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.

No, where have I said that? You are twisting my words.
I clearly said the issue is with parents who don't, and who have never, worked. The fact you inferred what you did is a bit astonishing.

I am against Labour's continual rhetoric of "free" because a) it's never free and b) it is a push to take away parental responsibility for feeding/clothing their kids ie "parents should never be out of pocket"

You're the one holding 1929 up as an example of amazing individuals thriving off the back of large families raised in poverty.

So you thought there was magic money that just appeared to support shiftless people?

So why do you keep complaining and using your own misery at stopping at one child as your reason why others shouldn't have kids they can't afford? Your argument is literally "I'm having to put up with this unhappiness so should they"

We absolutely can afford it as a society. I'm glad you quoted PP as I asked her the same question you avoided - for the 4th time then pregnancy has occured unplanned and she cannot bare to have a termination - what are you proposing a woman does? The one you're so strident shouldn't have a child she can't afford.

Where have I said I hated them or that a teen having 1 DC but then going to work etc to pay for that DC is bad?
You won't find it because I haven't.
I've clearly said that the issue is parents whose DC are already going without yet continue to have DC.

I find that "don't have kids if you can't afford them comment" incredibly callous and short-sighted. While I understand that it is more than irritating to see parents who have never worked having loads of kids, it doesn't seem to occur to people that circumstances can change dramatically. For example, I know somebody with 3 kids who had a stroke at the age of 25. When they had the stroke, baby number 3 was on the way. They had a very good job with very good prospects. They are now in a wheelchair and struggle with speech and will probably never work again. They are now reliant on their DW's wage and disability benefits and probably will be for the rest of their lives.

And then there are accidental pregnancies. Iit happens to many people. Are we saying that if you have an accidental pregnancy when you are unemployed for example, that you should get an abortion?

And what about the welfare of the children whose parents can't be bothered to work? Should we just let them rot or should we try and do things to help ensure that they have a roof over their heads,food on the table and a good start in life so that tbey have a chance to become decent members of society? It is not the children's fault that tbey exist or that their parents can't be bothered to work.

Common sense is not very popular nowadays 😁

I clearly answered your Q at 13.11 but you chose to ignore my answer because you wanted me to fit your narrative.

I knew how the voting on this thread would go OP, but personally I agree with you. IMO if it needs both parents working full time and their kids in wraparound care in order to be able to have a family at all, something's gone very wrong in this country. Society has completely devalued having a parent at home too which I think is very sad. (BTW before any starts on me, I'm not trying to say we should go back to the woman being at home if she doesn't want to be, I'm saying if one parent wants to stay at home while DC are little it should be seen as a valid choice and supported by society in general.)

I'm not claiming to know the answer, but I do think the UK is currently in an absurd place re all this.

When I was 15 yes, pretty stupid I’m sure but did you know everything at 15? I don’t get why you’d dislike someone for doing something they were too young and ignorant to realise affected anyone else.

Like I said I get it if it’s a grown woman with 4+ kids by different men but there is a middle ground

Thank you. The voice of sanity.

Better that we suffer for a couple generations of dwindling population than completely destroy the planet and every other species on it.

take a good hard look around at the damage we’ve already done.

But the 16 year old is already pregnant. Two condoms and a MAP aren't going to make that go away,.so you're saying they have to terminate? Against their wishes.

You might call others stray cats but you're sounding like sociopath and very very angry. I'm not sure you had to actually work that hard not to fall pregnant if this is your true personality coming through.

I asked someone else if they’d dislike someone like that and they responded with a simple “yes” apologies if I got you mixed up

We are the 6th largest economy in the world. You are mad if you think we are not a wealthy country.

We spend about the same share of national income on working-age benefits as we have done since the 1980s. We seem to have afforded it for all that time.

The public finances are largely a mess because we are living longer and so spending significantly more money on social care and health care, but successive governments have cut rather than widened the tax base to fund the increased commitments.

How does it relate to current benefit system? You must know things can't be changed retrospectively? So, it follows, if a person born in 1929 and her siblings were raised OK without benefits, how much better would contemporary families with benefit entitlements fare! Hence, I am saying (for the UK at least, don't know about the rest of the world) people should not say 'can't afford kids, don't have them'.

Where is your evidence that we can afford it because here is current benefits bill and everyone accepts it is unsustainable in light of shit state of UK economy.
You are so confident we can afford it that you must have data to support that claim?
You know how much the current deficit ie black hole is? We are in deep shit as a country financially. We can't afford it

Interesting we've gone from pip to universal credit trying to gauge public opinion 🤔

No you skirted it and said someone people choose to terminate in those circumstances, I know that and I said choice is the key word. I'm asking what you are proposing they do, when they can't bare a termination, when you're so strident they shouldn't have a child they can't afford?

We are pretty much level pegging with France which is heading towards IMF bailout!!!

And I clearly answered that. The fact you can't accept my answer is your problem not mine.

You accuse me of being angry yet you are the one being aggressive, dismissive and angry 🤣

Well, you wouldn't buy a horse if you couldn't afford to care for it would you?

Kids are expensive. And if you can't afford to pay for them, it's seen as a burden for others.

Back in the day, when women didn't work and an average working man's salary could pay for the basics, it was different. But today, the reality is that most people literally can't afford to have children. They do it anyway, but they rely on the state to fund their choices in some way. Either through subsided nursery places, child benefit payments, or other claims.

Replace the word child with "pet" and you will quickly see the problem.

Yes there is the whole future tax payers issue, but people alive today don't care about that.

I'm just surprised people generally don't plan for having a child. The number who add a baby into an already spicy mix of problems especially baffles me.
We saved for 4 years first so we knew we could afford for me to change jobs and work hours opposite my husband. This kept costs down. I thoroughly enjoyed being with my babies.
You only have to look at all of the people moaning about the cost of school holidays to realise that people don't plan.

I said society can afford it, and it can. Throwing up our current management of taxes etc isn't really relevant because as I already said we aren't aiming to support people and we aren't even aiming to collect the taxes we need, while we allow private untaxed wealth to soar like crazy. But there is absolutely money enough times over to afford it.
You're still making no relationship.world.point- what are we meant to do with these children you insist we "can't afford"? You've thrown out your eugenic ideas about preventing pregnancy in undesirable populations, what do you propose to do with the pregnancies and children that do occur?

YANBU, the funniest posts are when the parents want free government funded childcare PLUS extra money to be SAHPs whilst the other parent works.

Seriously, why do they think people want to fund them to have crotch goblins to that extent.

Exactly. Think that poster has forgotten what it’s like to be young, I’m sure they knew absolutely everything at 15/16. 🙄