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 they don't have 2+ kids then. They only have the ones they can afford at that moment. If your current DC are doing without food/clothes/heat then you shouldn't be having more, it's very simple.

My exh earns too much to get any funded childcare but still appears to have had kids he can’t afford - I would call claiming not to be able to contribute to school trips for my eldest two not being able to afford two more kids anyway!

Society never judges these men though.

Meanwhile, elsewhere governments pay people who promise to have children https://theloop.ecpr.eu/getting-paid-to-have-children-hungarys-carefare-regime/

Do they know something we don't? 😁

I do.

The kids are already here.

There is no evidence whatsoever to support this nonsense.

Which like I said previously, isn't the issue. The issue is when people who can't afford the DC they currently have, keep on having more.
If your DC are already having to go without then it's responsible to not have more.
How is that so shocking?

I’m in my late 30s with a solidly middle class social circle and nobody has more than two kids.

Exactly. We only have 1 because that's the number we could comfortably afford.

School trips aren’t an essential. Plenty of schools with accept reduced amounts if you can’t afford them, for the educational trips at least.

They will unselfishly import cheap labour from the third world, problem solved 😁

I can agree sort of in principal that people should endeavour to have kids when they can afford to support them and give them the best life possible, coming from someone who was raised by parents who were really broke. But it doesn't work that way, once children exist I'd be happy for more of my taxes to go towards "handouts" ensuring kids are in warm homes with full bellies. To really think strongly that people shouldn't have kids till they can afford them - what does that actually mean in reality? Mandatory contraception or sterilisation for those on low incomes or unemployed? Women having to have abortions for babies they want but can't afford? Women who want to be mothers missing their fertility window because they don't earn enough? It's unworkable and cruel and really lots of families have kids they thought they could afford and then circumstances changed.

I don’t think anyone is expecting that someone who decides to have a child, will have them living in luxury and getting horse riding lessons weekly (etc). It’s being confident to be able to pay for the basics like clothes, food and childcare.
However to be clear, it’s completely different if life circumstances have changed and a parent has lost their job or their spouse has died etc, that’s unpredictable.
But from the onset of anyone deciding to have kids I think they should be able to pay for the basics

Ok but did you terminate pregnancies to stay at one child for example? It's very easy to day on principal someone should have a child they can't afford but it's quite alarming in a forum frequented by women for posters to act like no one ever falls pregnant unplanned. We don't know if all PPs siblings were planned -are you saying their mother had some kind of moral duty to terminate a pregnancy or sterilise herself against future ones?

Because it's easy for others on MN to make pretty wild moral statements that don't stand up at all when you apply them to real life?

No we simply used contraception. It's the 21st century and contraception of all kinds is easily available. We knew we would struggle affording 2 comfortably so made the decision to double up on contraception.
Of course accidents happen but it is perfectly easy NOT to fall pregnant. Or there is the morning after pill etc.

For me it applies to people who have 3+ kids but realistically can't afford that many kids without a lifetime of welfare support. Of course there are exceptions for when people unfortunately lose their jobs for a period of time.

Ok but surely you know women who have had contraception fail? I mean, you're on MN, people regularly are in a situation of unintended pregnancy - what are your proposing they do if they fall pregnant with a child they can't afford?

Class and wealth aren't related though. These people are middle earners and today, it would be more appropriate to view them as 'modern' working class (as opposed to 'traditional' working class) and for them to align their expectations accordingly.

Well that's a different debate, because plenty of people do choose not to continue unplanned pregnancies because they can't afford another child, but others wouldn't terminate in any circumstances and I don't think anyone is here to advocate for changes to the abortion laws or to sterilise women against their will. Again, it's taking things to the extreme to undermine what is a pretty moderate common sense view that most people wouldn't have an issue with. That line from Vera Drake comes to mind: "If you can't feed them, you can't love them." (And don't go taking that out of context either, it was one point of view that underlined the need for legal abortion for those who couldn't access it.)

I was thinking this earlier today. Do ppl on MN think we go into marriage or relationships and have children thinking wait I might end up a single parent because my partner is abusive, can't keep his duck in his trousers etc?
I went to uni have always worked, thought I had chosen a decent man(look what thought did!) yet still ended up a single parent who has needed financial support from time to time.(which I am grateful for)
That fact that fathers can get away with not financially providing for their children by not contributing makes the state have to be relied on more heavily.
Or do MN think we should put up with abuse and infidelity?

For people with this mindset do they have any exceptions for someone who has a kid when they’re this young and dumb, not even realising the dole comes from other peoples taxes.

I only think it about people with numerous kids by numerous different dads

If they can't afford that child then yes.
It isn't the responsibility of the taxpayer to keep funding children whom parents can't afford to pay for.
Again, morning after pill is easily available if accidents happen.
I do think in this day and age though that accidents aren't generally happening at the same rate due to the wide variety, and availability of contraception, although I admit I haven't researched it.

But you are taking this to an extreme example which you yourself decried in a PP ie being too emotional on a post.

i do find this funny if a women stays at home to look after kids she obv does not have an income so there fore reliant on the tax payer but if that tax payer is her husband this is fine if not she is a sponger but either way they sit at home all day or in mnt groups or coffee shops etc doing very little and relying on others for every penny

It's not a different debate at all though, is it? Or taking it to the extreme, it's literally a very common occurrence that women fall pregnant with children they can't afford so what do those who are so strident that they should have.those kids expect them to do? Likewise with the "never worked" argument, so people who've never worked due to disability just don't deserve to have kids? It's not taking things to the extreme to point out some PP are very lightheartedly talking about what is in practice basically eugenics rather than be happy for their taxes to support children who have absolutely no say or consent about coming into the world.