Should People Have Children If They Cant Afford Them

Mojisola

purpleshoes wrote: »

I'm pretty sure many people who grew up in wealthy homes who wanted for nothing materially had miserable childhoods.

Perhaps people shouldn't be allowed to have children if they intend to have a full-time nanny while both parents work and plan to send their children to boarding school as soon as they are 7?

If I had to chose between that kind of life and the cash-poor but love-rich childhood I had, I'd go for upbringing I had.

purpleshoes_2

Mojisola wrote: »

Perhaps people shouldn't be allowed to have children if they intend to have a full-time nanny while both parents work and plan to send their children to boarding school as soon as they are 7?

If I had to chose between that kind of life and the cash-poor but love-rich childhood I had, I'd go for upbringing I had.

Ive thought along the same lines while Ive been typing some of my responses.

There are some very high profile wealthy families who are completely dysfunctional. Money might give security but it's not always an indicator of a happy life.

alleycat`

Mojisola wrote: »

Perhaps people shouldn't be allowed to have children if they intend to have a full-time nanny while both parents work and plan to send their children to boarding school as soon as they are 7?

If I had to chose between that kind of life and the cash-poor but love-rich childhood I had, I'd go for upbringing I had.

I'm not taking sides in this but i guess the genuine question is are kids getting brought up in that sort of environment or are they seen as a money maker / house provider and little better than a farm animal to their "parents".

It appears from my experience that there are both types but i wouldn't even know where to start with the true value of which is which?

FBaby

Perhaps people shouldn't be allowed to have children if they intend to have a full-time nanny while both parents work and plan to send their children to boarding school as soon as they are 7?

Being physically present doesn't forcibly make you a good parent and vice versa. You can be an emotional supportive parents even without your children living with you 24/7 (ie. divorced parents), as much as you can be a self-centered rubbish parent being a SAHP.

Not all children in boarding school are miserable and feeling unlove, far from it and many do appreciate the opportunities that their parents give them.

Mojisola

FBaby wrote: »

Being physically present doesn't forcibly make you a good parent and vice versa. You can be an emotional supportive parents even without your children living with you 24/7 (ie. divorced parents), as much as you can be a self-centered rubbish parent being a SAHP.

Exactly - I obviously didn't make my point clearly.

It's silly to suggest to all poor people should be banned from being parents just as it's silly to think that all people who would hand over their child care to other people should be banned.

There are good, average and bad parents all through society. Having money/not having money, working/being a SAHP, being uni educated/having no further education, etc, doesn't make you automatically a good or bad parent.

FBaby

Sorry I misunderstood you. I totally agree. I think there are inevitable trends, but these can't be applied to individual levels and thank god for that.

Mrs_pbradley936

It all depends on whether or not material things mean more to you than experiences or emotional interactions.


Ideally most of us outgrow getting drunk at the weekend, clubbing, parties etc and want something more that a repeat of said boozing, clubbing etc. If you feel ready and want a child or two then they can bring immense happiness. If only one of you is delighted by sleepless nights and every penny spoken for then you might have a difficult time.

northerntwo1

Mojisola wrote: »

Exactly - I obviously didn't make my point clearly.

It's silly to suggest to all poor people should be banned from being parents just as it's silly to think that all people who would hand over their child care to other people should be banned.

There are good, average and bad parents all through society. Having money/not having money, working/being a SAHP, being uni educated/having no further education, etc, doesn't make you automatically a good or bad parent.

Lots of factors are involved in being a good parent but the thread is should you have children KNOWING you can't afford them and raising in poverty and I guess at tax payers expense. There's a world of difference between losing your job, short term childcare issues, accidents and planning children without means of support. I'm not sure many can think deliberately bringing a child into poverty long term is an ideal scenario.

purpleshoes_2

northerntwo1 wrote: »

Lots of factors are involved in being a good parent but the thread is should you have children KNOWING you can't afford them and raising in poverty and I guess at tax payers expense. There's a world of difference between losing your job, short term childcare issues, accidents and planning children without means of support. I'm not sure many can think deliberately bringing a child into poverty long term is an ideal scenario.

People who have kids and are on certain benefits wont be raising them in poverty. Thats why child tax credits came into being, to get people out of the poverty trap.

Its not ideal because it sets people in a situation where they are better off out of work than in, but if people do have kids and are on benefits, they might not have a lot of spare cash, but I doubt they are looking at a poverty situation.

Also, the percentage of peoples taxes that go to benefits is miniscule compared to other spending, such as wars

Something papers like the daily mail forgets

Its parenting thats the issue as far as Im concerned. Not whether someone is on benefit or whether they dont have much cash

northerntwo1

purpleshoes wrote: »

People who have kids and are on certain benefits wont be raising them in poverty. Thats why child tax credits came into being, to get people out of the poverty trap.

Its not ideal because it sets people in a situation where they are better off out of work than in, but if people do have kids and are on benefits, they might not have a lot of spare cash, but I doubt they are looking at a poverty situation.

Also, the percentage of peoples taxes that go to benefits is miniscule compared to other spending, such as wars

Something papers like the daily mail forgets

Its parenting thats the issue as far as Im concerned. Not whether someone is on benefit or whether they dont have much cash

It's not just benefits. Why is the government creating 2 year child care places? Why do schools get more money per child on benefits? Why is social services involved more with families on low incomes? Why are asbo's more prevelent in low income families?

Do you think the governebt decided we are rich enough to throw money at a group that don't need it or is there a correlation between success and poverty?

Sure starts and the like occurred for a reason and there's a reason why the education system gets more per child who is on no income. That reason is well researched. They are disadvantaged as a group. I'm a health visitor and see parents of all financial stature but ... Most of my time is spent on low income families. There are some amazing low income families but overall their children need services, finances, support and additional funding. That can't be denied as research shows this clearly.