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.

I didn't know other countries got more support after redundancy if they had paid more. Which countries if you don't mind me asking?
I got made redundant in December 23. The directors stole all funds and nobody got any severance pay. My tax bill that year was £75k. I got £80 ESA a week for a year. That's it.
Sadly I'm seriously ill so I'm pulling pensions.

Fascinating comprehension failure.

Midwife does not need UC if she works full time, but current UC system discourages her to do so. Everyone will need UC if they reduce their hours, just for some it would be 22h/week, for others it's going to be 5.

Yes, PIP is unrelated to UC, but wonder why the number of PIP claimants increased so much simultaneously with tightening UC?
You won't change your mind no matter what facts would be quoted, I won't bother.

Scandi. Their unemployment payments are based on previous contributions, gradually decreasing and stop after certain period of time. Not means tested. Hence much more fair and engaging than sh.t show we have here.

@nearlylovemyusername I believe Germany works in a similar way too - large percentage of your income for 9 months - that’s unless it has changed in recent times

That's what I thought you might be implying.

I mean it's wrong, because you've massively oversimplified how government spending impacts things, but never mind.

I’m fascinated why you think the far right will suddenly make it bonanza time for the working/middle classes - and very ironically a fair old amount who vote that way are more than happy to take advantage of the system at points it suits them too - plenty of over 70s moaning about the WFA who certainly didn’t need it but felt entitled to it , whilst owning their own homes outright and stuffed up ISAs - I fail to see why they should get it and my 27 year old son paying rent with his GF in London on totally average wages shouldn’t get it - personally I would find it ironic if a load of PIP receiving ( substitute different benefits) Reform voters suddenly found an awful lot of benefits going out the window - because at the moment they’re making totally uncosted suggestions based on fresh air !! Greens just as guilty too by the way from a different angle.

I'm sorry to break it out to you but in reality many NHS salaries do imply people would be getting some benefits.

The NHS job I'm qualified to do requires a PhD or equivalent assistance work (so 8+ years in education and training) and would pay 37k as a newly qualified 25yo on band 6 to 48k after four-six years and with no management responsibilities. Could go up to £56k but would be really overworked with no time for family whatsoever.

48k gross is roughly £3173 net per month.
Nursery 2500pm as we can see upthread.
Mortgage or rent on a small property with a bedroom for one child 2000+.

Midwives are usually band 6.

The midwife on that thread is a single mother. Let's assume she receives a lavish CM of £500.

Please can you do the sums and tell me how £3173 is a living full time wage for a 31-33yo person with just one child in nursery? Really curious to know your calculations.

I've never even looked at NHS just because it's ridiculously low pay for a horrendously stressful job.

PIP claims are on the rise because disabled people are literally starving with CoL and cuts, and this in turn aggravates their conditions and they become eligible for PIP as needs-based benefit. But your comprehension skills are too advanced to understand these basic facts.

Yes, that’s definitely an oversimplification and not necessarily the case (I’m an economist).

It's massively oversimplified of course, I'm not gonna get into explaining all the ins and outs, but it's still true which is why cutting benefits further isn't going to reduce our taxes as PP said. It's also why we've become poorer since austerity.despitw "saving" billions at this point in what we used to spend on services and benefits.

Of course you are 😂 that's why we are all gonna have our taxes cut if the welfare bill was reduced according. To you, y'know despite our taxes not going down after a decade of austerity in fact we're paying more - why is that?

It seems to sail over people's heads who this is benefitting. It uncertainty doesn't help the single mum who works almost full time who has to claim a UC top up because her wages from her employer wont otherwise cover her to pay her rent and childcare bill in order for her to go to work. The system isn't "benefiting" people in any sort of luxurious way, it gives them money to just help cover rent and childcare while the companies get away with paying poverty wages and make higher profits.

They probably aren't even aware many NHS jobs can't even get funding to recruit people full time, they can only budget for part time hours for a lot of roles so you get qualified and there isn't even a full time job available, so people are topping up their wages doing agency hours taxed as a second job. It's a joke but obviously all completely the fault of the employees for wanting to even be a midwife in the first place /S.

Yes, it's all our fault 😂 We should have planned better!

Many of my friends have quit, the whole system is a joke.

Posts on this thread are so ridiculous I can only laugh out loud (like @HRchatter ) even though there's not much fun.

At the end of the day it’s also incredibly unrealistic. Let’s say no one with a combined income under 50k had kids (and no more than 1 or 2 over that, maybe once you get to 100k, anything else would just be irresponsible). Great!! But who is going to pay our pensions in the year to come? Who will replace the workforce? Who will pay taxes in 20/30 years?

Not just that, but if every single (or even a high percentage of them) minimum wage worker made “better” choices and “planned” better , how would the country keep running? Just basic services , like healthcare , education, transport , sanitation etc. Remember Covid?

@Unrulyscrumptious this is why I prefer the scandi system having lived there - people pay much higher tax, but no NI as such , no council tax and full time childcare even for under 1s was around £330 a month . Far more good quality social rents too - it meant that people like the midwife might bring home say £2400 ( higher wages but higher tax) but far far less in childcare, and no council tax etc - meaning their system requires far fewer ‘subsidies’ - problem is in the UK people hate the idea of paying out for things they themselves aren’t using - nurseries, social housing etc, etc - they want scandi style services but Dubai tax

It's funny but sad that we've still got people mad at taxes going towards children having lunch at school while not getting enraged at people who don't work and accrue wealth their entire lives while never paying tax let alone a fair rate of tax. The inability to look upwards is absurd.

There I totally agree with you, there's systems that we can see work and aren't replicating here and it's the mindset of people sadly.

You fail to mention better choices regarding having children in a more responsible way!

That’s because according to some posters that means either not having any children or not having children until they move into a higher paid job/career. Both of which are covered in my post.

No the point was it's laughable to claim only the well-off can have kids whilst the poor are deprived when it's actually the other way around. I doubt they're miserable with their choices, most people wouldn't want four kids that close together and then be left alone raising them. Hardly something to aspire to.

It won't. It's going to be Brexit 2 - people who voted for it are mostly affected. Now those who go for protest vote for Reform will be mostly affected as well. Reform will only benefit those at the very top of the ladder.

Do you know that Scandi tax bottom and middle income levels much higher than we do? and that there is no restrictions on access to services, e.g. subsidised childcare for all, not just low-middle earners?

Absolutely - it’s across the board - my view on this is at least those who are contributing a lot do feel they get some benefit - personally if I was getting good childcare for £300 a month I wouldn’t give a monkeys if someone earning 3 times as much was getting the same - it’s actually an incentive I feel to earn more . - and it’s one reason i felt that most couples with kids worked full time or at least a very good number of hours ( often starting early but finishing at 4.30) - however it wouldn’t necessarily suit mums who want a teeny bit of part time and lots of non nursery fun classes with babies and toddlers - if I’m being totally honest I really didn’t see much of that being advertised . They did all seem to be at work

Yep and I don’t think they can see it - the fact that he hates foreigners ( apart of course from rich dodgy ones who can fund him) is enough for many of those only hearing the bits they like