A Question for Tory Supporters

phillw

Green_Bear wrote: »

You didn't have to pay for their driving lessons (and car?).

But by giving your kids an advantage, not only do they get more opportunities, you also get to cast judgement on the parents who can't & also the children who can't make up for it on their own.

So it's win/win

Green_Bear

phillw wrote: »

But by giving your kids an advantage, not only do they get more opportunities, you also get to cast judgement on the parents who can't & also the children who can't make up for it on their own.

So it's win/win

You also don't teach your own offspring any kind of self-reliance.

babyblade41

my youngest actually owns her own home and has an excellent job in Oxfordshire and the eldest lives a long way from me..

Yes I paid for their first car and my youngest is now 30 and still has it.. the beat up old banger it is now.


It's what I worked for to give them a good start.. they had p/t jobs because they wanted their own independence for clothes and phones and to save ... I don't see anything wrong with that.

As my kids were bought up in the same village as I was I don't see your point about choice of living rurally .for us the pro's far outweigh the cons but a driving licence for work was essential.

They are in their 30's and one left home at 18 and one was 24

Cakeguts

Herzlos wrote: »

And your implicit priviledge allowed you to pay for both of your kids to learn to drive, and presumably helped them out with a car.


Mine did too - I didn't pay for driving lessons or my first car (or insurance). I'll do the same for my kids.


But we're relatively well off to be able to do that. Can you imagine trying to pay for 2 sets of driving lessons (at £20+ an hour) when you've maybe got £10 surplus per week?

Except the £10 pounds a week surplus will have been augmented by 17 year olds working weekends and holiday jobs so that they can pay for their own driving lessons? The problem is that if you have only £10 per week surplus you probably aren't a good role model for working your way out of not having enough money?

Herzlos

Poverty breeds poverty unfortunately. It's easy to make money when you have some to begin with.

Green_Bear

babyblade41 wrote: »

my youngest actually owns her own home and has an excellent job in Oxfordshire and the eldest lives a long way from me..

Yes I paid for their first car and my youngest is now 30 and still has it.. the beat up old banger it is now.


It's what I worked for to give them a good start.. they had p/t jobs because they wanted their own independence for clothes and phones and to save ... I don't see anything wrong with that.

As my kids were bought up in the same village as I was I don't see your point about choice of living rurally .for us the pro's far outweigh the cons but a driving licence for work was essential.

They are in their 30's and one left home at 18 and one was 24

That's all very well.
But at the end of the day your kids had a massive head start in life, compared to many others.

phillw

Cakeguts wrote: »

The problem is that if you have only £10 per week surplus you probably aren't a good role model for working your way out of not having enough money?

Yeah, they should have been born with a trust fund.

Green_Bear wrote: »

You also don't teach your own offspring any kind of self-reliance.

I think you can, besides just making them stand on their own and fail won't necessarily teach them self reliance either. I don't believe you can only learn from your own mistakes & unless someone is there to help you figure out the lesson then you may miss it.

babyblade41

Green_Bear wrote: »

That's all very well.
But at the end of the day your kids had a massive head start in life, compared to many others.

That is my point... I have done everything possible up to the age of 18 including the costs of giving them a head start...I'd say what most caring parent does.

My point that if you can't afford them then don't have them if you expect others to pay..having children is not just about the cost of babies and toddlers, it's the cost of them at teen level as well.

School trips, important text books for their education, and boundaries about where they go and with whom until they are 18.

Costs that some parents don't do ..and not all financial

My youngest did have a lazy side and dithered about going onto further education , just to hang out from working full time ..for me further education unless it will lead to future employment is totally pointless... I think she looked at drama ..

She was sent to work in her P/T job full time .. she soon found out it was long hours for minimum wage and had to start at the bottom of the ladder

Thankfully she did and now has an excellent job and is remunerated well. , and although the job due to it's sensitive nature is extremely stressful and often frustrating she does reap the benefit of a strong working ethic .

Sacrice though is high as they can't afford children ..not with their house and to be honest they would have to give up a fair bit of leisure which they aren't ready for now...if ever

Herzlos

So what annual salary do you feel is appropriate before a family should have kids?

Malthusian

babyblade41 wrote: »

My point that if you can't afford them then don't have them if you expect others to pay..

The idea that you shouldn't have children unless you are in the top 40% of income (any lower and others pay) is not realistic. The market for unskilled labour would collapse (it may be subsidised but we still need it) without massive immigration far beyond what would be politically acceptable.

having children is not just about the cost of babies and toddlers, it's the cost of them at teen level as well.

School trips, important text books for their education, and boundaries about where they go and with whom until they are 18.

This is important if you want to raise well-adjusted and happy children who go on to be well remunerated or otherwise succeed in life, like you did. Not everyone does.