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.

Says the person who responds viciously to women talking about being SA'd or raped that they should make better choices.

it was in a professional setting, and a response to other posters' views on how the environment a child is brought into is likely to self replicate, why do you feel it necessary to be so sarcastic? Of course I'm aware of this phenomenon, having worked in those settings. To the other poster, @Theunamedcat it was in the 90's, nonetheless, the example usesd I would consider still pertinent and relevant today, despite the use of language. It clearly portrays the emerging views of a young child and the shaping of those views by their environment.

I really hope Reeves doesn't scrap the child benefit cap. I don't see how she say on the one hand that the country is so skint she has to increase tax to the modest earners but then increase handouts.

I think it would be utterly outrageous if she did this. It really sends the wrong message to those who have made responsible decisions around family planning and are actually striving to be financially sensible and support themselves. Why bother when you just get hammered with ever increasing taxes to support those that have no intention of supporting themselves and limiting their family siE accordingly?

I’m a centre left voter and I don’t want her to scrap it either -

The children don't have a choice so why punish them? I suspect they will lift it if only partially. I don't think they have a choice.

I agree in principle, but we need to be cognisant about the kinds of adults that in this day and age find themselves with 3 plus kids that they can't afford. These children will all have been conceived knowing that the cap is in place and even if you are financially comfortable when you decide to have a third/fourth/fifth baby, it's still a very risky thing to do. You will see posts on MN on almost a daily basis of women that would love more children but have chosen to stick at 1/2 for financial reasons. The type of people that just throw caution to the wind and plough on having loads of kids are probably not the type of parent that is making excellent financial choices and put their kids first. I know that's controversial but it's rarely in the existing children's interests for parents to keep on having kids when the family is already living in poverty.

In this context, what difference does a bit of Child Benefit make?

I think we need to assist children living in poverty through other means rather than simply giving the parents more money.

This is about UC not child benefit.

Sorry you're right. Same arguments exist about UC though.

I think we don't want to send the wrong signals about a culture where giving birth to children is a sole life aspiration and a route to lifelong state support including housing. We cannot afford it and surely it is wrong to expect hard working families to support others life choices?

I think some feel having a large family is seen as a divine right or part of fitting an overall family pattern of large numbers of children.

FFS. Thousands of families claim child benefit with two full time working parents. Are we begrudging absolutely everything now?

and loads of people make sensible family planning..that lets them down.

I'm not begrudging families that claim CB for two kids anything, especially if they have two parents working FT. There does need to be limits on everything though otherwise you will incentivise behaviour we don't want to encourage as a society.

Do we want families already living in poverty having lots more children? No. In this context would you pay them more for each child they have and give them a financial incentive to continue having kids? Absolutely not!

You can point to the odd responsible family that had a whoops third child but ultimately we live in an age where we can largely manage our own fertility. Go on the Child Free boards and you will see that there are a great many women who have happily gone their whole lives without having a baby. We have long term and short term solutions that whilst not perfect, are obviously hugely effective as I know very few people that have had more children than they intended.

The cap has made no difference on stopping these type of people having kids. It has just added to the poverty they live in.

People that are choosing to have lots of children when living in poverty are financially reckless and don't put their children's needs first. I can't think of any scenarios where a loving, responsible parent would choose to do this knowing that they are driving their existing children into further poverty.

In this context, do you really think that giving these families more money will mean the money is spent responsibly and in the children's best interests? it is intrinsically selfish to keep having children that you can't afford, knowing that they will live in poverty so the extra money undoubtedly will be spent selfishly too.

Why does it keep escaping posters making this argument that yes many women remain childfree or have small families through CONSENTING to medical treatment and procedures. Unless you're advocating that women must do so against their own wishes and bodily autonomy it's a completely moot point. Any adult can understand there are multiple reasons why a woman might become pregnant in a way that is unplanned or even unwanted, it's been covered again and again on this thread, it doesn't mean they are morally wrong to continue a pregnancy because other women wouldn't. The fact that anyone thinks CB is an incentive is ridiculous.

It's not escaping anybody's notice but with autonomy and choice comes responsibility. You can't have it all ways.

If you know that you for example wouldn't abort a baby or take the morning after pill then you would have to make choices to ensure that your contraception is as fail proof as possible. You can double up on contraception and use period tracking apps to avoid fertile times of the month.

If you are against using contraception then you need to abstain from sex.

Of course none of this applies to women that fall pregnant due to rape. I would hope that it's obvious.

In my view it is morally wrong (except in the case of rape) to get pregnant and then continue a pregnancy when you know that it will adversely impact the children you already have who already living in poverty.

Finally of course CB and UC is incentivisation. It's effectively a financial bonus for having another child. Look at countries with falling birth rates who want to rectify this and the first thing they will try is financially rewarding people to have kids. The obvious problem is kids are expensive and most parents will spend more on raising a child than they will ever receive in benefits for having them but this isn't true for lots of parents who rely solely on benefits for their income and actually don't spend that much extra on each additional child.

Again it's just flying right over your head isn't it despite the examples given over and over again in this thread. It's amazing how quicky women forget the rate of abuse and assault once they wanna punch down at poor women.

If a woman if being abused to the extent that she is having children she doesn't want to have, do you think she will have access to the additional money that UC would provide?

Also forget the morality of poverty existing and children living in it. ANY subsidies towards that are handouts. We only care about moral responsibility when it comes to not getting pregnant, when children are going hungry there is no societal moral responsibility towards eachother eh? No, it's all down to individualism and personal responsibility so why should they feel a moral duty to not have kids exactly?

Is your argument that she shouldn't get UC either as her abuser might also be financially abusing her...? Unclear what your point is

You seem to argue that the two child cap is unethical because women in abusive relationships are having children they don't choose to have and are being financially penalised for this. As if they would get all that UC money paid into their account and be at total liberty to spend it on their children.

My point is that a woman in an abusive relationship of this nature will almost certainly have limited access to finances anyway so increasing UC potentially won't help her or her children. It will almost certainly be used though by the abusive partner who could easily see having more children as enriching his own personal income stream.

There absolutely is moral responsibility for child poverty. I just don't believe that paying money directly to the parents is the best way to go about resolving it.

And what other ways can it be resolved? Soup kitchens? Vouchers?

Interventions through schools and extra support for health and educational needs. Food and clothes banks stocked with good quality clothes and nutritious food funded by the state if necessary although obviously accepting donations. Free access to after school activities and free swimming lessons. Free bus passes for children living in poverty etc etc

There are a million things we could do that would ensure that extra funding actually made a difference to children's lives in the ways that matter most.

Why not? Why are you starting from a position that those parents presumably can't be trusted or will spend the money elsewhere and let their kids go hungry..?