Cost v's number of children

black-saturn

pinkfluffybabe wrote:

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???

No but your saying that the future adult population of this country shouldnt have support either.

pinkfluffybabe

helpafriend wrote:

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.

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
So us childless people should just b*gger off then seeing as how we aren't 'doing our bit'. Get real. I am doing my bit by not producing children i cannot afford to support, and there is nothing selfish about that.

wigginsmum

There won't be a state pension by the time we retire - the bloated State bureaucracy will have imploded because of the drain on it. The only pension we'll have will be private pensions we've paid into. Same goes for healthcare.

As I've said before, look at the care homes - elderly parents sit thronged in misery because the children they thought would visit them have abandoned them. My care assistant Mum has clients who don't see their families from one year to the next; the children have turned out to be the biggest disappointment of their lives. There are no guarantees that your children will make time for you when you're old, no matter how well you raise them. I don't labour under that delusion myself, although of course it might be that my care needs provide gainful employment for your children and grandchildren so that they can earn a living and not rely on benefits (if there are any by that time).

You persist in thinking all the childfree made their decision because of money. That's untrue.

wigginsmum

black-saturn wrote:

People don't have children to get extra benefit.

Not true, in my experience - I can name a good half-a-dozen girls who've done precisely that. And I bet I'm not the only one.

black-saturn

I wouldnt expect my children to visit me when I'm old. They will have their own lives to lead and I will want them to get on with it.

Tigertomato

Why do people assume that the benefits system will always be there for them? If you can't afford to provide for a family on your income without relying on government handouts then you would really struggle if those benefits were taken away.

The existing benefit system is due a massive overhaul, especially given the vast amount of fraud that goes on. To any of you who are having children whilst on benefits and justifying it because love is more important than money (which it is) consider how you would feel if those benefits were taken away and you could no longer feed the kids you love.

Reading through this thread it's very clear that a fair number of the posters here have a problem with their taxes going to support those who have children they can't afford.

I do not have a problem with my taxes going to support those whose of either sex whose partners are no longer a part of the family, or who have become too ill to work, or who have died. None of these are foreseen circumstances.

My grandad had a saying which was something along the lines of: "When poverty comes in through the window, love flies out through the door." And I think he had a valid point.

Perhaps Helpafriend should consider that perhaps some of those others that she criticises for not having more children might do so if their taxes weren't being taken to pay for others who have a less responsible attitude.

pinkfluffybabe

black-saturn wrote:

No but your saying that the future adult population of this country shouldnt have support either.

Thanks for putting words in my mouth there. How considerate of you!

The OP stated that she wasn't fussed about making sure her children were provided for as she knew that her tax credits would go up with each child. My comments are made towards that attitude. Families who need support should receive support, families who carry on reproducing without a thought for the consequences, financially and otherwise, should be limited to how much support they get.

wigginsmum

black-saturn wrote:

No but your saying that the future adult population of this country shouldnt have support either.

Of course they should have support - from their parents.

wigginsmum

black-saturn wrote:

I wouldnt expect my children to visit me when I'm old. They will have their own lives to lead and I will want them to get on with it.

Then what's your point? You'll be poor and alone while others are rich and alone?

black-saturn

wigginsmum wrote:

Then what's your point? You'll be poor and alone while others are rich and alone?

Yep thats it :T