Deleted

Tiddlywinks

ruggedtoast wrote: »

And there we have all the predictable griping from the anti child forum curmudgeons.

Almost no one can afford to pay for their children while they are children, that is why the vast majority of people send their kids to NHS doctors and State schools.

Unless they are boomers, looking forward to a bumper pension and stella house price rises, over the longer term most people pay will pay in more than they take out.

I'm not an 'anti child' 'griper'...

I believe that people should plan their family size based on their ability to provide the basic necessities for them: shelter, food, clothing. To be clear, when I say provide, I mean by themselves not with massive help from the rest of us.

I am happy for the state to provide education and healthcare as that is of mutual benefit in that healthy, educated people are more likely to be productive members of society.

What I utterly object to is this 'breed now, ask for benefits later' kind of attitude. This sense of entitlement, the thoughts that we can all do exactly what we want to do and someone else will have to pick up the bill.

I have two sets of friends who stopped at one child. Why? Because they were both fully employed just over any benefits threshold, had a large mortgage as they hit the market at its peak and did their calculations to see if they could support another 'mouth' and found that they couldn't - so they didn't.

Yet, their taxes go to pay for the families that spend their lives without ever working but still CHOOSE to have 3, 4 or more children - how can that ever be fair?

That's not being anti-child that's being anti-careless breeder and I won't apologise for my feelings on this.

pqrdef

Masomnia wrote: »

They believed in incentivizing the propagation of the educated, middle classes.

But Butler and Robbins achieved that by creating more grammar school and university places. They filled them with the sons of miners and the daughters of greengrocers. Quite unnecessary to breed more kids from middle-class parents.

Masomnia

pqrdef wrote: »

But Butler and Robbins achieved that by creating more grammar school and university places. They filled them with the sons of miners and the daughters of greengrocers. Quite unnecessary to breed more kids from middle-class parents.

I see what you did there Good point.

One can't generalize obviously, clearly not all middle class people go on to have children that contribute positively to society and clearly most working class people do. But having schools that give an excellent education regardless of means doesn't deal with the problem of parents who have no interest in contributing to society and have similar aspirations, or lack thereof, for their children.

Quasar

pqrdef wrote: »

But Butler and Robbins achieved that by creating more grammar school and university places. They filled them with the sons of miners and the daughters of greengrocers. Quite unnecessary to breed more kids from middle-class parents.

This is one of things that puzzle me about the UK (I'm not a Briton). There still is this assumption of class, and more especially that a class denotes the level of educational aspiration and ability.

The rigid class system is one of the worst indicators of ability because, well, people are born into a class and there is little in the way of merit or ability attached to this "achievement".

A fair society would see people from all family backgrounds able to attain the best they are capable of in education. There are clever youngster from all walks of life and dull ones as well. An enlightened society, let alone government, would do all possible to identify the brightest and encourage them to pursue congenial studies and careers. As Masomnia says, there also needs to be a family ethos of achievement that is passed on to the younger generations, and at the moment there are troubling numbers of families where this is just non existent.

MacMickster

Tiddlywinks wrote: »

I'm not an 'anti child' 'griper'...

I believe that people should plan their family size based on their ability to provide the basic necessities for them: shelter, food, clothing. To be clear, when I say provide, I mean by themselves not with massive help from the rest of us.

I am happy for the state to provide education and healthcare as that is of mutual benefit in that healthy, educated people are more likely to be productive members of society.

What I utterly object to is this 'breed now, ask for benefits later' kind of attitude. This sense of entitlement, the thoughts that we can all do exactly what we want to do and someone else will have to pick up the bill.

I have two sets of friends who stopped at one child. Why? Because they were both fully employed just over any benefits threshold, had a large mortgage as they hit the market at its peak and did their calculations to see if they could support another 'mouth' and found that they couldn't - so they didn't.

Yet, their taxes go to pay for the families that spend their lives without ever working but still CHOOSE to have 3, 4 or more children - how can that ever be fair?

That's not being anti-child that's being anti-careless breeder and I won't apologise for my feelings on this.

I couldn't agree with this post more.

Children are a blessing and should be treated as such.

Any responsible prospective parent should be considering how they will be able to provide for and support the child with which they hoped to be blessed, giving them the best upbringing that they can. This should not be purely a financial decision. If they feel that they will be unable to provide sufficient finance, love or their quality time to nurture a child, then they should put the prospective child's interests ahead of their own and decide that the time is not right.

Of course peoples circumstances change, and some families will require more assistance from others, but children should not be brought into this world merely as a ticket to the benefits lottery.

bankhater_1965

Tiddlywinks wrote: »

I'm not an 'anti child' 'griper'...

I believe that people should plan their family size based on their ability to provide the basic necessities for them: shelter, food, clothing. To be clear, when I say provide, I mean by themselves not with massive help from the rest of us.

I am happy for the state to provide education and healthcare as that is of mutual benefit in that healthy, educated people are more likely to be productive members of society.

What I utterly object to is this 'breed now, ask for benefits later' kind of attitude. This sense of entitlement, the thoughts that we can all do exactly what we want to do and someone else will have to pick up the bill.

I have two sets of friends who stopped at one child. Why? Because they were both fully employed just over any benefits threshold, had a large mortgage as they hit the market at its peak and did their calculations to see if they could support another 'mouth' and found that they couldn't - so they didn't.

Yet, their taxes go to pay for the families that spend their lives without ever working but still CHOOSE to have 3, 4 or more children - how can that ever be fair?

That's not being anti-child that's being anti-careless breeder and I won't apologise for my feelings on this.

in this day and age ,NOBODY can afford children , with your thinking whos going to pay your state pension and healthcare (nhs) if nobody has children , your diggs are not prob thought out , people need to have children regardless , if they live a life of benifits thats our generations failure nobodys elese , stop shifting the blame

pqrdef

LydiaJ wrote: »

The state should provide education because the state has good reasons for making education compulsory

You could say the same about car insurance.

LydiaJ wrote: »

private education is beyond the reach of all but the well off.

Private education needn't cost any more than State education. It's only a question of who pays.

Every so often, people talk about a voucher scheme, where all schools are independent and charge fees and the State hands out fee vouchers to parents. Question then would be, why shouldn't vouchers be means-tested?

Why aren't people saying, the State can pay to educate the first two kids, but if people want more, they must pay for the schooling, or the kids can go uneducated?

Instead they're saying the State will feed two kids, after which the parents must pay or the kids can go unfed. Huh?

Should Oxfam build schools for starving kids, or should it feed them first?

Tiddlywinks

Masomnia wrote: »

One can't generalize obviously, clearly not all middle class people go on to have children that contribute positively to society and clearly most working class people do. But having schools that give an excellent education regardless of means doesn't deal with the problem of parents who have no interest in contributing to society and have similar aspirations, or lack thereof, for their children.

Yes, it's the non-working class that is now the real worry - and I don't mean those that are actively looking for work or those where health prevents them from working. I mean the people who think it's OK to just live on benefits as a lifestyle choice.

Why work hard and possibly rise up the ladder to get a pay rise when you can sit at home and breed - each child being their version of 'promotion' up the benefits earnings ladder.

bankhater_1965

Tiddlywinks wrote: »

Yes, it's the non-working class that is now the real worry - and I don't mean those that are actively looking for work or those where health prevents them from working. I mean the people who think it's OK to just live on benefits as a lifestyle choice.

Why work hard and possibly rise up the ladder to get a pay rise when you can sit at home and breed - each child being their version of 'promotion' up the benefits earnings ladder.

and whos fault is that ? theres or goverments ? i remember years back the tories offloaded thousands of people off the dole onto incapacity benifit which paid more just to get the dole numbers down ready for election day( signed & sealed by margaret thatcher) , if the goverment pays them a decent wage to live thats there problem not the peoples who prefer that way of living , in the past goverments have played these people |for there own election campaignes

Tiddlywinks

bankhater_1965 wrote: »

in this day and age ,NOBODY can afford children , with your thinking whos going to pay your state pension and healthcare (nhs) if nobody has children , your diggs are not prob thought out , people need to have children regardless , if they live a life of benifits thats our generations failure nobodys elese , stop shifting the blame

Eh... 'have children regardless'? Even if those children follow in their parents' footsteps and never get a job? How will that help to pay for my state pension?

I'm not shifting the blame, I'm placing the blame - there's a difference... you see, some of us have made hard life choices based on real life so why shouldn't we get to point the finger at those that spend their lives failing to take responsibility for their own actions?