surely it is better to limit child benefit to 2 kids per family

Shakethedisease

You will probably find that most people even those on benefits are a lot better off than people in general were in the 70's,

Nah, we didn't have to move house and change schools every 6 months. I could also as a teenager, have as many posters over the walls as I liked. And my mum and dad were free to paint and redecorate as they wanted as fashions changed. The garden ws also planted, patio's laid, shed's put up and looked after.
Oh, and living in a council house I wasn't looked at as 'scum' then either, as it is now. All on one, very modest wage in a council house. Better of than renting privately as a family.. not financially, of course, if we had been privately renting.. in terms of the HB/LHA.. paid to the landlord. But, I'd say, much, much better off in just 'getting on with life' without a constant 6 month ast or section 21 hanging over us.

Those that are so harsh over child benefit's being limited to 2 kids max.. are possibly frustrated that their own rents/mortgages while working are too high to consider having a child. So are very understandably a bit resentful about it. A lot of people just can't afford to have kids because they don't dare lose one wage. And even if they do, can't afford the childcare if they go back to work afterwards. It's a big 'hit' to take financially. And most of it is in order to keep a roof over one's head.

This, imho, is why we have the endless, endless, endless 'why have kids if you can't afford them' posts here. They're everywhere on this site.
When what they really mean is 'our mortgage is so eye-wateringly high on two wages.. Or we're spending so much money on rent and saving up for a deposit .. that we can't afford them ? '...
Otherwise, they'd just quietly get on with it if they wanted to..let's face it.

As for the 'over-population' stuff spouted lol.. I can't believe people actually base whether they'll have a child or not on their 'carbon footprint'. The UK ( just regarding the UK ) is over populated because we're all living longer, not due to the babies born. The population is 'top heavy' as regards to age, and it's well documented as such.

treliac

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I can't believe people actually base whether they'll have a child or not on their 'carbon footprint'.

Those of us who earn our living base it on whether we can afford to have a child, nothing much else.

Shakethedisease

Those of us who earn our living base it on whether we can afford to have a child, nothing much else.

I've read some weird posts here in my short time as a member ( re the carbon footprinting )

How would you define 'affording a child' ? No-one's yet said much about it ( apart from a bit of bashing here and there ).. When is it ok to have one ? I'm genuinely interested as to when this is deemed 'acceptable'.

Actually, I'm not really expecting a proper answer to this. But there are so many that say 'you should'nt have them if you can't afford them'.. It's like there's a 'line' drawn somewhere, but no-one will actually come out and say where it is, even roughly ?

treliac

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I've read some weird posts here in my short time as a member ( re the carbon footprinting )

How would you define 'affording a child' ? No-one's yet said much about it ( apart from a bit of bashing here and there ).. When is it ok to have one ? I'm genuinely interested as to when this is deemed 'acceptable'.

Actually, I'm not really expecting a proper answer to this. But there are so many that say 'you should'nt have them if you can't afford them'.. It's like there's a 'line' drawn somewhere, but no-one will actually come out and say where it is, even roughly ?

I would have loved to have had a larger family but I (and DH) knew that if we did, we wouldn't have been able to afford to give them all that we felt we should in order that they would get opportunities and a good start in life (and that's not meaning expensive technical gadgetry, designer clothing, expensive holidays etc. etc. either).... plus enough of our non-working time that they would actually feel their parents were around and present for them.

It's straightforward and very easy to understand.... a proper answer, as far as I am concerned.

neverdespairgirl

StevieJ wrote: »

Not sure of the relevance there? one you didn't have any kids, two you wouldn't have received anything anyway.

No, but it shows (at least in my case) that there is some migration both ways.

pop_gun

one day this academic discussion will give way to forced sterilization. we can't afford children on the basis of the resources they will consume, not the money they'll spend.
many can't seem to cope with the benefits they receive at present let alone if they were cut or scrapped altogether.

having a child in this day and age is the height of selfishness.

Generali

pop_gun wrote: »

one day this academic discussion will give way to forced sterilization. we can't afford children on the basis of the resources they will consume, not the money they'll spend.
many can't seem to cope with the benefits they receive at present let alone if they were cut or scrapped altogether.

having a child in this day and age is the height of selfishness.

You're arguing against billions of years of evolution. Good luck with that!

ash28

pop_gun wrote: »

one day this academic discussion will give way to forced sterilization. we can't afford children on the basis of the resources they will consume, not the money they'll spend.
many can't seem to cope with the benefits they receive at present let alone if they were cut or scrapped altogether.

having a child in this day and age is the height of selfishness.

Forced sterilisation is an interesting one, I can't see it happening tbh.

One thing to bear in mind is that the UK is a member of the UN which happens to have a Convention on the Rights of a Child (ratified in the UK in 1991) Article 27 states:

Article 27
1. States Parties recognize the right of every child to a standard of living adequate for the child's physical, mental, spiritual, moral and social development.

2. The parent(s) or others responsible for the child have the primary responsibility to secure, within their abilities and financial capacities, the conditions of living necessary for the child's development.

3. States Parties, in accordance with national conditions and within their means, shall take appropriate measures to assist parents and others responsible for the child to implement this right and shall in case of need provide material assistance and support programmes, particularly with regard to nutrition, clothing and housing.

4. States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to secure the recovery of maintenance for the child from the parents or other persons having financial responsibility for the child, both within the State Party and from abroad. In particular, where the person having financial responsibility for the child lives in a State different from that of the child, States Parties shall promote the accession to international agreements or the conclusion of such agreements, as well as the making of other appropriate arrangements.

So whether you like it or not the government has a responsiblity to help children and their parents. Whether there is too much help is another argument.

By 2005 192 countries had ratified the treaty - Somalia hadn't - it doesn't have a recognised government. The US hadn't - it allegedly intends to but can only look at one treaty at time.

ash28

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I've read some weird posts here in my short time as a member ( re the carbon footprinting )

How would you define 'affording a child' ? No-one's yet said much about it ( apart from a bit of bashing here and there ).. When is it ok to have one ? I'm genuinely interested as to when this is deemed 'acceptable'.

Actually, I'm not really expecting a proper answer to this. But there are so many that say 'you should'nt have them if you can't afford them'.. It's like there's a 'line' drawn somewhere, but no-one will actually come out and say where it is, even roughly ?

I don't think there is a a right answer. Everyone is different and their criteria for regarding affordability for having children is different.

Some people are happy to be hard up and still in rented accommodation others want what they term financial stability. Is one way right and another way wrong, I don't think either way is wrong.

We were in the first group I mentioned - though we weren't hard up - the hard up came after the children when we bought a house. We had about 5 years of what I would call poverty, though we could pay the bills and mortgage, we couldn't afford holidays, a new (2nd hand) car, to go out, stuff for ourselves unless it was absolutely necessary, like replacing shoes. And no we didn't have any benefits - except child benefit.

By the time we were in our late 30s we were on easy street, relatively speaking - even with 3 teenaged children. We took the financial hit early on in our lives. I have friends who had their children 14 years after we did at 38, they found it much harder to cope financially, they had become really used to a certain way of life and struggled to make the adjustment from "haves" to "have nots" - we didn't as we were "have nots" to start with. We are 55 and are retiring - they at the same age have 2 children still in education and retirement is a long way off.

So each to their own, it's all down to personal choice.

Also no one knows what their future holds regarding jobs, relationships etc. You might have a good job and a stable relationship now - but who knows what it will be like in 5 or 10 years time - you might be a single parent on benefits.

How many marriages end up in divorce and how many cohabiting relationships break down - a lot of both I think.

What I don't agree with are people starting families while they are on benefits - if benefits have to come later that's different.

I also think the prevelance of Working Tax Credits (not so much Child Tax Credits), shows that either we pay people at the lower end of the scale far too little or that the cost of living is far too high - but successive gov'ts know this which is why there are "working benefits".

bendix

Shakethedisease wrote: »

How would you define 'affording a child' ? No-one's yet said much about it ( apart from a bit of bashing here and there ).. When is it ok to have one ? I'm genuinely interested as to when this is deemed 'acceptable'.

Actually, I'm not really expecting a proper answer to this. But there are so many that say 'you should'nt have them if you can't afford them'.. It's like there's a 'line' drawn somewhere, but no-one will actually come out and say where it is, even roughly ?

Simple.

When you are comfortable that you can raise the child up to its own financial independence without recourse to state benefits.

It's not rocket science.

I personally would take it further and suggest when you can do so without relying on state provided education or health, but then I'm a little extreme in that regard.