childless couples and house/money/life

jason1231972

Loads of couples are having kids. Problem is, they're the Jeremy Kyle set...

ILW

SingleSue wrote: »

But things can change, when we had the boys, we could afford to have them...don't think either us could see that things would go so horribly wrong 10 years down the line, we certainly never expected to have disabled children, you just think that happens to someone else, never you.

Apologies, I did not phrase it well.

Should have said that people should not have children when they know they cannot support them.

ruggedtoast

ILW wrote: »

Apologies, I did not phrase it well.

Should have said that people should not have children when they know they cannot support them.

No one in this country cannot support their children, the welfare state ensures that all children can be cared for.

poet123

moneyinmypocket wrote: »

I know quite a few couples in there 30s who dont want kids or a fancy wedding - they have all bought houses, all go on holidays abroad and all go out for meals, days out, social events.

I think in coming years/decades this section may become more wide spread.

Gosh how did we manage to do all the above then? We must have been very special...hang on, almost everyone we know did the same, so perhaps not. Maybe hard work, study and commitment had a bearing?

Gillybean

Really, Jason?

I have young kids, and I am most defintely not in the 'Jeremy Kyle' set. We're (relatively!) young and depend on no one. Husband works bludy hard day in day out to make sure of that.

Gillybean

Oh, and poet123, well said!

It is not a given that in order to have kids you need to get up to your eyeballs in debt, lose your previous life as a couple and lose your identity as a person.

ILW

ruggedtoast wrote: »

No one in this country cannot support their children, the welfare state ensures that all children can be cared for.

If that is the case the parents are not supporting their own children.

ruggedtoast

ILW wrote: »

If that is the case the parents are not supporting their own children.

Oh I see, you mean only the 10% of people lucky enough to be born at least upper middle class should be allowed to have children.

Everyone else who needs to rely on the state, including for medical care, schooling, or income support at times of need, should just basically not exist.

Nice.

ILW

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Oh I see, you mean only the 10% of people lucky enough to be born at least upper middle class should be allowed to have children.

Everyone else who needs to rely on the state, including for medical care, schooling, or income support at times of need, should just basically not exist.

Nice.

Nothing to do with how one is born, but the financial situation when you decide to have children. Those that are never going to be in a position to support their own offspring should be discouraged from breeding, not rewarded as per the current situation.

pqrdef

ILW wrote: »

Those that are never going to be in a position to support their own offspring should be discouraged from breeding

So instead of one worker supporting 3 pensioners, or whatever great demographic disaster it is that we're heading for, it'll be 3 times worse.

But no. All pensioners who can't support themselves can just go on a one-way coach trip to Cleethorpes and jump off the end of the pier.