Should People Have Children If They Cant Afford Them

Carmina-Piranha_2

Gavin83 wrote: »

I think state vasectomies are a step to far but I agree with the principle that the wrong people are breeding. We have a situation where families with two parents who have never worked are having 8 kids for benefit reasons. The likelyhood is that these children will grow up not wanting to work either. Similarly middle earners are breeding less and later. We don't want the first group of people, they are a drain on soceity in every way possible.

I think the real solution is to make it financially unviable for those without jobs to have children. Remove child related benefits totally. Then those who are having children effectively for a career won't bother anymore as the financial incentives aren't there and those who truly want children will be more motivated to find a job.

We could maybe look at providing incentives for those with both parents currently in work, maybe via reduced (or even free) child care.



To be fair most men don't really have a choice. The court still massively favours women in custody battles. Of course there are men who just choose to walk away but for every one of them they'll be another who'd love nothing more than to have a couple of extra days with his kids. Maybe courts should just start awarding joint custody as standard?



The problem is because of the way the country is setup we need children. With an ever aging population and the benefits system setup the way it is we'll need more and more children to provide tax revenues in the future. The real issue is the wrong people are breeding.

How would removing child benefits totally work, would you still give welfare to a person who was out of work, then they'd have to use that amount of money to keep themselves and as many children as they chose to have?

I agree that the 'wrong' people are breeding larger families. Sorry that's not my namby pamby liberal self. Not everyone on welfare is the 'wrong' people though, sometimes things just happen to nice, ordinary people. Those people aren't having 6+ children, they stop at the one or two that they had at the time they had to go onto benefits. I wouldn't like to see that safety net removed, I'd prefer to have enough support to keep up to 2 children.

supermassive

I don't think you should have children whether you can afford them or not. Awful little creatures are starting to dictate what I, as a free adult, can and cannot do!

Seriously, though, if you can 'just' afford a child, don't have one. If you care enough to bring life into the world, make sure you can afford to give that child the things they deserve for a decent upbringing.

This refers to social normalities associated with money so they're not outcast at school
A catchment area for a good school
Finances to be able to reach further education
The finances to take them to educational places (zoo, museum etc) (and a car to go in).

If you can't afford to do that and still have leftover money, keep your legs crossed.

moneyistooshorttomention

DKLS wrote: »

The standard reply on MSE to any thread about can I afford to have children is always:

You will never afford so just get trying it will be amazing and the making of you and you will manage everybody does (and don't forget the benefits calculator)

Funnily enough If I posted that I was desperate to have an Aston Martin V12 in my life, the comments would be very different, especially as there are no benefits to support my lifestyle choice.

Don't forget the comment about "Society should pay towards other peoples lifestyle choice of having children because they will be tomorrow's scientists/dustbin men/etc/etc" to which the very first thought is "I hadn't realised we still needed so many workers", closely followed by "Well...if I help subsidise their lifestyle choice, at what point do they subsidise mine?".

All well and good if person A pays into the "communal pot" at one point in their life and then takes it back out again at a different stage in their life. However, what happens if person A only ever pays into the pot and never gets it back again in any shape or form?

Mojisola

bluelass wrote: »

They can. But with my hubby being a first time granddad she thinks its a privledge and he should buy or give whatever she wants for the child. everytime we see her its oh I seen this or that for him but its such a price. Does anyone know what im saying now?

bluelass wrote: »

im saying she is a cheeky moo that's what and if anyone else agrees with me and give me advice. She even thinks we should let them live in our house rent free yes really. They lived at her parents for 3 years then when she got preggers she wanted a rented house.The deposit they saved for an house whilst at her parents was spent by her on baby things pate de jour anyone?.

That's got nothing to do with being able to afford a baby.

bluelass

Mojisola wrote: »

That's got nothing to do with being able to afford a baby.

Oh it does. She wants luxuries but doesn't want to pay for them.

BuddyGirl

bluelass wrote: »

Oh it does. She wants luxuries but doesn't want to pay for them.

Have you started a thread to complain about your step daughter in law?

You're really not portraying yourself in a good light here. You asked for advice. I'd advise you to look for thr good in people and stop looking for ill intent when there might be none.

Mojisola

bluelass wrote: »

Oh it does. She wants luxuries but doesn't want to pay for them.

Wanting luxuries has nothing to do with whether someone can afford to have a baby.

tara747

bluelass wrote: »

They can. But with my hubby being a first time granddad she thinks its a privledge and he should buy or give whatever she wants for the child. everytime we see her its oh I seen this or that for him but its such a price. Does anyone know what im saying now?

bluelass wrote: »

When I said live in our house I meant she wants me and my hub to move out and find somewhere so they can have it all to themselves. And oh she thinks if and when my hubby snuffs it our house should go directly to them and me out on my ear.

Your SDIL is being unreasonable if she thinks that you two should move out and let them live in your house. :eek:

Also, though your husband will want to spoil his first grandchild, she sounds a bit manipulative in trying to get him to fork out for expensive stuff.

BUT the fact is that many remarried people leave their inheritance to the children from their first marriage. Was the house bought before you and your husband married? Do you know what's in his will? You could be in for a shock if he dies before you.

Does anyone know the law on this?

bluelass

tara747 wrote: »

Your SDIL is being unreasonable if she thinks that you two should move out and let them live in your house. :eek:

Also, though your husband will want to spoil his first grandchild, she sounds a bit manipulative in trying to get him to fork out for expensive stuff.

BUT the fact is that many remarried people leave their inheritance to the children from their first marriage. Was the house bought before you and your husband married? Do you know what's in his will? You could be in for a shock if he dies before you.

Does anyone know the law on this?

We bought the house together and im named on the deeds. He says it is mine if he dies before me but he hasn't made any will. Im certain as next of kin I will automatically inherit as the house is worth less than £150 thousand and spouses get the quarter of a million. Im pretty sure any savings he has plus our property wouldn't top that.

Mojisola

bluelass wrote: »

We bought the house together and im named on the deeds. He says it is mine if he dies before me but he hasn't made any will. Im certain as next of kin I will automatically inherit as the house is worth less than £150 thousand and spouses get the quarter of a million. Im pretty sure any savings he has plus our property wouldn't top that.

Do you own it as 'joint tenants' or 'tenants in common'?