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

[GT49er]

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.

Edited.

(and you can edit the quote too, if you're quick!)

 

[Normski1989]

Edited.

(and you can edit the quote too, if you're quick!)

Phew, thank you.

 

[Seagull kimchi]

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.

Utter respect, a roof before a yoof! - I'll add that I chose not to settle down in England because I couldn't see any chance of buying a house in the UK - It's like slavery considering going after a 300 grand mortgage. So I became a nomad in Asia instead.

 

[Deleted member 2719]

When is doing something you can't afford EVER a good idea?

Someone needs to talk to Jezza Corbyn about that.

 

[beorhthelm]

How regressive have we become to feel like re-producing is anything to do with economics!

reproduction has always been related economics. for generations people had large families so enough would survive to adulthood and care/provide for them in retirement. go back a generation or two and mothers took in work as soon as they could, child care was provided by aunts and grandparent who couldnt work any more. stay at is manageable if you have modest tastes and expenditure, thats whats changed since the 70s (blame Thatcher?).

 

[Bob'n'weave]

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.

Not having a go at your opinion at all just want to kick this around a bit. The premise of 'entitlement' suggests that if you're a couple, you are only entitled to have children if you can afford it, assuming that is, that entitlement works both ways, the couple who want the kid and the welfare state that may end up supporting them. As many couples already have kids ,who need this support, and you really need to include 'Tax Credits' (Jolly Green Giros), this means any family earning less than 40k joint income would fall under the spotlight of 'are you entitled'? Should we have a means test? What about areas of low unemployment and depravation? What happens to the childless couple who do have kids, are they to be criminalised or should we just make more poverty porn progs about them to deter other potential low income 'breeders' through ridicule and humiliation. I would not like to see 'childless' sections of society, based on incomes.

 

[Seagull kimchi]

reproduction has always been related economics. for generations people had large families so enough would survive to adulthood and care/provide for them in retirement. go back a generation or two and mothers took in work as soon as they could, child care was provided by aunts and grandparent who couldnt work any more. stay at is manageable if you have modest tastes and expenditure, thats whats changed since the 70s (blame Thatcher?).

Yer totally - I live around people who still have strong family and community bonds there's little welfare but people pull together, nobody worries about bringing up their kids here. It just depresses me to think of young aspiring couples in The UK struggling with the idea of reproducing - where did we go wrong for a vital thing to become such a calculation?

 

[crookie]

Cost of housing, especially in the South East means it's virtually impossible to survive on 1 income. Increasing nursery costs, due to continual increases in the Living Wage, and no doubt hefty rates rises for nurseries after the revaluation means it's pretty much a perfect storm for working parents. Really feel for those in that situation. As for the OP's question, yes of course, only have kids if you can afford them. Unfortunately, those that try responsibly to calculate that aren't the ones that the state, or us taxpayers, end up subsidising for most of their lives.

 

[Seagull85]

Hate to say it but "do the sums".

[MENTION=17028]dejavuatbtn[/MENTION], fair point.

 

[B52]

Needs clarification. Is the number of kids you can afford gross or net of the cost of booze, cigs and Sky telly?

don't forget the car!

 

[narly101]

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?

I don;t believe so at all - my 9 yo is an only child and has a large circle of friends and family. He's equally good at playing on his own (excellent imagination) as he is with others. And the bonus is he doesn't have a ****ing annoying sibling to put up with (as I did).

 

[narly101]

Not having a go at your opinion at all just want to kick this around a bit. The premise of 'entitlement' suggests that if you're a couple, you are only entitled to have children if you can afford it, assuming that is, that entitlement works both ways, the couple who want the kid and the welfare state that may end up supporting them. As many couples already have kids ,who need this support, and you really need to include 'Tax Credits' (Jolly Green Giros), this means any family earning less than 40k joint income would fall under the spotlight of 'are you entitled'? Should we have a means test? What about areas of low unemployment and depravation? What happens to the childless couple who do have kids, are they to be criminalised or should we just make more poverty porn progs about them to deter other potential low income 'breeders' through ridicule and humiliation. I would not like to see 'childless' sections of society, based on incomes.

It is a difficult one, but one could also suggest that the areas of low income, and low unemployment are the very areas where larger sized families are more prevalent. This of course is a rather large sweeping assumption, and one that I am certainly not stating as fact.

 

[Beach Hut]

5 year gap between our 2 as an unfortunate mis-carriage happened. As the younger approaches 20 they seem to have more in common.

 

[Bob'n'weave]

It is a difficult one, but one could also suggest that the areas of low income, and low unemployment are the very areas where larger sized families are more prevalent. This of course is a rather large sweeping assumption, and one that I am certainly not stating as fact.

Agree. I would suggest that from the perspective of a family in a deprived, benefit dependant community, that large families provide security/safety in numbers. Maybe in some cases, an aberrated sense of 'being productive' and having a sense of worth/belonging. Yes, anyone can have kids, but if you have no job or real job prospects, then maybe kids is all you've got to feel like your worth something.

 

[timbha]

About 11 years ago.....it was nowhere near as bad as I expected (and my wife was hoping [emoji23][emoji23][emoji23])

You’re right,but my two are 23 and 19, one has graduated (no debt) and working, the other is 2nd year at Uni, so I’m almost in the clear (apart from helping with property purchase I guess). Happy days [emoji16]

On the thread topic though, we waited until we could afford kids before we decided to have them.........

Ive read no further than this post. Sums up my thoughts and well done dazzas kids for their achievements, esp no debt graduation. Too many people are being supported by too few.

I’ve never fathomed out why so many carers get free entry/travel to football. But of course I don’t know the circumstances.

 

[marcos3263]

I didn't have a kid (one, singular) until I was 40. Maybe a bit late but I have had a bit of living, got a decent sized house, an investment flat, a few nice things, no debt etc. I feel that I can have a comfortable life and look after him/spoil him and one day he can move into the flat and out of my house. That way I can give him the best possible start.

I didn't believe the amount of help on offer/available until we got pregnant, everything from free fruit, medical, dental, classes, check ups, great hospitals, loads of midwives and after care, tons of free services on our doorstep from libraries and their classes and clubs, toy libraries, cheap soft play, parks, swings, child support and we are financially ok, people on benefits get ehhh loads of extra benefits on top. Honestly you wonder where the taxes go - get a child (or three) its actually scary.

I dont think its everyone right to have a child, I don't want to sound elitist but you shouldn't be allowed to have a kid unless you are stable, and I know life changes, and I appreciate it can be incredibly hard on one salary etc but the country shouldnt pay for all of this. we are creaking at the seams.

 

[goldstone]

No one needs more than two kids. The world has a major overpopulation problem and we should be doing our bit to keep the growth in check. And no way should the taxpayer support couples who want more than two. In fact I'm not sure that I support the child allowance in any form. Why should people who decide not to have kids stump up for other people's? We already pay for school costs through our taxes.

 

[sussex_guy2k2]

I've come to the decision that I don't want kids. Just need to break the news to my children.

Whilst I laughed at this, on a serious note, if you’d like to loan one to my missus a few times a week to satisfy her maternal instincts then that would be great. Ideally any loan agreement would be arranged around my desire to go to the football / enjoy some gaming / going out with the lads / anything else that takes my fancy. She’s lovely (honest), and she’d take right good care of them.

 

[sussex_guy2k2]

Agree. I would suggest that from the perspective of a family in a deprived, benefit dependant community, that large families provide security/safety in numbers. Maybe in some cases, an aberrated sense of 'being productive' and having a sense of worth/belonging. Yes, anyone can have kids, but if you have no job or real job prospects, then maybe kids is all you've got to feel like your worth something.

I think you’re being generous. Having no job or no prospects just means you have more time to get jiggy with your other half and that you’re less able to buy condoms.

 

[FatSuperman]

The baby boomer generation have a lot that they really don't need to complain about.

In general they did yes. Funnily it doesn't stop them moaning about all other generations though.

My old man owned a chain of record shops, bought his first house at 20 I think, by 24 he had half a dozen shops, a couple of cars and was on his third house upgrade. He always used to moan at me; "just go out there and start a business, I did it, it's easier than you think... why not sell records". Loved the concept that I could go and compete with HMV, who themselves aren't exactly killing it anymore.