claiming it, that's the bloody point. Plus that cutting spending to these people REDUCES our national income meaning less money to go around everyone. You'd understand if you looked behind a simplistic personal budget mindset which isn't relevant to national finance. We don't magically save money by cutting expenditure like a personal citizen would.