The right to have multiple children

[Justin Passing]

Ang on a minute, we were talking about inhibiting reproduction on the basis of how afforadable it was by the parents, not by how bright they were.

On one side, use "ability" rather than "intelligence".
There is a connection; if parents and kids have neither, then they're at a disadvantage, but that's not really the point.
Bottom line is whether they can afford their excess kids or not.

The state should support anyone having 2 kids per couple if they want.



I think we'd all agree that if Tyrone and Waynetta Slob are producing kids just to get benefits for the parents, it should be stopped, and you can't take it out on the kids.

 

[Justin Passing]

Me and my wife have always worked, we saved up and didn't have a child until we were ready a little over a year ago (he is 1 now).

All we are entitled to is £21 a week, which is a mere £5 a week more than my mother was getting when I was born over 30 years ago. To continue working (so we can earn, pay taxes and spend!) there is very little support for childcare. We do get 20% off our monthly bill (which we are very grateful for), but this is only until we reach £2k of discount after which there is no support bar the £21 a week.

Of course the decision to have a child was ours (how dare we!) but if a state wants to secure stable population growth, it needs to make those early years a little more manageable for its working families.

This situation makes me mad.
Childcare should be avaiable in schools. Not necessarily free, but certainly cheap enough to make it worth the parents working.

Don't get too drunk on your £21 a week. Jaheezus.
WHen are kids most expensive? Teens?

 

[cwhaley]

This situation makes me mad.
Childcare should be avaiable in schools. Not necessarily free, but certainly cheap enough to make it worth the parents working.

Don't get too drunk on your £21 a week. Jaheezus.
WHen are kids most expensive? Teens?

The cost of raising our son (food, clothing, recreation, education, etc. etc.) is all affordable, manageable and prepared for. Unfortunately the cost of having him looked after while we go to work totally dwarfs all of that. £500 a month, and that's only for three days a week (wife has dropped working Mondays and parents take him Fridays).

So many countries offer generous support for childcare, we - as usual - seem to get the offerings of a seemingly tight and stingy government.

When he is at school, there are pre-school and after-school clubs which will take a big burden off us. Just a shame the early years leave such a gaping hole in your bank balance, and an even bigger shame the sole reason is because we want to go to work!

 

[SirGalahad]

What this Government wants is for you to have kids but not bother them about it until the kids grows up and starts to pay Tax.

 

[SirGalahad]

This situation makes me mad.
Childcare should be avaiable in schools. Not necessarily free, but certainly cheap enough to make it worth the parents working.

Don't get too drunk on your £21 a week. Jaheezus.
WHen are kids most expensive? Teens?

That would require joined up thinking and investment. There never is enough money for education and health but billions for consultancies.

 

[blup]

Ang on a minute, we were talking about inhibiting reproduction on the basis of how afforadable it was by the parents, not by how bright they were.

On one side, use "ability" rather than "intelligence".
There is a connection; if parents and kids have neither, then they're at a disadvantage, but that's not really the point.
Bottom line is whether they can afford their excess kids or not.

The state should support anyone having 2 kids per couple if they want.



I think we'd all agree that if Tyrone and Waynetta Slob are producing kids just to get benefits for the parents, it should be stopped, and you can't take it out on the kids.

And what about a single wannabee tory mp who marries and has kids for MP's benefits.

Blup

 

[noseall]

Ang on a minute, we were talking about inhibiting reproduction on the basis of how afforadable it was by the parents, not by how bright they were.

18 years and 9 months is a long time to be able to fall short of money.

Some people on here have not thought their Adolph Hitler style, thoughts through.

 

[Mottie]

When we had kids, Mrs Mottie gave up work until the youngest was 10 years old and only ever went back part time, term time only. It was a struggle at first but you just have to cut your coat according to your cloth. No such struggle for our son and his wife with our grandson. Mrs Mottie looked after him on Thursdays, and the other mother in law looked after him on Fridays. We would never have asked our parents to look after them on a regular basis while we worked. Different times nowdays though.

 

[SirGalahad]

When we had kids, Mrs Mottie gave up work until the youngest was 10 years old and only ever went back part time, term time only. It was a struggle at first but you just have to cut your coat according to your cloth. No such struggle for our son and his wife with our grandson. Mrs Mottie looked after him on Thursdays, and the other mother in law looked after him on Fridays. We would never have asked our parents to look after them on a regular basis while we worked. Different times nowdays though.

I am sure you could buy a property on a single wage - now thats difficult to impossible on one income unless thats a high paying professional.

Housing costs are the single biggest cost for people and they have gone mental.

 

[sxturbo]

That’s a bit extreme!

Let’s get social credit like China then. Oh wait, that’s on its way though….

Sorry was meant as tongue in cheek.

The human race does need to look at something though we cannot continue to forever expand, we'll be the makers of our own demise, we're already doing far to much damage to the world

 

[sxturbo]

WTAF has LGBTQ got to do with it?

Very few people would end up being "allowed" children if that were the case.

Sorry I meant it tongue in cheek.

However LGBTQ+ people are allowed to have children these days and this if a limit were to be imposed they would have to adhere to the same rules.

But as I said the comment of limitations was meant as tongue in cheek. My bad for not making it clear

 

[SirGalahad]

Sorry was meant as tongue in cheek.

The human race does need to look at something though we cannot continue to forever expand, we'll be the makers of our own demise, we're already doing far to much damage to the world

Capitalism requires continual growth.

 

[foxhole]

I appreciate this will likely be quite a divisive thread, however here goes ...

I watched the first in a new three part series last night called 60 Days on the Estates, basically a guy spends x days/nights across different housing estates to see what it's like for those living there. The usual stuff was covered, folk with lack of money, crime, drugs etc.

One thing that struck me however were two (relatively young) woman featured on the show. One of them had lived in a one bed flat since she was 17 and she's still there in her early 30s. However during that time she's had six kids. The oldest appeared to be teen boys, down to toddlers. I don't think the dad/s were on the scene, although the presenter did say she receives money from the dads to help raise the kids. Her story (in the context of the tv prog) was her struggle to get the council to re-house her and the kids. In her defence, the woman did say she was hoping to return to employment soon.

Another woman featured was struggling to make ends meet, using food banks and so on. Again she appeared relatively young but had, wait for it, nine kids! I think she said three lived elsewhere and six with her. I don't think the tv prog touched on whether the dad/s were around or not.

When I see things like this, part of me wonders 'why did you have so many kids?' Let me put it this way and I'm taking slight extremes to make my point. Let's say there's a young professional couple with a good income. They have five kids. Then, after having the kids, they lose their jobs and struggle to make ends meet. However when they had their kids they were earning enough to support the family. Surely that's different from a young couple or single person who start out on a low income and/or benefits deciding to have five kids, no?

My assertion is, whilst it's everyone's (legal) right to have as many kids as they want, surely if you know you're not in a financial position to support more than one or two, you should stop there, no?

In closing, I do understand there can be unplanned pregnancies, I think one of the woman on the show mentioned that i.e. that some of hers were not planned. Nevertheless, this won't always be the case.

What are your views on this?

As ex foster carer my experience was this is quite often the result of inept parents who think lots of kids means lots of child allowance .
Had youngest four siblings from a family of 9kids , every one of which has been through care system .Mums only regret was that as a result she lost her 5bed home and benefits , dad was too ****ed to notice the kids were missing .
As soon as the older girls left care they immediately got pregnant to obtain benefits and housing .
Another mother had 5 kids , one lost to care system , 4 to adoption then had another also adopted and last I heard was she was pregnant .
( but she was educationally below the norm, IQ of about 70).

 

[noseall]

When we had kids,

Ahh, the good ole days of £50k houses.

 

[Odds]

People generally over estimate the effect that Genetics have on IQ. It's predominantly environmental rather than Genetics (although Genetics is a factor). If you take a hundred children from a rich and high IQ family and swapped them with ones from a poor and low IQ family then the ones in the rich and high IQ family would still do better.

Did you watch 'Who do you think you are' last night?
I don't usually watch as i've either not heard of the person or their story isn't that interesting; but Andrew Lloyd Webber had an interesting history on both sides of his family. His father and mother had musical talent which extended back to the 18th century, on his father's side. There, he discovered a chap called Pieter Magito who'd been a member of a theatrical family; and another descendent who was a highly respected cellist in his day (as Webber's brother, Julian, is now). The music is in his blood; a genetic inheritance passed along the line. His mother was a gifted piano teacher, so he was brought up in a musical environment combined with that genetic heritage, which makes your point regarding genetics and environment.
Mind you, one of his grandfathers was a commander of Guards at Waterloo. Remember the film, when Wellington calls to Maitland, saying "Now Maitland, now's your chance!" as the French imperial Guard marched up the hill?
Lloyd Webber's ancestor led them with the immortal order to "Up Guards and at them!"
It's not enough he's descended from a man who fought at Waterloo but one of the key combatants on that day who turned the tide of battle decisively in the allies favour. Holy F**K!