Children Limit:

NYM

I'm a parent to 3. two 14 yrs old and 12 yr old

My children are fully aware that the things they want do not grow on trees. If they want the latest gadgetry, they can save their pocket money or wait till it's given to them as a birthday/Christmas present.

I was brought up by parents that expected us to be fully prepared for the 'big bad world' and if we couldn't afford it..we didn't buy it on credit or expect anyone else to supply it.

bigadaj

Maddybee33 wrote: »

That seemed a little mean-spirited.
Very few people make an effortless transition straight out of university into a full-time job. Children don't choose to be born, parents choose to have them, and they should do so knowing that being a parent doesn't end when they hit 18, or leave full-time education.

I do hope your day gets better.

Not really, just a reflection on the amazing infantilisation of people.

If people want to carry on paying their kids into their twenties or further then that's up to them, the problem is this skews the whole market. It now seems impossible for anyone to buy a property without a hefty deposit from a relative, so tough luck if you are the one without the rich relatives.

Providing support for children shouldn't be wholly or even largely financial, it should be about eductIon, guidance and help. The kids that get everything from bank of mum and dad are often those that take no personal responsibility, can't hold down a job and just keep coming back for more, a sad fact of life unfortunately.

I think you'll also find that many parents give little thought to having the kids, and much of the contribution seems to come from the state in many cases.

bloolagoon

NYM wrote: »

I'm a parent to 3. two 14 yrs old and 12 yr old

My children are fully aware that the things they want do not grow on trees. If they want the latest gadgetry, they can save their pocket money or wait till it's given to them as a birthday/Christmas present.

I was brought up by parents that expected us to be fully prepared for the 'big bad world' and if we couldn't afford it..we didn't buy it on credit or expect anyone else to supply it.

I don't think I could ever ask parents for a sub. Even at uni. My parents would help me as in papa would borrow my car and bring it back fully tanked or pay for meals they invited me to. Mama would often make more food than needed to freeze for me but I'd never ask. I knew the expectations. If I was in a hole they'd do anything to help but it's my responsibility to not get in said hole.

Maddybee33

Not really, just a reflection on the amazing infantilisation of people.

If people want to carry on paying their kids into their twenties or further then that's up to them, the problem is this skews the whole market. It now seems impossible for anyone to buy a property without a hefty deposit from a relative, so tough luck if you are the one without the rich relatives.

Providing support for children shouldn't be wholly or even largely financial, it should be about eductIon, guidance and help. The kids that get everything from bank of mum and dad are often those that take no personal responsibility, can't hold down a job and just keep coming back for more, a sad fact of life unfortunately.

I think you'll also find that many parents give little thought to having the kids, and much of the contribution seems to come from the state in many cases.

Times are unfortunately changing- this really needs to be addressed by the government. My SO's parents bought their first house and had him when they were 21. The cost of living was much lower back then, hence why a lot more people in the previous generation to mine owned their own homes at a younger age. It's got nothing to do with having 'the latest fashion, smartphone and car'. My partner refuses to buy new clothes (I buy him the odd pair of jeans why they break), and my last item of clothing was a gift from my mother, and neither of us even drive (as some smug person on this thread suggested).

Rich or not, I think it's a parent's duty to help their children (unless they're obviously taking advantage of this). In a world with too much competition, and too many people, parents really do need to think more about having children, which is why I think that phasing child credit out, or certainly limiting it to the first or second child is a much better option. My SO's grandmother was telling me the other day, they never used to have child tax credit- she managed to raise hers without it.

BJV

Maddybee33 wrote: »

Times are unfortunately changing- this really needs to be addressed by the government. My SO's parents bought their first house and had him when they were 21. The cost of living was much lower back then, hence why a lot more people in the previous generation to mine owned their own homes at a younger age. It's got nothing to do with having 'the latest fashion, smartphone and car'. My partner refuses to buy new clothes (I buy him the odd pair of jeans why they break), and my last item of clothing was a gift from my mother, and neither of us even drive (as some smug person on this thread suggested).

Rich or not, I think it's a parent's duty to help their children (unless they're obviously taking advantage of this). In a world with too much competition, and too many people, parents really do need to think more about having children, which is why I think that phasing child credit out, or certainly limiting it to the first or second child is a much better option. My SO's grandmother was telling me the other day, they never used to have child tax credit- she managed to raise hers without it.

I am not sure that times are changing??? Well not for me. I bought by first house in the 90's. Yes the deposit was much lower as was the purchase price. But in relation to my wages at the time it was 8 months wages. We saved for two years no mobile phones, no holidays, no treats. But we did it.


Ref number of children and parenthood, completely agree. In an ideal world I would of loved more children. I am happy I have two beautiful, healthy children who are a handful. But we where never entitled to any child care help, in fact never entitled to anything. So the cost meant that we just could not afford any more.


I get fed up with a friend who has 3 children and works 16 hours per week. She constantly moans about money and is 100% the cup is half empty person. To only work 16 hours is her choice. As she said she made the choice to make sure that she always picked her children up from school, always had every weekend off with them.


My argument would be that I would love to pick my children up every day, would love to be off every half term. But I can not afford to. I want to be able to help my children through uni if they want to go. I want to be able to help them learn to drive when they are ready. I am not saying that my way is best but for me I think it is. It is a trade off and one that I think the government should not be expected to fund from my hard earned !!!