childless couples and house/money/life

zagfles

pqrdef wrote: »

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.

Or get their children to support them. Those who are so keen on parents supporting their own children should be equally keen on the children, once grown up, supporting their own parents in retirement. Unless they are selfish hypocrites who just want to take, not give.

silvercar

zagfles wrote: »

Or get their children to support them. Those who are so keen on parents supporting their own children should be equally keen on the children, once grown up, supporting their own parents in retirement. Unless they are selfish hypocrites who just want to take, not give.

So those without children should save heavily to support themselves in retirement? Whereas those with children can rely on children for support?

zagfles

silvercar wrote: »

So those without children should save heavily to support themselves in retirement? Whereas those with children can rely on children for support?

Yes. If children are seen as the sole financial responsibility of their parents, not the state, then why shouldn't the reverse be true when the children are grown up and earning, and the parents are retired and in need of financial support? Why should my taxes be used to support other peoples' parents?

jason1231972

Gillybean wrote: »

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.

I know, I know

It was kind of a joke, and fitting for the somewhat bizarre and sweeping undertones of the OP, which implied that couples are shunning kids in favour of days out, etc.! Of course there are also loads of couples who have kids (or not), and simultaneously work hard and depend on nothing or nobody.

However (cue massive stereotypes, in the absence of any real evidence that I can't be bothered to look for), I'd hazard a guess that fertility rates in the UK are higher amongst those who can't independently 'afford' children (in that most or all of their income consists of means-tested state assistance) at the point of conception than those who can 'afford' them independently (in that most or all of their income is earned).

PasturesNew

silvercar wrote: »

So those without children should save heavily to support themselves in retirement? Whereas those with children can rely on children for support?

They seem to forget that those without children were a major financial factor in making the cash available for them to have/rear the children though don't they.

poet123

PasturesNew wrote: »

They seem to forget that those without children were a major financial factor in making the cash available for them to have/rear the children though don't they.

Well, that kind of depends on which demographic you are aiming that comment at. We have four children and aside from the usual services (for which, as higher rate taxpayers we certainly pay our share) we have not claimed any benefit apart from CHB. I am sure we are not alone in this. So afaics no "childless persons" were harmed in the rearing of my children;)

PasturesNew

poet123 wrote: »

Well, that kind of depends on which demographic you are aiming that comment at. We have four children and aside from the usual services (for which, as higher rate taxpayers we certainly pay our share) we have not claimed any benefit apart from CHB. I am sure we are not alone in this. So afaics no "childless persons" were harmed in the rearing of my children;)

OK, so if you earn £100,000/year you pay about £30k tax and about £5k NI. And the kids cost the taxpayer £10k (£2,500 each) towards schooling, and (I'm guessing) £2,500 in Child Benefit. I can't calculate other costs like NHS and social services for children costs etc as I don't know the breakdown ... so you are ahead. But if you were earning £50k/year that's more like £10k and £4k - so starting to get close to the wire. So don't go having any more will you!

poet123

PasturesNew wrote: »

OK, so if you earn £100,000/year you pay about £30k tax and about £5k NI. And the kids cost the taxpayer £10k (£2,500 each) towards schooling, and (I'm guessing) £2,500 in Child Benefit. I can't calculate other costs like NHS and social services for children costs etc as I don't know the breakdown ... so you are ahead. But if you were earning £50k/year that's more like £10k and £4k - so starting to get close to the wire. So don't go having any more will you!

There are two of us, and at one point some of the kids were privately educated. Fortunately, aside from birth none of my kids have seen a doctor more than a handful of times, so they haven't cost the NHS anywhere near that average. And now, three of them are grown up and contributing themselves (as childless single people!)

I just hate the sweeping generalisation that childless people contribute to the children of others more than they personally draw out. It is not universally true.

ruggedtoast

ILW wrote: »

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.

"Discouraged from breeding", as a way to describe human beings.

ILW

ruggedtoast wrote: »

"Discouraged from breeding", as a way to describe human beings.

You really are a piece of work, well done.

How would you put it?

If you can think of a nice way then great.