Cost v's number of children

viktory

black-saturn wrote:

I think she should be quite proud of herself that she provides for them and looks after them herself.

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

She doesn't. The tax payer does.

viktory

black-saturn wrote:

I presume all the childless people on this board will all be pensioners one day. So the tax our children pay when they get to working age will be paying your pensions and seeing as you have no children of your own paying it I think this is a little selfish of you. Also when your really old you won't have anyone to come and visit you or look after you but thats OK because you will have a huge pile of money to sit in.

Ah but this is the scary thing. Whilst the parents have no work ethic and rely on benefits, there is a good chance that the children will follow the same route and therefore won't actually pay any tax.

Besides, I pay into a pension and have done for years. I am with wigginsmum, I don't actually think there will be a state pension to rely on. Further, I didn't have children so that they can look after me in my dotage. Nor will I have a huge pile of money to sit in - the Government will make damn sure of that by taxing me to the hilt to pay for !!!!less people like the OP who feel it is their right to continue having children whilst relying on the state to pay for them!

Can anyone honestly and truly feel that a caring, decent parent would make the statement "I don’t worry too much about how we are going to feed and clothe them as my tax credits go up every time we have a baby" Come on people! Surely you would agree that this a terrifying indicment of the society we have become - and it is not a statement any truly caring parent would make.

steve_cov

black-saturn wrote:

I presume all the childless people on this board will all be pensioners one day. So the tax our children pay when they get to working age will be paying your pensions and seeing as you have no children of your own paying it I think this is a little selfish of you.

Ultimately, each person's taxes effectively "pay" for those public services and entitlements they "use" over the course of their life: schooling, health services, road upkeep, defence. We accept a generally redistributive outlook on that spending, i.e. people pay more as they earn more, because we consider these services essential to all.

Irritation arises when people are considered to be taking advantage of the system which was set up as a safety net for those who could not work for reasons of illness, infirmity or age. Many people will have shared the horror of the Wife Swap couple paired with Lizzie Bardsley and her partner, when they realised the Bardsleys' income from benefits was larger than their own two salaries. This is widely seen as unfair.

I accept that I am fortunate, but at today's values, my state pension will be about 15% of my income in retirement; I don't imagine that those with a brood of children they can't afford could say the same about their current income. I will hardly be dependent on other people's children paying for my state pension, and I will live within my means.

The debate in this thread is now so polarised that it is only a matter of time before someone invokes the C16th idea of "deserving" and "undeserving poor". Anyone for a "sturdy beggar"?! I do hope not.

black-saturn

Are you telling me I'm paying tax to pay for the upkeep of your road when I've never walked along it? :eek:

cannyscot_2

Helpafriend is not "abusing" the system wigginsmum she is using the system.

I really can't believe everyone here is so sure they are right. I have strong beliefs for myself but I recognise that in the scheme of things I have had and have a good life. I am not in anyone else's position and therefore do not feel I am entitled to judge. I am happy to pay tax and claim nothing but equally happy that if I were in a different position that I would claim. Stop judging people ! The world has gone mad nowadays the reason people cut down on the number of children is so that they can have more things and more designer clothes for their children etc etc If we all took a chill pill and were nicer to each other -which lots of parts of this forum usually are -then none of this would matter.

Toomuchdebt

wigginsmum wrote:

I think the benefits system is heading for crisis-point with the abuse of people like the OP, so it'll have to end up with something radical, like the Chinese system. In order to claim longterm benefits, claimants should agree to a hormonal implant to prevent any more pregnancies.

Ah but not everyone can have an implant.I for instance can't use any kind of hormonal contraceptive as I have severe side effects,so have to rely on condoms(I won't use a coil because of the way they work-ie stopping a fertilised egg from implanting) .so only barrier methods are suitable,and as we all know condoms split(which is what happened in my last 3 pregnancies-one unsuccessful).
I'm definitely not planning a baby just yet-more within the next 2 years or so if this relationship goes that far,but if I got pregnant accidentally I certainly wouldn't abort it just because I couldn't afford it.Life means more to me than money.

Lotta_Littlies

I normally don't get involved in these threads but I do think that you, Helpafriend, are the sort of person who does give larger families a bad name.

The decision on whether you have more children or not quite frankly lies with your sister and her dh and is nothing to do with you. Everyone is different. Some people want lots, some want two, some want one child and others don't want any children. It's their decision and I don't feel I'm given the right nor privilege to judge anyone on their decision.

However, I have to say that what reallygets my goat are those with more than average children who have the mentality of "It's OK because the Government gives me £x so I can keep having them". No, it's not OK. If you can't support your family you really ought to think beyond relying on the state to support it for you.

Dh and I have six children. We both work, and between us earn enough money to pay our bills, own our own home, run two cars and not rely on anyone for anything. We have savings and we do have a little debt which is on it's way out the door as we speak. Until a few months ago I was working two jobs, one during evenings/weekends when dh would take care of the children, and my current job working from home which I'm pleased to say is my sole job now. And yes we do have a fairly good income between us but we went through a lot to get to where we are now. We certainly don't expect anyone else to look after our family and if we couldn't support them ourselves then we'd not even think about bringing another child into the family.

The thing is that when people see us with our children they automatically assume that all parents of large families have the same reasoning as you and that's wrong. I wish people wouldn't judge and cut us all from the same cloth.

Lotta

black-saturn

I would imagine that you have a lot of child benefit though. Do you donate this to charity?

wigginsmum

cannyscot wrote:

Helpafriend is not "abusing" the system wigginsmum she is using the system.

The system is clearly wrong if it allows mindless willy-nilly sprogspawning with no personal responsibility. I stand by what I've said in this thread.

Lotta_Littlies

black-saturn wrote:

I would imagine that you have a lot of child benefit though. Do you donate this to charity?

No, it goes into my children's accounts.

Lotta