If you cant afford it, have a small family

[reggie]

I always thought, me and the wife that makes two of us to do the work,so two kids is what we can handle,support and afford.

I never liked the idea of having more kids than I can handle.

I loved Ideocracy..spot on.

[womanofdulwich]

maybe child benefit just for the first 2?

[reggie]

its a deal

[peckhamboy]

PeckhamRose Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Children are a natural biological thing, in that

> humans need to reproduce.

> Having children is not a lifestyle choice.

> They are our future, and all that.

Emerson Crane Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I stand by what I said having children maybe a

> biological and natural function, but the NUMBER

> you have is a lifestyle choice.

Natural and biological function - undoubtedly.

Natural and biological imperative - not even remotely.

PeckhamRose- If you can choose not to have kids, how can you say that having them is anything but a choice? It's no different to owning your own house, or buying a car. If you can't afford it, don't do it. If I bought a dog but then couldn't afford to feed it, and it starved, would you suggest that the government should raise taxes in order to help me feed my dog or that I should be banned from owning dogs?

[DJKillaQueen]

I would favour that. Or maybe have reduced benefit with each child, so that by the time you get to number 4 it's not worth it.

Child benefit was designed to help mothers feed their children at a time when there were reals problems for many mothers who were dependent on their husbands.

And better education on things like cooking and food management would help some families cut costs. There are a lot of families on low incomes or benefits that over spend on fast food, junk food, luxery items like expensive fizzy drinks and sweets....because they quite frankly don't know how to cook.

'Living within means' is something some people do better than others. Cost of living (outside of the essentials of rent etc) is relative to that.

[Ted Max]

Scrap child benefit and people make their own choice and take their own responsibility on what THEY can and can't afford........

Some will, some won't. The sort of Mailbait person this discussion is about will keep having kids whether they can afford them or not - benefits or not. And if those kids grow up neglected or in poverty as a result then your Libertarian is making those children take the hit for their parents' decisions (or lack of them).

[DJKillaQueen]

If you can choose not to have kids, how can you say that having them is anything but a choice?

Only a man would say this. For many women there is a real biological urge to have children. It's hormonal to the point the it becomes their sole aim - why else do couples spend thousands on IVF etc? It isn;t a take it or leave it option. It is a part of life and a genetic design of us as a species. I personally, like PR, have never had that urge...but I know plenty of women that have.

Little girls don't grow up thinking life is about getting a good enough job to be allowed to have children. They grow up hoping to marry and start a family (I'm generalising I know). The point is that procreation is as imprtant to humans as eating. It's a necessary part of life.

And whilst we live in such an unfair and messed up civilisation to which most of us are enslaved I think the right to follow our hormonal instincts is one that most women would like to keep.

[DJKillaQueen]

Some will, some won't. The sort of Mailbait person this discussion is about will keep having kids whether they can afford them or not - benefits or not. And if those kids grow up neglected or in poverty as a result then your Libertarian is making those children take the hit for their parents' decisions (or lack of them).

And that is the dilemma in the debate. We have to decide at what point any measures would push a child into unnacceptable poverty. But no amount of legislation would do very much about irresponsible parents or parenting...so there has to be something that aims to break the cycle of that too.

[SeanMacGabhann]

Leaving aside care about the poor kids themselves for a minute, from a selfish point of view I?m more likely to get mugged, burgled or whatever by a generation of kids brought up without any support

[Jeremy]

I agree with TedMax. Although I think that people should take financial responsibility for their own children, the reality is that there are always going to be children born into poorer families. And society has an obligation to ensure that they have an acceptable standard of living, and decent opportunities in life.

[Loz]

Child benefit was designed to help mothers feed their children at a time when there were reals problems for many mothers who were dependent on their husbands.

I thought it was also brought in post-war to help restock the population. Hardly a necessity these days.

And whilst we live in such an unfair and messed up civilisation to which most of us are enslaved I think the right to follow our hormonal instincts is one that most women would like to keep.

And you will still have that right. I would just like the right to not have to pay for those kids out of my taxes. I don't think (or at least hope) that anyone here is asking for legislation to prevent people having babies. Just lets stop encouraging it by handing them money for it?

[Bellenden Belle]

Having worked for a mental health charity that ran three social enterprises to support its work, I would absolutely say that I am a huge fan of social enterprises. These are small professional companies, given initial financial support in order that they can win tenders and develop their businesses, on the basis that their profits will go towards community projects and development.

It was one of the small things Labour quietly did - starting up funds like Futurebuilders - to enable such businesses to get off the ground. I will be interested to see if The Big Society produces anything as effective.

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Are you a fan of Social Enterprise? I can't quite

> get my head round it but I think it looks a decent

> potential solution to expensive "Statism" or

> "Privatisation"...I'd like to see investment in

> this type of thing and,in theory it should get it

> from the tories as it kind of goes with the Big

> Society thing but...I'm not holding my breathe.

[DJKillaQueen]

And society has an obligation to ensure that they have an acceptable standard of living, and decent opportunities in life.

Morally I think society does, because it is a sign of a civilisated society and because why should an accident of birth afford privilege to some while others never get any opportunity. Childern can not choose their parents, so we should do what we can to give them the opportunity to make a btter life for themselves and that means spending money from elsewhere I'm afraid.

We don't get to choose how our taxes are spent. We trust those we elect to spend them on our behalf responsibly. I have no children...should I resent my taxes being spent on anything child related, inculding schools and childcare? That's not how taxes work.

Hardly a necessity these days.

On that I agree. Child benefit is not an absolute necessity for the majority of those in receipt of it.

Just lets stop encouraging it by handing them money for it?

Most people do not have children to get benefits. Some do yes but you'll find that most unemployed with children for example were not unemployed at the time they had children. Also take a look at the figures for mothers who lose their jobs and become less employable because they have children or become pregnant. This is a such a complex area that blanket statements that poorer people with children on shouldn't have them is simplistic and niaive. Circumstances change and it is absolutely right that we do what we can to prevent child poverty in this country whilst at the same time not giving money to those who don't really need it.

[zeban]

Firstly I absolutely agree with DJKQ,

'For many women there is a real biological urge to have children. It's hormonal to the point the it becomes their sole aim - why else do couples spend thousands on IVF etc? It isn;t a take it or leave it option. It is a part of life and a genetic design of us as a species. I personally, like PR, have never had that urge...but I know plenty of women that have.

Little girls don't grow up thinking life is about getting a good enough job to be allowed to have children. They grow up hoping to marry and start a family (I'm generalising I know). The point is that procreation is as imprtant to humans as eating. It's a necessary part of life.

And whilst we live in such an unfair and messed up civilisation to which most of us are enslaved I think the right to follow our hormonal instincts is one that most women would like to keep.'

For some, having children isn't just a tick box- like get a career, check, get a husband, check, buy a house, check, have children, check. I would argue that for those that treat having children like this maybe they're the ones who are less able to cope with the emotional aspects of parenthood.

Money also doesn't always equal to good parenting and respectful children. In fact, I've often found it to be the opposite, with a me,me,me kind of attitude instilled in the children, and a taken for granted view of their parents. And it isn't just poorer parents that spend money on luxuries like junk food, which is what one of the posters suggested. Given the spending power of wealthier parents, it isn't as easy to say no to these things- child obesity runs across the whole spectrum, so to suggest parents without wealth are somehow less well informed, less educated about parenting is patronising, and simply not true.

I also agree with DJKQ's above post, and think *Bob* is spot on to argue that:

'To a certain extent children are as expensive as you choose to make them - and 'having more' or not is about weighing-up your priorities - honestly - and being happy about what you decide to do.

Many people would easily be able to 'afford' more if they decided to forgo the luxuries of that swish newer car, brand-new baby paraphernalia, giant television with permanent Sky subscription, private education, holidays, one magically themed bedroom per child, piano and flute lessons - or swallowed their pride and moving somewhere cheaper with more space.'

[Keef]

I think *bob* basically has the right of it. Obviously there are expenses that come with kids, but really they cost what you decide they shoul cost. We had some vouchers that were about to expire, so we spent ?80 on a trike thing for our daughter. Would I have so readily spent that ?80 had we not had the vouchers? Probably not.

I do think that pople should think about it before having their 4th or 5th kid, but it is a damed shame if people can't have their second or third because they are worried about the money side.

Saying that, I have always thought it was quite odd that CB was just dished out to everyone.

[KalamityKel]

Nope STILL dont get it :-|

Clearly missing something along the way (nuffink new there I know!)

[graham n]

could not have put it better myself. spot on bob

[GinaG3]

I do agree, children are as expensive as you make them. You can still give your child a decent life and all the love in the world on a very small income. If you buy everything second hand (apart from christmas and birthdays - or you could even forget this and still buy used stuff), cook everything from fresh/grow your own and so on it is do-able on small amounts of money. The biggest costs in the first 6-12 months of the childs life are probably nappies this cost can be brought down too by using re-usable nappies saving you a hell of a lot of money.

I already have one child, and putting off the second (although I don't really want to, but know I have to) until we can afford to live comfortably on a budget. Right now with all weekly out goings we have ?40 or so for ourselves (or christmas right now) we do just fine.

Zeban makes a good point of people thinking money equals power and responsible parenting. I couldnt think of a view more silly. Growing up with less money I see more and more kids that are more generous, willing to share, less than spoilt and not thinking about themselves all the time and also aiming for a better future after school years, including extended education. Of course you see this in children from richer background but it seems to be getting more and more common for children growing up in poverty or just on the borderline. This doesn't go for all kids of course but the numbers are rising..

Parenting is what makes children who they are, not money. You can live on no money and still grow up with great values, respect for others and a positive attitude. Money cannot necessarily buy love nor happiness.

I grew up in a high earning family whereby my parents had to leave us with au pairs and nannies for a good 12 years of my life. I hated it. I longed to feel love from my parents but all I had was nannies etc for most of the day. They picked me up from school everyday, no parents. From growing up like this I want my daughter to feel the love I have for her, I dont want her flitting in and out of childcare blah blah. A child needs their parents and I will be there every day I possibly can to pick her up from school and give her a big smile, cuddle and well done for all the school work I get shown. Flexible hours is perfect for me, or even part time. I'll get by on what I have, you just have to but my child is an important part of my day to day life and I dont want to miss out on a thing.

Money does not equal a good or bad parent. I'm just as good a parent than majority or people on (no joke) even 10x my income!

Child benefit should decrease with every child, I believe. But ti wont happen, they will just do it another way.. But I'm not getting into the CB debate because I've heard enough already frankly.

[Huguenot]

"And if those kids grow up neglected or in poverty as a result then your Libertarian is making those children take the hit for their parents' decisions"

There are many reasons to criticise libertarians, mainly to do with being famously daft, but you couldn't accuse them of 'making' anybody do anything.

Likewise Brendan's comment on 'having to wait until you're 30'. No you don't. You can have kids anytime you want. If you have certain social ambitions that require a particular investment then you may choose to wait until you can fund them. Either way, nobody is 'making' anybody do anything.

I mean, really, truly, and monumentally, I wish people would piss off with this idea that having kids is a decision of the state. The only thing the 'state' does is respond to other people's desire to fund them for you.

You might want a bloody Ferrari, you might think it's your right to have a Ferrrari. You are quite outside the bounds of reasonable behaviour in asking me to pay for that for you.

Have as many kids as you want. Crap them out like yesterday's curry if you want. I'll happily fund their education because it's an investment in a social asset. Don't ask me to buy them furry gorillas.

Look to your family and your neighbours to fund them, because at some point they'll get pissed off with carrying you and break your legs. You then won't have any more kids.

[ImpetuousVrouw]

I have 4 kids and I have always worked. For the last 10 years I was a single parent, but I still worked. My son is in his last year at Uni, my daughter has a a daughter and works, my 2nd daughter is at college and my youngest has just started secondary school.

I don't have much money even though I'm on about ?33K at the moment because my kids always need something, but I use Freecycle for everything I need and buy most of my clothes including my suits from charity shops. I grow some veg and have fruit bushes and cycle to work.

I have a biggish family, and for most of the past 20 odd years have had varying income including being on benefits for some time, but now I am in my 40's and have 4 amazing, caring and hardworking kids who will pay back the benefits I received after my divorce 10 fold - so don't assume that someone who hasn't got the money shouldn't have a big family.

[KalamityKel]

Well said IV :))

[Huguenot]

It's not well said at all KK.

What IV said was that she got other people to pay for kids from whom she now reaps the benefits.

"I don't have much money even though I'm on about ?33K at the moment because my kids always need something"

Yes, your kids. Your kids. I have no doubt that there's a particular chemical transaction that makes you think your kids are the centre of the universe, and that everyone else should pay for them.

It's a delusion, it's probably hormonal.

I'm sure IV is punching the air in a glorious footballing salute. I'm not surprised. What a successful rip-off.

I don't expect any kind of logical response to my point, apart from a load of old blart about how important kids are.

So let's steer that off at the pass yes? I agree, they're lovely. Amazing. They reward you forever. Waaahey. I just don't think that I should be paying for yours. You probably do. It's hormones and self-absorption.

[ImpetuousVrouw]

They are also going to be working and paying tax for many years to come so the government can pay people to wipe your arse when you're old Hugo and hopefully I won't be bunged into a paid-by-the-tax-payer nursing home when I lose my faculties - so you see, they will be paying society back for the bit of help we received.

[Jah Lush]

The Middle Classes Are Revolting

Not now darling. Mummmy's protesting.

[KalamityKel]

The whole fact IV has managed to support their own family AND pay taxes to support others clearly demonstrates how the media, yes the media, has warped many peoples views on the "types" of people who choose to have large families. Clearly many people are incapable of using their own brains and rely on what the media tell them is right and wrong.

There's too much of the pathetic stereotypical view that a large family = poverty, lack of discpline, scroungers and all that.

Yes there are SOME families out there but not all and I think it totally unfair that those that really try and could do with the assistance are plonked in to the same basket that many on here seem to look down their noses at.

I think you'll find more families than the media target out there, that are actually hard working, hardly claim the benefits they could and don't complain like your good selves where their taxes go.

I can think of worse things our money is being spent on.

Who has the right to dictate who should and shouldnt have children and when? I wasn't aware we were a communist country. Oh dear!