[Politics] have the right amount of kids you can afford, or should the govt stump up costs?

[wellquickwoody]

How regressive have we become to feel like re-producing is anything to do with economics! Do you think you would be around if your great great great etc. forefathers worried about 'childcare' 'employment' 'affording education'?

How twisted has our 'advanced society' become when having a stay at home mum or dad becomes an impossibility suddenly - despite it being somehow managable during the 50s and 60s and 70s?

But then you can go back to 50's and 60's living standards too, deal?

 

[ack]

Am Prob grumpy 50's era. But we got nowt but family allowance for our kids.Playschool started at 4yrs, until then you wre on your own.When I'm putting your kids through school with taxes, why shouLD i NOW HAVE TO PAY PRESCHOOL so your wife can go back to work and palm kids off at earliest opp.And yes we have had to stump up deposit for kiids houses too.You do what best for your kids, but dont expect society to raise yours,,,,,,,,,,

 

[Berty23]

We had one, wanted two, went for it, had twins, now got three, and are ****ed.

Same here. Have you found any economies of scale yet? My kids are now 9,7,7 and still looking. The 9 year old is a boy and twin girls so they can't even his all of his cast offs (just quite a few). I am not sure how old your kids are but if young then join tamba - get quite a few discounts.

The problem with society is that we don't seem to value the young. What happens if people who didn't want kids get to retirement age and the workers of the day say "they didn't think they should support other people to have kids so we don't think we should support them in old age". This is obviously an extreme example but if People stop having kids then who will pay all of the meaty pensions for the current 50-60 years olds?

It is kind of how society works isn't it?

Maybe we should stop educating everyone else's kids and make all schools fee paying? Why should people who don't have kids support those who do once their kids reach 4?

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Agreed, I didn't say it wasn't, but I don't see how the current economical model is sustainable. Portlock Seagull nailed it with the quote "The fact is every country is facing unprecedented stresses - unique in history - that are placing intolerable strains on it whichever economic country you are. And will continue to worsen. And the root cause of this is a population growth like we've never seen before."

His opinion and quoting world experts without telling us who the world experts are, then telling me I only source articles that agree with my opinon.

Except it is wrong.

Many developed countries, Japan, Australia, Spain to name just 3, have a negative birth rates and face unprecedented stresses for the very opposite reason of the population not growing enough. 10 years ago Australia actually had a policy to give a Baby Bonus payment of $3000 per child, they actually said that Australian families should have 3 kids, 1 for mum, 1 for dad and 1 for the state! Japan increasingly has an unbalanced population of far too many elderly compared to youth.

A large number of developed countries don't have positive birth rates, with fertility rates per women 2 or below, UK 1.8. It is in the developing and 3rd world where you still see larger population growth through births out stripping deaths. This will only be solved through development and education. This is known as the fertility-income paradox where the lower the standard of living, the higher the birth rate appears to be.

Population growth through economic migration is an entirely different matter, but global fertility rates are dropping more quickly than previously thought, even though overall human population will continue to grow toward 2050. The main driver of this is Africa, India, Pakistan.

This intolerable strains are equally matched if your population stagnates or decreases such as Spain, or even Germany. Merkel didn't open the doors in some philanthropic act to migrants, they need workers to grow the economy to look after their ageing population. It is the elephant in the room for a lot of us.

Exactly.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

The problem with society is that we don't seem to value the young. What happens if people who didn't want kids get to retirement age and the workers of the day say "they didn't think they should support other people to have kids so we don't think we should support them in old age". This is obviously an extreme example but if People stop having kids then who will pay all of the meaty pensions for the current 50-60 years olds?

It is kind of how society works isn't it?

Maybe we should stop educating everyone else's kids and make all schools fee paying? Why should people who don't have kids support those who do once their kids reach 4?

Those who had kids and are now very old, are saving social services a fortune by staying in their own homes, with their kids as carers, instead of having to go into nursing homes.
£600 a week for a small room.

 

[Berty23]

Am Prob grumpy 50's era. But we got nowt but family allowance for our kids.Playschool started at 4yrs, until then you wre on your own.When I'm putting your kids through school with taxes, why shouLD i NOW HAVE TO PAY PRESCHOOL so your wife can go back to work and palm kids off at earliest opp.And yes we have had to stump up deposit for kiids houses too.You do what best for your kids, but dont expect society to raise yours,,,,,,,,,,

This is quite a common view, I think. Why should society care for older people when they could sell their houses or their off spring can support them?*

*i am not saying we shouldn't support old people because we should, I just don't understand why supporting old people is accepted as required but not young people.

 

[wellquickwoody]

If Australian flu (which this year's vaccine doesn't cover) arrives this winter, a lot of the elderly will pop off quite quickly.

It is a bloody good flu trust me!

 

[Gwylan]

Am Prob grumpy 50's era. But we got nowt but family allowance for our kids.

Not true. There was income tax relief per child, introduced by Lloyd George and abolished in Geoffrey Howe's first budget in 1979. This was in addition to the family allowance: the difference was that the tax relief was applied to the head of the household's (almost always the father back then) PAYE deductions, while the family allowance was paid to the mother.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Not true. There was income tax relief per child, introduced by Lloyd George and abolished in Geoffrey Howe's first budget in 1979. This was in addition to the family allowance: the difference was that the tax relief was applied to the head of the household's (almost always the father back then) PAYE deductions, while the family allowance was paid to the mother.

And family allowance didn't apply to the first child.

 

[beorhthelm]

This is quite a common view, I think. Why should society care for older people when they could sell their houses or their off spring can support them?*

*i am not saying we shouldn't support old people because we should, I just don't understand why supporting old people is accepted as required but not young people.

i'd have thought that was obvious: the young, being full of health and vigour can provide and support themselves, the elderly cant. now that may not be strictly applicable today but those are the long held cultral convention. on top of that there is the notion of having paid into the system, while the young are still paying in or yet to pay in.

 

[Seagull kimchi]

But then you can go back to 50's and 60's living standards too, deal?

I switch between a shoebox in Korea and a potting shed on a beach in India - and I'm very happy.

 

[Seagull85]

Sorry to be mean, but, why should I pay for your childcare ? It's your child. Be grateful that the rest of us are picking up the tab from age 3.

GOM, fair point, you shouldn't, I just wonder why 3 was the chosen age, all to do with funding I suppose!

 

[Thunder Bolt]

This is quite a common view, I think. Why should society care for older people when they could sell their houses or their off spring can support them?*

*i am not saying we shouldn't support old people because we should, I just don't understand why supporting old people is accepted as required but not young people.

They do sell their homes. That's exactly what my mother has done to pay for her care at £600 a week for a small room.

 

[looney]

Except it is wrong.

This intolerable strains are equally matched if your population stagnates or decreases such as Spain, or even Germany. Merkel didn't open the doors in some philanthropic act to migrants, they need workers to grow the economy to look after their ageing population. It is the elephant in the room for a lot of us.

95% dont work, they dont speak German or have the required skills. its a false economy. This is why Germany is desperate for other countries to take "Their share", theyve worked out how much it will cost if each military age male brings a family in, on benefits. Thats thes the next bomb to go off when the Germans get the bill for 2 million plus homes.

 

[Leekbrookgull]

I have 3, I would like more but couldn’t afford Them so end of discussion!!

We had two both boys living in a terrace at the time,know where you are coming ?

 

[Leekbrookgull]

95% dont work, they dont speak German or have the required skills. its a false economy. This is why Germany is desperate for other countries to take "Their share", theyve worked out how much it will cost if each military age male brings a family in, on benefits. Thats thes the next bomb to go off when the Germans get the bill for 2 million plus homes.

Also been put A/M wanted the migrants as 'service workers' ?