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

[Bold Seagull]

You've not been down London Road recently then? No shortage of money for fags down there it would appear, while the mums drag their kids round the pound shops.

If you did a pros and cons list of smoking, I fancy one side is going to be a bit longer than the other, with either cost or cancer fighting it out for top con spot.

 

[midnight_rendezvous]

And this is the crux of the matter. There is a generation now who are what I would call the "entitled". Where there is a hard self-belief that they are entitled to do what they want without considering their "means", and then when they don't get it, or find out that they can't afford it, then spend the time moaning about it rather than tightening their belts.

I've been fortunate in my life , through a solid dependable well paid job, a working wife, low interest rates on my current repayment mortgage, and only 1 child (9 years old) that we've been able to maintain a reasonable standard of living. Had we had more than 1 child, then I would have expected our standard of living to drop, so we decided that one was enough.

There is no "entitlement", there's hard work.

Urgh the millennial bashing is just a lazy way to avoid looking at the wider issues. It’s easy to sit there and say this generation is ‘entitled’ when your generation could probably afford to buy a house on an unskilled wage at 21. This ‘entitled’ generation will be the first generation to be financially worse off than their parents and it’s not because they are afraid of hard work.

 

[The Antikythera Mechanism]

My stat has actually happened whereas yours is just a prediction.

It has been produced by the ONS taking all statistics and factors into consideration with 77% of the forecast population growth coming from direct and indirect migration.

 

[Bold Seagull]

And this is the crux of the matter. There is a generation now who are what I would call the "entitled". Where there is a hard self-belief that they are entitled to do what they want without considering their "means", and then when they don't get it, or find out that they can't afford it, then spend the time moaning about it rather than tightening their belts.

I've been fortunate in my life , through a solid dependable well paid job, a working wife, low interest rates on my current repayment mortgage, and only 1 child (9 years old) that we've been able to maintain a reasonable standard of living. Had we had more than 1 child, then I would have expected our standard of living to drop, so we decided that one was enough.

There is no "entitlement", there's hard work.

I think this is a really cynical view. We are a generation now that will work harder and longer hours than any post war generation before us, with less benefits such as full salary pensions, they will also workto an older age than ever before, have less chance to own their own property, more likely to be in more debt.

What a sad indictment of today's society that the loving bond of a family has to be a financial calculation.

What about the hard work of a low paid worker, who may work harder than anyone for minimum reward, they're not allowed to have a family or limited to an only child? Is that really the measure of family life now, £££s in the bank account. We're equating having a child or giving that child a sibling to the same consideration as buying a car.

Not for me. Having a family is an emotional, life changing, life affirming event that little can prepare you for. I'm not sure they're that expensive once you have 1 anyway. I stopped most of my going out, restaurants, new clothes so often etc. etc. I reckon I actually saved money!

If your statement 'there is no entitlement, there's hard work' is to be true, then every hard working job needs to be rewarded with a decent living wage. That is simply not happening, and you'd be naive for thinking it is.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Urgh the millennial bashing is just a lazy way to avoid looking at the wider issues. It’s easy to sit there and say this generation is ‘entitled’ when your generation could probably afford to buy a house on an unskilled wage at 21. This ‘entitled’ generation will be the first generation to be financially worse off than their parents and it’s not because they are afraid of hard work.

The rate we're going, anyone in their 40s and below will be being wheeled out to carry on working with our oxygen strapped to the back of our chairs!!!

 

[nicko31]

Ditch the triple lock on pensions that will free up some cash for the younger generation. No wonder the millenials are voting JC, the Tories offer them very little

 

[Thunder Bolt]

It has been produced by the ONS taking all statistics and factors into consideration with 77% of the forecast population growth coming from direct and indirect migration.

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

 

[GOM]

My daughter is 10 months old and is currently at a mix of nursery and grandparents to allow my wife to go back to work, it is affordable but only just about makes sense. We are fortunate to have help from grandparents, without that I don't think my wife would have been able to return to work until our daughter is 3. Why not just provide 30 hours free a week from say 1 years old, what is so special about waiting 3 years?

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.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Urgh the millennial bashing is just a lazy way to avoid looking at the wider issues. It’s easy to sit there and say this generation is ‘entitled’ when your generation could probably afford to buy a house on an unskilled wage at 21. This ‘entitled’ generation will be the first generation to be financially worse off than their parents and it’s not because they are afraid of hard work.

Not true at all. It took two wages to be able to afford to buy a house which was why most couples married before moving in together. Mortgage companies would only lend on one and half times the annual salary of the husband because the wife would get pregnant.

It was in the 80s when both wages were taken into account, which resulted in people living together and house prices shooting up more than inflation.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

I think this is a really cynical view. We are a generation now that will work harder and longer hours than any post war generation before us,

The working week was 50 hours with people working 5 days a week and Saturday mornings. Quite a few unions went on strike to get the working week down to 40 hours a week.
It was the 70s before the 37 hour week came in.

 

[Bold Seagull]

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.

Because that person maybe a nurse, teacher, healthcare worker, public sector working, emergency services, armed forces, and our economy needs them working rather than at home looking after a child? Maybe...perhaps be grateful if that person who is just about affording to get their child in childcare might be directly helping with your life in some way.

Bit like saying why should I pay for some old person's state pension who also has a full salary pension, or their healthcare in their old age once they've reached how much they actually contributed in NI. Perhaps that is what you are saying, record what we've all put in then, you only get out exactly what you paid in. If you get really ill, tough crap, because you reached your limit of what you paid, and you ain't getting no more. Be grateful if the rest of us have to pick up some tab of you needing hospitalisation, care or anything else that might befall you.

Society is all for one and one for one.

 

[Bold Seagull]

The working week was 50 hours with people working 5 days a week and Saturday mornings. Quite a few unions went on strike to get the working week down to 40 hours a week.
It was the 70s before the 37 hour week came in.

Sounds almost like holiday hours...

 

[Thunder Bolt]

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.

That child will be working and paying into the system when you've retired to help pay for your pension.

I keep seeing people pointing out that us baby boomers have full final salary pensions. Very few of us have. I had my first child in 1970, and second in 73. Child benefit was only for subsequent children, not the first.
I did a series of part time jobs and wanted to join a pension scheme, but was told that part timers were allowed to join. Eventually I did join when my children were older and I worked full time.
The union took a few test cases to court in the late 90s because all the part timers who were refused entry into the pension scheme were female, so it could be judged on sex discrimination. We won our case, and so could get another five years pension paid. I have about a third of a final salary scheme, which is enough to get by, but not luxury. I did contribute to SERPS (State Earnings Related Pension Scheme) in the meantime but a lot of women paid married women's stamp as they had small wages. My Step Mum's pension was £11 a week when she died in 2008. Low paid workers get low pensions.

 

[pearl]

You could always spread the cost over different fathers.

I like your humour Lush

 

[portlock seagull]

Immigrants from developing countries have loads more kids. Placing a strain on various social budgets. We know this. What I don’t understand is that argument that immigrants work, thereby contribute tax to economy, so it’s all square, if Mum has for example 5 children and it takes 20+ Years for them to start earning and therefore contributing, if they don’t leave to go abroad that is, how have the parents contributed enough tax to cover said social costs 5 kids have taken out versus 1.5 average a non immigrant family have had by comparison? Anyone care to explain (racists, this is not an excuse to spout off - head off to the DM if you want to do that)

 

[midnight_rendezvous]

Not true at all. It took two wages to be able to afford to buy a house which was why most couples married before moving in together. Mortgage companies would only lend on one and half times the annual salary of the husband because the wife would get pregnant.

It was in the 80s when both wages were taken into account, which resulted in people living together and house prices shooting up more than inflation.

Except it is true Back in 1969, the average first home cost £4,000 (according to data from the Office for National Statistics) and you would typically have been able to buy it at the age of 25 on low skilled income. Now just 8% of 25-year-olds make it on to the property ladder. The average price of a first home has increased by 5,225% over the past 46 years, to £209,000. This has massively outpaced the incomes of first-time buyers, which have grown at less than half that rate. Shelter estimates that today’s first-time buyers spend 30% to 40% more to buy their first home today than they would have done in 1969.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Immigrants from developing countries have loads more kids. Placing a strain on various social budgets. We know this. What I don’t understand is that argument that immigrants work, thereby contribute tax to economy, so it’s all square, if Mum has for example 5 children and it takes 20+ Years for them to start earning and therefore contributing, if they don’t leave to go abroad that is, how have the parents contributed enough tax to cover said social costs 5 kids have taken out versus 1.5 average a non immigrant family have had by comparison? Anyone care to explain (racists, this is not an excuse to spout off - head off to the DM if you want to do that)

How do you start explaining something based on such broad assumptions? If the parents are contributing, then why would they be taking social costs for the kids? Do all immigrant families from anywhere in the world coming to Britain all have an average of 5 kids? Where did you even pull this figure from, just your best feeling for it?

 

[Wrong-Direction]

Why would anyone have kids? Horrible little buggers

Sent from my SM-A310F using Tapatalk

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Except it is true Back in 1969, the average first home cost £4,000 (according to data from the Office for National Statistics) and you would typically have been able to buy it at the age of 25 on low skilled income. Now just 8% of 25-year-olds make it on to the property ladder. The average price of a first home has increased by 5,225% over the past 46 years, to £209,000. This has massively outpaced the incomes of first-time buyers, which have grown at less than half that rate. Shelter estimates that today’s first-time buyers spend 30% to 40% more to buy their first home today than they would have done in 1969.

The average is taken from all over the country. I got married in 1969, so I remember exactly. Houses around here were £6K but only £3K up north. My ex came of of the Navy a year later, and his wage was £20 a week or £1K per annum.
Remember what I said about mortgage lenders only allowing 1.5 times annual salary, and refusing to take the wife's income into account.

 

[midnight_rendezvous]

The average is taken from all over the country. I got married in 1969, so I remember exactly. Houses around here were £6K but only £3K up north. My ex came of of the Navy a year later, and his wage was £20 a week or £1K per annum.
Remember what I said about mortgage lenders only allowing 1.5 times annual salary, and refusing to take the wife's income into account.

So, the house prices were 3 - 6 times a yearly salary, depending on where you lived in the country. My house in Brum cost roughly £175,000 which is 8x my yearly wage. A quick scan on right move and similar sized properties are going for around £400,000 in Burgess Hill (my home town) which is about 19x my annual salary.