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

[Seagull kimchi]

No. Would you want to look after a young child (or 3) when in your 80's or 90's?

Grandparents (if they were allowed to retire at a reasonable age - say 60 like it used to be) would be all over it. What changed?

 

[dazzer6666]

Child number one is on the way shortly.

I have done my calculations and I can "afford" it. I'm comfortable that we couldn't have done any more pre-planning financially but we are currently having a last minute attempt to clear any outstanding finance to make month-to-month living more bearable whilst trying to save money to cover the months where my wife is on statutory pay.

I do take comfort in thinking "surely, loads of people have had kids and haven't done even half the work we have in calculating how we will be".

However, we are VERY fortunate that we both have close family near by who, if ever we were in trouble, would make sure we were OK. I know a lot of people aren't as fortunate.

Whether reality is the same as the spreadsheet is yet to be seen

Pretty much exactly what we did. Don’t worry, you’ll adjust......and no, your spreadsheet won’t be accurate !

 

[narly101]

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?

I don't think we've regressed at all. Childcare has always been about ecomonics. The standard of living has gone up, but so has the cost. In terms of having a stay at home parent, you're again comparing the 50's-70's to 2017?!? You have seen the changes since then?

 

[GT49er]

Sounds like the lyric to a blues song.

Or Whisky In The Jar?

No! Nay! Never!................... surely ............

 

[Normski1989]

Grandparents (if they were allowed to retire at a reasonable age - say 60 like it used to be) would be all over it. What changed?

Births are at all time high. Resulting in more children requiring medical care, education etc...
People are living longer, resulting in more medical care and drawing a pension for a longer period of time.
Too many people now choose not to work because the government will cover their living costs anyway. Some even intentionally have baby after baby to ensure that they never have to work.
Property prices have increased much, much faster than inflation.

A lot has a change. More than I can be bothered to list.

Your plan to let people retire at 60 isn't necessarily a bad idea, but then someone who lived to say 90 (not that rare nowadays) would involve approximately 48 years of either education or retirement and 42 years of work. The figures just won't balance.

 

[narly101]

Grandparents (if they were allowed to retire at a reasonable age - say 60 like it used to be) would be all over it. What changed?

What changed was the fact that we're living longer, and statutory pensions no longer cover the amount of people who are living beyond 60. Thats why I'm going to have to work for 44 years to get my pension, whilst my dad (75) only needed to work 37. I wonder here who's got the better of it? The baby boomer generation have a lot that they really don't need to complain about.

 

[Seagull kimchi]

I don't think we've regressed at all. Childcare has always been about ecomonics. The standard of living has gone up, but so has the cost. In terms of having a stay at home parent, you're again comparing the 50's-70's to 2017?!? You have seen the changes since then?

Of course - our standard of living has gone up - along with our stress and anxiety and debt and somehow now we find it a challenge to afford to reproduce. My only question is why?

 

[sir albion]

I think it's a bloody tragedy that money comes into it and going back 20+ years ago it wasn't an issue as one mans wage could do all,but when you have two young professional working hard who can't afford it you know society is wrong.

You get these inbreds who pop them out and they don't work and also religious people seem to have a minimum of 3 kids and their own community's stick together and money is never an issue.

 

[biddles911]

there's the whole problem, we seem to have moved from a state welfare system to support those who are victims of circumstance, to one were we demand provisions made so we can live according to choice. you could do both, at vast cost, or the former at a sensible cost. we try to do the latter on the cheap, and that just isn't going to work .

Absolutely right and perhaps I can state the bl*****ing obvious and state that government has no money of its own so it comes down to whether taxpayers should subsidise people who have more children than they can afford, perhaps to get more benefits or up their entitlement to better housing?

There’s no excuse for unwanted pregnancies these days, give or take the odd accident.

I feel quite strongly about this (entitlement culture) as I’ve inherited a stepdaughter (now aged 20) who basically cannot control her money and we keep bailing her out, much against my better judgement.

Personally, I would have been ashamed to leech off my parents in my youth but doesn’t seem to be the case for many kids nowadays!

Bah, humbug.....?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Perkino]

We decided that we would only calculate our standard of living off of my wage. This allows my wife the freedom to not work but does put the onus of ensuring she will be available for the kids. Finances are tight and we haven't been on holiday for 3 years as all our money goes on new clothes and running two cars but we wouldn't expect anyone else to pay for our lifestyle.

My wife obviously could go back to work but the expensive cost of childcare means she would earn around £6,000 a year after childcare is paid for and for that money she may as well not bother.

 

[Seagull kimchi]

Births are at all time high. Resulting in more children requiring medical care, education etc...
People are living longer, resulting in more medical care and drawing a pension for a longer period of time.
Too many people now choose not to work because the government will cover their living costs anyway. Some even intentionally have baby after baby to ensure that they never have to work.
Property prices have increased much, much faster than inflation.

A lot has a change. More than I can be bothered to list.

Your plan to let people retire at 60 isn't necessarily a bad idea, but then someone who lived to say 90 (not that rare nowadays) would involve approximately 48 years of either education or retirement and 42 years of work. The figures just won't balance.

All true. So the welfare drain is stopping those with potential from having kids along with the ridiculous housing situation. I agree with you. But what do we need to do about it?

 

[MattBackHome]

Child number one is on the way shortly.

I have done my calculations and I can "afford" it. I'm comfortable that we couldn't have done any more pre-planning financially but we are currently having a last minute attempt to clear any outstanding finance to make month-to-month living more bearable whilst trying to save money to cover the months where my wife is on statutory pay.

I do take comfort in thinking "surely, loads of people have had kids and haven't done even half the work we have in calculating how we will be".

However, we are VERY fortunate that we both have close family near by who, if ever we were in trouble, would make sure we were OK. I know a lot of people aren't as fortunate.

Whether reality is the same as the spreadsheet is yet to be seen

Congratulations!

We planned in a similar way, by clearing debts etc and working out what was required to cover Mrs.MBH's meagre mat leave pay. We are also hugely lucky in having both sets of family local. Once No.1 was a few months old I was surprised at the amount we were saving purely by dint of doing less 'stuff' and staying in (and we weren't particularly extravagant beforehand) which didn't feel like a sacrifice.

 

[DumLum]

We have only one child as that's all I believe we can afford.

If it wasn't for parasitic babyboomer landlords I would have had more.

Is only having one selfish though? Are only children lonely?

 

[Perkino]

I think it's a bloody tragedy that money comes into it and going back 20+ years ago it wasn't an issue as one mans wage could do all,but when you have two young professional working hard who can't afford it you know society is wrong.

You get these inbreds who pop them out and they don't work and also religious people seem to have a minimum of 3 kids and their own community's stick together and money is never an issue.

This!!!!!

If someone doing an honest job and working their fingers to the bone cannot afford to house and feed a family of 5 people without claiming additional top ups then the whole system is corrupt.

 

[Seagull kimchi]

What changed was the fact that we're living longer, and statutory pensions no longer cover the amount of people who are living beyond 60. Thats why I'm going to have to work for 44 years to get my pension, whilst my dad (75) only needed to work 37. I wonder here who's got the better of it? The baby boomer generation have a lot that they really don't need to complain about.

Absolutely - but surely the people in charge had/have a plan for us normies. They don't want us to stop re-plemishing their stock of consumers?

 

[GT49er]

Absolutely should consider whether you can afford to bring up a child before going ahead and re-producing. Personally, I would only allow child benefit for one child per person (so a couple could have two, each one using up their entitlement to having child benefit - it can still all be paid to the mother, as I believe is the case now).
The cost of child-minding is, I'm afraid, a problem which is only going to get worse. With spiralling housing costs, and wages not rising as fast, fewer and fewer families can live on one incoming wage. And no, I haven't got an answer for that one.

 

[Normski1989]

All true. So the welfare drain is stopping those with potential from having kids along with the ridiculous housing situation. I agree with you. But what do we need to do about it?

Honestly? Not a f**king clue.

I decided that getting on the property ladder was more important than starting a family, because when I have a family, I want to be able to provide for them. So after three years without a holiday and saving hard, I've just about managed to do it. I should finally be moving in the next month or two. Unfortunately, in my opinion, it's those people that have a baby now and worry about supporting it later are the ones causing the problem. The more they take, the more everyone else has to suffer.

 

[turienzo's lovechild]

aren't we going to need as many children as possible to pay for all you old twats who refuse to die at a civilised age

 

[Normski1989]

Absolutely should consider whether you can afford to bring up a child before going ahead and re-producing. Personally, I would only allow child benefit for one child per person (so a couple could have two, each one using up their entitlement to having child benefit - it can still all be paid to the mother, as I believe is the case now).
The cost of child-minding is, I'm afraid, a problem which is only going to get worse. With spiralling housing costs, and wages not rising as fast, fewer and fewer families cn live on one incoming wage. And no, I haven't got an answer for that one.

When you use an open bracket, can you please remember to use a closing one. Not a big deal, but my OCD just can't handle it.

Thank you.

 

[Notters]

Child number one is on the way shortly.

I have done my calculations and I can "afford" it. I'm comfortable that we couldn't have done any more pre-planning financially but we are currently having a last minute attempt to clear any outstanding finance to make month-to-month living more bearable whilst trying to save money to cover the months where my wife is on statutory pay.

I do take comfort in thinking "surely, loads of people have had kids and haven't done even half the work we have in calculating how we will be".

However, we are VERY fortunate that we both have close family near by who, if ever we were in trouble, would make sure we were OK. I know a lot of people aren't as fortunate.

Whether reality is the same as the spreadsheet is yet to be seen

Congratulations. Worth noting that there is huge amounts of baby "stuff" in the shops which is designed to make the retailers a huge profit, but which you don't need!

For example my wife's grandmother bought us a posh pushchair for circa £650... But we have a £40 one which is far lighter, more manoeuvrable and more durable, and hence gets used more. A bottle steriliser was another one - most can just be whacked in the microwave.