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.

So the children should wear second hand clothes and fed donated food, they don't deserve the dignity of new clothes for some reason? Unless you have some actual data that poor mothers don't spend their benefit on their children (you don't) you appear to just be assuming that poor people will neglect their kids for some reason.

Because there are, unfortunately, parents who either can’t be trusted or simply don’t know how to manage the money they have to give the children what they need.

I make £120,000 a year and have seven-figure savings, and I wear exclusively secondhand clothing except for underwear and most shoes. It’s not undignified or a hardship.

Agree with pp, we should provide food, services like transport and basic goods but not cash. Too much lifestyle spending on the taxpayer’s back as it is.

Exactly.

Children can get breakfast & lunch at school, and be sent home with a wholesome dinner , for example.

you don't have to be poor (however that is defined) to be useless with money. The two things do not go hand in hand. In my poorer years, I managed money meticulously - with far more precision than I do now - and we never wanted for anything. I know plenty of two well paid income households who are up to their ears in debt and fear the arrival of the debt collectors. What exactly is your point?

What on earth are you talking about? Most kids go round in second hand clothing now. Have you not heard of Vinted!. It's not about dignity, it's about being smart with money. I actually can't believe that you don't know that this is super common now even amongst wealthy households.

I donate food to food banks all the time as do loads of other people and big supermarkets like M&S. Again, why wouldn't a responsible parent want to feed their kids this healthy, nutritious food if they couldn't afford to buy it from the shops? I specifically stated that state money could be used to supplement donations where the items available weren't of high enough quality or varied enough to allow a child to eat heathily. There is actually a proven link between poverty and poor child nutrition and this would be the most direct way of tackling the issue. You could have advisors in place trained to help parents make healthy choices when choosing food from the food banks as so much of this comes down to lack of education and understanding.

Some families would spend their increased benefits on their children but undoubtedly some wouldn't. The emphasis isn't on me to prove that all families don't spend it on their children but on the proponents of lifting the cap to prove that this would be good value for money and achieve the aims we want as a society.

I know lots of families that live in poverty according to the measures. The variation between these families, how they live and the quality of the children's lives is stark. Some parents make absolutely terrible choices that adversely impact their children. They simply aren't capable or willing to meet their children's needs beyond the very very basics. Education is shunned and belittled, the kids are fed crap, are dirty and money is spent on the parents' interests and luxuries. I also know families where the kids are immaculate, they are fed a varied healthy diet and the parents are completely invested in their children's education. The contrast is night and day. So no, I don't trust mothers or fathers as a class to do the right thing by their kids with additional money. I know too many that simply won't.

Yeah, but making bad choices with one’s own earnings is one thing.

Making bad choices with funds provided through the hard work of fellow citizens is quite another.

If people are going to make themselves dependent on, they should expect to be treated as dependents, not as autonomous adults.

Absolutely, it's mad that you need to point out this distinction really. Especially in the context of the latest news regarding tax rises to fund all of this and the very real implications that this can have on working people losing their homes etc. public money that you have been given through the benefits system isn't the same as money that has been privately earned.

If you need other people to fund something then they have a right to question where the money is going. If you earn your own money and fritter it away then people might question your judgement but they won't see it as their own money being wasted.

Absolutely. Bottom line is, if there is enough money to up hand-outs (including child benefit obviously), don't dare increase tax on those on moderate incomes. In fact, if things are so bad, scrap CB altogether. 'We're all in it together' after all.

people are going to make themselves dependent on, they should expect to be treated as dependents, not as autonomous adults

The majority who claim UC are in work? It is convenient you forget that. I got tax credits as a single parent household with a disabled child and a teacher's salary. Are you seriously suggesting I can't be trusted to spend appropriately? I was absolutely autonomous, worked damned hard. How dare you assume I am useless, stupid, feckless when it comes to money. Quite the opposite. You need to have a ser8look at the people who claim benefits.

You know people get made redundant right? People get cancer. All sorts of reasons why parents might be out of work. And that lots of claimants are in work, full time.

It's not the majority. I think the figure is something like a third who are working and claiming UC. And many of those won't be working full time either.

There's a difference between people who've previously worked and fallen on hard times for various reasons, compared to the lazy sods who've never worked and just rely on the state (excepting genuine disabilities of course that prevent them from working).

@taxguru I don't think there's many of them though. Most claimants are in work or actively looking for it.

T
38% in work, apparently. So no, not a majority.

No stats on claimants who have never worked but other stuff suggests 8.2% of the population has never worked.

Draw your own conclusions.

This is actually incorrect. 37% of UC claimants are in any kind of work. A good chunk of these will only work PT.

The quote you are angry with doesn't accuse you of being stupid or reckless. It simply states that you are factually a dependent of the state and not a completely financially independent adult. Your autonomy will be curtailed because of this or you will lose the support you currently receive from the state. For example, you won't be able to save more than £16k without losing your eligibility for tax credits. If you choose to live a partner then this will also impact your claim. You have to update DWP regarding any meaningful change to your circumstance and you are at the mercy of any rule changes.

I think the arguments about people being trusted to spend money is largely about removing the two child cap. Some posters (including me) believe that this isn't the best way to tackle child poverty and that too many parents are irresponsible and don't put their children first. The fact that they have more than two children in the first place whilst living in poverty is a red flag that either they have made some poor decisions in the past that aren't in the interests of their children or they are in an abusive relationship which will be a terrible environment for the children to live in and may mean the responsible parent has limited access to the money anyway.

There are other ways to skin a cat. This doesn't mean that all parents with more than two kids are irresponsible. Shit happens! Hence why we have the safety nets we do but too often these aren't nets are seen as places for people to reside for generations.

I don't know why you think your salary or your savings means anything here, except to make people wonder why you're so bitter towards children.

People will agree with anything but looking up at taxing the rich who accrue wealth without every contributing to the social system you all value so much that you'd rather children go hungry. The race to the bottom is sad.

And that's exclusive to poor people how?

Err we already have the evidence of children living in poverty and that this has increased due to the cap. It's not proponents of lifting the cap that needs to prove anything to you, we already have the data and that's why people are proponents of it. What you want is someone to justify to you why you should care and that's not possible.