Cost v's number of children

viktory

Toomuchdebt wrote:

I can see all your points of view but here is another one-I have 4 children-from my ex husband-we divorced 2 years ago and in that time and the few years before we split I managed to run up a lot of debt(see siggy).I now have a new man(if all goes well) and IF we wanted to think about children I would have a hard time saying no for now because of my age-I am 35 and it will take around 7 years to pay of all the debts-I really don't want to be 42 and having a baby.My last baby died and I don't feel my family is complete yet,so should I not even think about having another baby because of my debts and the fact that I get tax credits?I do think if I was 25 I would not mind waiting.

You have four children. I am so sorry that one of your babies died, but if you cannot afford to feed, clothe & house a child without relying on benefits or whilst deeply in debt then a person should take the decision that it is not feasible to have another child for the good of the children you already have.

Your current partner should understand this.

Child are not a right, but they are a responsibility.

Zziggi

I don't know whether the OP or the OP's sister is right. But won't thre be soem economies of scale with having more kids? I'm sure the second doesn;t cost as much as the first. Then once you have one of each, any subsequent children should be cheaper than the first of each sex - surely?

Also we have an ageing population. We need more babies (either than or mass immigration - and nobody seems to favour the latter option!). Eventually it'll get to the point where the government gives extra money to those who have larger families as an encouragement to have bigger families simply because we need more tax payers for the future.

black-saturn

viktory wrote:

LOL, I just read this out to my husband. His reaction? "!!!!ing hell! - those tax credits come out of the taxpayers pocket!" I echo that.

Any person having a child that states "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" strikes me as being immature, selfish and thoughtless. What a wonderful parent you must be.

Your sister is a credit to your parents. You should be ashamed of yourself.

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

pinkfluffybabe

helpafriend wrote:

I find that those with money tend to have fewer children, because they are selfish. I think tax credits are the governments way of making sure the population continues as those of us on lower incomes are more open to the idea of the sacrifice it takes to raise a family. I am doing the country a service by providing more taxpayers.

There is nothing selfish about choosing not to have children, or choosing not to have any more if you already have them.

I'm with Wigginsmum, support should be stopped after child 2. Why should taxpayers support you to breed? If you can't afford to support your children without government help, stop having them.

Any helpafriend, your attitude stinks :mad: I applaud your sister for being sensible and not selfishly reproducing to get extra benefit.

black-saturn

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.

pinkfluffybabe

Zziggi wrote:

Also we have an ageing population. We need more babies (either than or mass immigration - and nobody seems to favour the latter option!). Eventually it'll get to the point where the government gives extra money to those who have larger families as an encouragement to have bigger families simply because we need more tax payers for the future.

We do have a declining and ageing population, but is the answer to that really to bring more children into the world without careful consideration of how they will be supported? We are lucky in this country, look at the 'one-child' policy in China, where women were made to pay back any support they received for child one if they went on to have child two (and there were very stringent checks in place to ensure this didn't happen).

Many countries are facing this same problem, but I do not believe that having children you can ill afford to care for under the guise of 'creating tax payers for the future' is really helpful to anyone.

black-saturn

pinkfluffybabe wrote:

Any helpafriend, your attitude stinks :mad: I applaud your sister for being sensible and not selfishly reproducing to get extra benefit.

People don't have children to get extra benefit. Money hardship is only temporary and most people only need to be on benefit while their children are really young.

helpafriend

Zziggi wrote:

I don't know whether the OP or the OP's sister is right. But won't thre be soem economies of scale with having more kids? I'm sure the second doesn;t cost as much as the first. Then once you have one of each, any subsequent children should be cheaper than the first of each sex - surely?

Also we have an ageing population. We need more babies (either than or mass immigration - and nobody seems to favour the latter option!). Eventually it'll get to the point where the government gives extra money to those who have larger families as an encouragement to have bigger families simply because we need more tax payers for the future.

This relects my point earlier. We need more children. Tax credits are the governments way of ensuring at least some of us do their bit.

In Australia they are even paying people to have babies the situation is that bad.

pinkfluffybabe

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.

To all intents and purposes the state pension will be a thing of the past by the time many of us reach the, ever increasing, pensionable age.

This attitude that people have on this board that childless people are selfish really sticks in my throat. You have no idea why people do not have children, there could be any number of reasons, medical or otherwise. Are you saying that couples who are unable to have children should not be entitled to any support in their old age, because they have no children paying into the pot???

dlb

So if people who have had kids when they were not on tax credits and find themselves in a worst situation through no fault of there own (ie redundancy) be made to suffer.

Re phrase that we can manage without the tax credits but if we can get the extra money why shouldnt we? We have paid tax all our lives and my husband still does, so why should we be at fault.

I agree that people who have never worked a day in there lifes should`t get anything, it makes us mad that my husbands ex, is on income support never ever even trys to get a job, expects us to buy everything aswell as support our 4 kids ( not that we mind getting my step son anything) but she is the one on income support who can afford to got abroad twice a year, run a car and go out every weekend!

We havent been out for over 18 months, our night out is a cheap glass of home made wine and a night infront of the tv, and i wouldnt have it any other way, but there are people out there who tax credits are a helping hand ontop of a rubbish wage that they work dam hard for!