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.

Ok, I suggest we 1) raise the pension age and 2) reduce the non pension welfare bill. Is that ok?

Well no, you need to be specific. You wanna cut disability benefits? Sickness? UC top ups for workers? Do you even know which one or you're just reaching for a random solution? And what about the effect of cutting that expenditure of the welfare bill affecting national income?

@Unrulyscrumptious I never said they had never worked , I said a great many had contributed little over the years financially - an awful lot of women claiming UC perfectly legally work part time in modest earning jobs and pay not much tax or NI yet are getting UC, rent allowance, nursery payments etc plus they get their NI covered off if not paying enough to enable full state pension in many cases . I’m not against this, I think you misunderstand me, it’s much harder for women with children in my opinion to make provision given how society is and an awful lot have been put in this position by useless men ( not all though)!what I am against is the idea that ‘they are fully contributing’ if it comes to tax and shouldn’t think twice about having as many kids as they fancy and expect the state to pick up the tab - because what they are taking out the system far exceeds anything they are putting in if it comes down to hard cash . It’s ridiculous to think otherwise . Tgeir £112 a month tax doesn’t touch the sides when they are maybe getting £800 a month out the system . There are plenty of elder married women too ( I’m 63 by the way) who have contributed little too, this isn’t all about younger single mums - my father in laws now deceased partner did next to no work after she was 24 - even with grown up kids but was very keen on the ‘we worked hard’ line of speech and very negative on anyone claiming - fully expected ‘her’ state pension though and UC when she split with her husband . Very right wing, except on aspects that affected her purse contents.
and then we have a total waster we know ( male) perfectly intelligent just a lazy bugger who hasn’t worked since he was26 , now 63,- no doubt will be fully expecting to continue to get his flat paid for till the day he dies plus state pension /pension credit etc .

I'm sorry but you're going to have to help me here.

You've said on more than one occasion now that cutting spending 'brings down the nation's income'.

What do you mean exactly?

I get where you're coming from but where does that logic end up? Placing a worth on people by whether they've paid in as much as you. Higher earners are always going to have pain in more, because they earn more. Should they be more entitled to support from the state? I don't think so. Just as many families will use NHS, local council care etc possibly hundreds of thousands or millions worth of support that another family will never need. The social safety net is there in principal completely counter to this face to the bottom of who deserves X by what they paid in. Some people will never pay in a day in their lives and will needs full time care their entire lives, is that "fair"? It's not even a relevant discussion for adults imo otherwise you get to the pettiness of PP who don't wanna pay towards schools because they have children. Plus what are the circumstances of this many who has gone 40 years not working? Because if he has no dependants, and nothing stopping him from working I'm not going to just believe that he is on some full benefit ride..plus it all still really bad a tone to it of "I'm looking around and down at who to blame for how hard life is" rather than looking up at the employers who don't pay a living wage and the government that doesn't fund services everyone needs and therefore you're out of pocket paying for yourself.

37% of UC claimants are in work.

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/universal-credit-statistics-29-april-2013-to-9-january-2025/universal-credit-statistics-29-april-2013-to-9-january-2025

41% receive UC with no work requirements - these are mostly disabled or mothers with pre-nursery children. Which ones do you want to deprive of UC?

The rest must be preparing for work (students) or searching for work and proving this to their work coach regularly (weekly to quarterly).

The majority of the welfare bill is pensions

This is incorrect.

Pensions are 49% of welfare budget, so less than 12%. UK state pensions are one of the lowest in developed countries already. It's benefits, UC, housing, child benefits etc etc which take 13% of total spend. Only one in three people claiming are in some sort of employment, and most of them are part time

The majority of those with "no work requirements" are disabled. Do you propose we starve them as they've never worked and are useless anyway?

Here is the list of "no work requirements" criteria:

When your work-related activities will be removed
Your work-related requirements will be removed if:

• a medical professional has said you might have 12 months or less to live - find out more about Universal Credit if you might have 12 months of less to live
• you’re assessed as limited capability for work and work-related activity (LCWRA) after you have a work capability assessment
• you’re earning as much as can be expected

Caring for at least 35 hours a week for someone who gets a health or disability related benefit
You will not need to do any work-related activities if you are caring for at least 35 hours a week for someone getting:

• Attendance Allowance
• Constant Attendance Allowance
• Disability Living Allowance (middle or higher rate)
• Personal Independence Payment (PIP) daily living component
• the Armed Forces Independence Payment

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/universal-credit-and-your-claimant-commitment-quick-guide/universal-credit-and-your-claimant-commitment

And children under one, foster parents etc

data.parliament.uk/DepositedPapers/Files/DEP2024-0442/121._No_Work_Related_Requirements_regime_V10.0.pdf

I think if you’ve paid in more then when you are made redundant etc you should get a higher amount back. That’s how it works in many other countries. Then redundancy isn’t quite the drop in earnings disaster that it is in this country, and as a policy it encourages more people working full time.

That seems like a great idea. It encourages more people to work and to pay more taxes, just like insurance premiums for unforeseen circumstances events.

I keep posting this link (there are many similar ones, I just saved it) on similar threads

To drop my hours to 22.5 even though I’m a single parent? | Mumsnet

Our current welfare system discourages work. It's in dire need of fundamental reform.

Re disability payments - there is no equivalent of this in any other country, nothing similar to PIP. As a basic rule disability assessment has to be based on formal diagnosis, not on "how I believe it affects me".
Unemployment benefits should be very time limited. After a few years of unemployment person becomes permanently unemployable so this has to stop.

But this will never happen, parties of all colours will continue squeezing middle classes until there is nothing left to take anymore.

That is shocking - that people are better off financially by working less ! That definitely needs reforming.

The whole welfare system needs reforming.

It's massively skewed to benefit those 'playing' the system, either in terms of working very specific hours to enable maximum UC with least amount of work, and people finding ways to claim benefits that were never intended to be available to them when the system was conceived.

This is at both ends of spectrum.

For those high earners who approach 100k, especially if they have childcare expenses, it makes sense to reduce hours as well.

The system is crazy.

If you were prudent all your life and saved with the hope to pass something to your kids and you need care home, your savings and house will be taken to pay for it whilst you're at the same place in the next room to someone who spent life on benefits and is "funded by state", you just pay quadruple rate of what LA paying for them for the same service.

Very few of the tax or benefit policies we have make any sense.

Unfortunately people will be along to try tell you that's not true, and/or to tell you that anyone who had managed to save for the future was just lucky, so hard lines...

I know, been here long enough...

The next decade will be interesting - AI will take a significant proportion of traditional middle class jobs, so there will be much less higher tax payers. Ultra rich will still be untouchable, even more than now. Once Labour redistribute all they can, how welfare will look like?

Who knows...

Looking at the stats (government published, not Daily Mail propaganda) it's easy to see why the far right (Reform Ltd.) are gaining so much traction, though.

Are they? So why am I working extra shifts this week whilst being on UC? 🤔 Genuinely I am better working as much as I can as well as the UC.

First of all, qualified midwives should be paid enough to not need UC at all, it's a disgrace to the country key workers have to rely on government support. But hey ho, we can see on this thread the attitude to NHS workers so no, we will continue paying them peanuts and bashing them as we please.

Secondly, PIP has nothing to do with UC and is not a disability benefit per se. It's very difficult to get PIP for people with official medical diagnoses and not all disabled people receive it.

You should get your facts straight.

Meeting the AET with one individual in a couple means the other has their work expectation turned off.

Exactly!

And they still believe it's about immigration. It's not at all, but Labour don't have brains to understand this.

No it's not incorrect,.Pensions are the largest group of that budget with state pension being the largest spend of the welfare budget. The other 51% aren't a single group.

Put it simply for you when you reduce government spending you also reduce the governments income because (as is quite obvious) the money the government spends out comes back to it via taxation etc via various avenues. This is why austerity has only made us poorer, if people don't have money to spend businesses suffer and their taxes drop, if the government isn't supplying services that business get contracts to supply again income drops. Government finances aren't like a household budget where you cut spending and you have more money in your hand, because unlike the government what you spend doesn't come back to you