Married couples 'punished by tax system'

Glen0000

SingleSue wrote: »

Sometimes when you bring the children into the world, the salary is higher and the children are affordable.

Then !!!!!! happens and you have to take what work you can find, even if it only pays 14k a year.

Doesn't mean the person is stupid, just unlucky.

I am talking about people who have never earned over £14k a year, not someone who earned £50k a year then became unlucky.

SingleSue

I will give you that one Glen, maybe we are talking about the same thing but from different angles.

You are thinking along the lines of the always lower earner whilst I am thinking (probably from a personal experience), of the ones who have been high or higher earners who have found themselves having to take any job they can rather than be unemployed.

I tend to aim high :rotfl:

carolt

harry_w wrote: »

That's what the CSA is for.

Consent to intercourse is not consent to parenthood.

Yes it is.

Or is that yet another thing that's someone else's responsibility?

Grow up.

jamesd

It's irresponsible and immoral not to seek and obtain agreement to producing a child in advance. If you don't think that you should have that then it's you who should be growing up.

Accidents should be dealt with as an unfortunate mistake that needs to be corrected if agreement isn't obtained. If the accident prompts a realisation by one party that they would like a child, then they can go and seek a willing party to agree to it, not coerce the one that happens to have been involved in the mistake.

It's unfortunate that there are certain practical problems with doing what's morally right here. A reliable "yes, I want conception to be possible" switch for all persons involved would make life a lot simpler.

Glen0000

jamesd wrote: »

Accidents should be dealt with as an unfortunate mistake that needs to be corrected if agreement isn't obtained. If the accident prompts a realisation by one party that they would like a child, then they can go and seek a willing party to agree to it, not coerce the one that happens to have been involved in the mistake.

Accidents are VERY VERY VERY rare. If you are sterilized and use a condom the chances of an accident are virtually nil.. However, most "accidents" involve over reliance on condoms (20% failure rate), some other mis-use of contraception (missing a pill etc) or only using one method.

If you are a man and don't want a baby, get the snip and always use a condom. If you fail to do both, don't moan about "accidents".

SingleSue

Well at least I know it is not possible for me to have 'accidents' anymore, for one I would need a man in my life (I am not a lover of the test tube ) and secondly, I would need the 'equipment'....I had a hysterectomy 8 years ago this October.

JayScottGreenspan

jamesd wrote: »

Accidents should be dealt with as an unfortunate mistake that needs to be corrected if agreement isn't obtained. If the accident prompts a realisation by one party that they would like a child, then they can go and seek a willing party to agree to it, not coerce the one that happens to have been involved in the mistake.

That's not the way I see it.

jamesd

JayScottGreenspan wrote: »

That's not the way I see it.

Then you have an alternative moral approach (if you'd favour one party choosing for the other): if male, make your female partners aware that you'll do all you can to pressure them into carrying to term; if female, let your male partners know that you'll ignore their wishes. Then both parties can choose to seek an alternative partner if their intents aren't compatible.

SingleSue

I always thought it took two to tango...whether both wanted to tango or not (tango meaning making a baby rather than the act of sex itself)

Blackmail and pressure should not come into it.

JayScottGreenspan

Pressuring a woman to decide either way is pretty indefensible.

Should accidental fathers be chased for maintenance? Dunno, very difficult question, but I would plan on the basis that I would be...