The poor breeding

W1

DonDaddyD wrote:

LiT, dhope, W1,

Do you have children, want children or have been faced with the prospect of having children if you mind me asking?

Why though? If I earned 20k a year and wanted 10 kids then most people would rightly describe me as delusional or highly irresponsible. You live within your means, and that includes the number of offspring you produce.

And what are those means. The thread assumes that large families on lower incomes (what is a low income by the way) is dependant on child benefits. Can anyone prove this is the case?

No it wouldn't. What it would do would be to ensure that the parents think about whether they can afford to have any more children before doing so, which is a good thing for society and the children themselves.

To be fair in some circumstances I think having the child should come first. No one can say how much you need to earn before you can afford to have children. I think what you'll find is that even without child benefits the loving mother wouldn't regret having her kids.

The assumption seems to be having children is about the money and not the the child themself.

Not that I know of; don't know; no. What I can say is that I wouldn't consider having children until I knew I could afford to give them a decent up-bringing. If I never get to that position, I wouldn't expect the state to pick up the tab just so I can have children.

What we're talking about here is not people receiving child benefits. It's that there are people with large families who live off the state and are provided with more money and bigger houses the more children they churn out.

You can't separate "having the child" and being "financially responsible for it". The two go hand in hand. Why should "having the child" come first? There's no right to have children or a family. And, again, no-one is saying that you have to earn a certain amount before having kids - what I'm saying is that there should be a limit to state support which means that children which the parents cannot afford are not just churned out in the presumption that someone else will be responsible for it - because that doesn't sound great for the kid and doesn't sound great for the state either.

W1

rjsterry wrote:

W1 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

I do and I don't agree with what your saying. In principle I see the logic behind limiting how many children will receive child benefit per household. Such a law by extension would be stating how many children each family should have. I think that is wrong.

No it wouldn't. What it would do would be to ensure that the parents think about whether they can afford to have any more children before doing so, which is a good thing for society and the children themselves. That's all. Still no limit. But if you can't afford something, you don't have it, be that a third child or a Ferrarit. And there's no reason why the state should pick up the tab. There's also no right to having children - it is a massive responsibility, and if parents can't even make a responsibile decision as to whether they can afford a child in the first place I wonder how responsible they'll be when the child is growing up.

Bzzzt. Article 16(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Article 16.

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

But yes, it is a big responsibility.

RJS, you tease - you know exactly what I mean!

DonDaddyD

W1 wrote:

Not that I know of; don't know; no. What I can say is that I wouldn't consider having children until I knew I could afford to give them a decent up-bringing. If I never get to that position, I wouldn't expect the state to pick up the tab just so I can have children.

I don't think people pick expect the state to pick up the tab. I think people claim what they are entitled to. If I had a child and was entitled to child benefit I would claim.

What we're talking about here is not people receiving child benefits. It's that there are people with large families who live off the state and are provided with more money and bigger houses the more children they churn out.

The system provides them with a home that they can sufficiently raise a children. The system may not be the reason why they've decided to have a large family. If we took away the system would they still have or want such a large family, looking into their childrens eyes the love between parent and child, yes, I think they would. Could they provide for their family, depends on how much they're willing to work.

This is why I feel it is wrong to simply state (you didn't) that poor people breed for more money (paraphrase).

You can't separate "having the child" and being "financially responsible for it". The two go hand in hand. Why should "having the child" come first?

Because in my mind its never about money. More about circumstance some chosen and some thrust upon the individual.

- what I'm saying is that there should be a limit to state support which means that children which the parents cannot afford are not just churned out in the presumption that someone else will be responsible for it - because that doesn't sound great for the kid and doesn't sound great for the state either.

What about, for example an unemployed woman who is raped, falls pregnant chooses not to have the abortion (and no one can force her or tell her to do so, though we may think it selfish) but cannot afford to keep the child or wants the child?

Wallace1492

DonDaddyD wrote:

looking into their childrens eyes the love between parent and Money for Drugs, yes, I think they would.

See above - plenty in the run down estates that do this.

CiB

I can't help but point this out.

Insisting that the state will only support n children per family is inherently wrong, because for good or bad women aren't baby factories that can be switched on & off as the need arises.

Set the limit at 4, and there will be women [or families] who for whatever reason - and the reason itself doesn't matter - will go on to have a fifth, maybe a sixth too.

Do we then say in law that each child beyond number 4 is of lesser value and will not be supported in the same manner as his siblings? What are the likeliest consequences of that, from the child's point of view? Forget all the arguments about £20 additonal state benefits here & there and whether the parents deserve an extra room on the state-sanctioned house, it boils to whether society treats children differently depending on what number in the sequence they arrive. And for al my Telegraph supporting string everybody up side, even I can see that is just inherently wrong, especially in a high-value G7 rich nation like ours.

C. #3 of 6, fwiw.

gtvlusso

There is another angle to this......

Wimmin' have a "time limit" on kids.....I would guess that there is also a case for people who are of my generation, 35 to 40, who are not financially independant, but still want to have children before it is too late.

This financial predicamant may be no fault of their own - i.e. they are not so bright and career/job choice is very limited.

Should we deny these people the same rights that we who can afford kids already have?

if you get my drift....

jedster

Just did a quick google:

Jill Kirby, the chairman of the family policy group at the Centre for Policy Studies, said: "In recent years we've seen a decline in the fertility rate in middle-income groups. At the same time we've seen an increase in the fertility rate in both lower-income and higher-income groups.

"What is happening to the middle classes? We should be very concerned. These are the people who are struggling financially to have children. They don't benefit through the tax credit system and no longer get tax allowances for children.

"The overall rise in fertility rate is a good thing but for the sake of social cohesion we need to make sure that it is spread across income groups."

On Question Time last night someone mentioned an Institute of Fiscal Studies report saying something similar.

I'm not stating this as fact but I think it is highly likely to be true. Generally people do respond to economic incentives. If you are unemployed and have 2 children then the cost to you in having a third child is probably not that big - you will get more benefits. If you are working and earning, say, £30k you will probably not get a penny more. That is likely to focus the mind.

I think the language the bloke used was very insensitive and rather stupid but I think the issue he points too is a legitimate topic of discussion. Quite what you do about it I'm not sure. I don't thik we should be pushing children into poverty because their parents chose to have more children than they could afford to support.

Here is another article suggesting that increases to benefits for poor families has increased the birth rate.
http://www.bristol.ac.uk/news/2008/6077.html

lost_in_thought

DonDaddyD wrote:

What about, for example an unemployed woman who is raped, falls pregnant chooses not to have the abortion (and no one can force her or tell her to do so, though we may think it selfish) but cannot afford to keep the child or wants the child?

Woah, woah....

A woman wants to keep her rapist's baby? How often d'you see that happening? :shock:

I personally know people who've had kids just to get the bigger cheque and bigger house. They're leeches, living off the state, and frankly shouldn't be allowed to.

If I say what I think should happen DDD's head would probably explode, so I'm not going to.

DDD wrote:

There is always going to be more financially better off people. Are those people better equipped to have three kids, financially maybe. Should those people be entitled to have three kids over a household bringing in £20k-25k. No.

OK, let me put it another way, it's the way I see it so you may not like it.

If I have 3 kids (I'd probably only have 2, but you never know) I will have to pay for their expenses out of my own pocket, as I earn too much to be eligible for child benefit. I wouldn't even consider having kids until I was convinced I had enough cash to support them, and secure accomodation for me and my family.

I don't get any support at all from the state due to having worked hard enough to have a decent job.

Why should the family who are bringing in £20k get to have people like me subsidise their 3 kids?

Mostly a rhetorical question, not expecting an answer, just trying to illustrate my angle.

neiltb

lost_in_thought wrote:

Well, I think personally that it's a sense of responsibility - should you take out a loan if you can't afford to repay it? And if you can't afford to repay it and you knew you couldn't when you took it out, should you just be bailed out by the taxpayer?

In my opinion, definitely not.

...

well we now know LIT's thoughts on the bank bailouts too.

lost_in_thought

neiltb wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

Well, I think personally that it's a sense of responsibility - should you take out a loan if you can't afford to repay it? And if you can't afford to repay it and you knew you couldn't when you took it out, should you just be bailed out by the taxpayer?

In my opinion, definitely not.

...

well we now know LIT's thoughts on the bank bailouts too.

*sigh

http://vimeo.com/3261363

rjsterry

DonDaddyD wrote:

And for unplanned pregnancies there's an amazing new cure... I think it sounds a bit like 'distortion'.... it's very radical...

Firstly there is nothing wrong with an unplanned pregnancy. It happens. It is also not an illness to be cured.

An abortion is a deeply emotional decision for both the man and the woman (albeit physically for her as well). And something I know to be far easier to say than to live through.

Couldn't agree more, DDD. That's got to be one of the more thoughtlessly callous things I've read in a long time. "Cure"? FFS.

Anyway. Why should having children be subsidised/encouraged by the government? As I've already posted, the right to start a family is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; the government spends lots of our money upholding the other rights listed in the declaration, so why exclude having children from that? Procreating is about as fundamental to human existence as you can get - if you are of a Dawkinsian bent, you might even say the entire purpose of your existence is the propagation of your genes. I'd say that's something a government should be promoting way ahead of, say, a new trade agreement with wherever.

Whilst Britain (and the rest of the planet) isn't exactly short of human beings, we do need younger people to replace the older people when they die (and look after the older people for the few years preceding their deaths), and those younger people don't just appear from nowhere. Or are people still hoping engineers will come through with all those robots that were promised in the '70s?

DonDaddyD

lost_in_thought wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

What about, for example an unemployed woman who is raped, falls pregnant chooses not to have the abortion (and no one can force her or tell her to do so, though we may think it selfish) but cannot afford to keep the child or wants the child?

Woah, woah....

A woman wants to keep her rapist's baby? How often d'you see that happening? :shock:

Not that I know anyone personally, but you would be surprised. Sometimes incestuous too...

I personally know people who've had kids just to get the bigger cheque and bigger house. They're leeches, living off the state, and frankly shouldn't be allowed to.

I want to ask who? Anywho, didn't someone on here say that if there are a small minority who choose to abuse the jobseekers allowance system it doesn't make the system itself a bad thing or justify removing it.

I think the same of child benefit and housing support for families. I think there are more people with genuine claims that not.

If I say what I think should happen DDD's head would probably explode, so I'm not going to.

No say it, probably they should be sterilised or something....

OK, let me put it another way, it's the way I see it so you may not like it.

If I have 3 kids (I'd probably only have 2, but you never know) I will have to pay for their expenses out of my own pocket, as I earn too much to be eligible for child benefit. I wouldn't even consider having kids until I was convinced I had enough cash to support them, and secure accomodation for me and my family.

What if you're approaching 35 -40 and still aren't in the position where you're convinced you have enough cash or secure accomodation to support a family and you're broody?

I don't get any support at all from the state due to having worked hard enough to have a decent job.

Why should the family who are bringing in £20k get to have people like me subsidise their 3 kids?

I don't know. I think you should (like Greg66, that one made me laugh for a while) be entitled to child/state benefit. You hold a British passport right?

Point is I get you're angle more than you think.

W1

CiB wrote:

I can't help but point this out.

Insisting that the state will only support n children per family is inherently wrong, because for good or bad women aren't baby factories that can be switched on & off as the need arises.

Set the limit at 4, and there will be women [or families] who for whatever reason - and the reason itself doesn't matter - will go on to have a fifth, maybe a sixth too.

Do we then say in law that each child beyond number 4 is of lesser value and will not be supported in the same manner as his siblings? What are the likeliest consequences of that, from the child's point of view? Forget all the arguments about £20 additonal state benefits here & there and whether the parents deserve an extra room on the state-sanctioned house, it boils to whether society treats children differently depending on what number in the sequence they arrive. And for al my Telegraph supporting string everybody up side, even I can see that is just inherently wrong, especially in a high-value G7 rich nation like ours.

C. #3 of 6, fwiw.

Whilst I see your point (and I don't have an answer), I'd bet my hat that if state support for children stopped at (say) 2, there would be a very evident and immediate drop in three children families. In which case the problem wouldn't arise as much as you might think.

W1

DonDaddyD wrote:

What if you're approaching 35 -40 and still aren't in the position where you're convinced you have enough cash or secure accomodation to support a family and you're broody?

I would say tough. Why should the taxpayer pay for someone being broody? And more to the point what sort of upbringing does that indicate for the child?

If I hit mid life crisis and want an orange Lambo I wouldn't expect the state to pay for it either....

neiltb

lost_in_thought wrote:

neiltb wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

Well, I think personally that it's a sense of responsibility - should you take out a loan if you can't afford to repay it? And if you can't afford to repay it and you knew you couldn't when you took it out, should you just be bailed out by the taxpayer?

In my opinion, definitely not.

...

well we now know LIT's thoughts on the bank bailouts too.

*sigh

http://vimeo.com/3261363

why so sad lit, mr jarvis said that just before hos cute little bombs went off.

DonDaddyD

Whilst I see your point (and I don't have an answer), I'd bet my hat that if state support for children stopped at (say) 2, there would be a very evident and immediate drop in three children families. In which case the problem wouldn't arise as much as you might think.

And

W1 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

What if you're approaching 35 -40 and still aren't in the position where you're convinced you have enough cash or secure accomodation to support a family and you're broody?

I would say tough. Why should the taxpayer pay for someone being broody? And more to the point what sort of upbringing does that indicate for the child?

If I hit mid life crisis and want an orange Lambo I wouldn't expect the state to pay for it either....

W1

rjsterry wrote:

Anyway. Why should having children be subsidised/encouraged by the government? As I've already posted, the right to start a family is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; the government spends lots of our money upholding the other rights listed in the declaration, so why exclude having children from that? Procreating is about as fundamental to human existence as you can get - if you are of a Dawkinsian bent, you might even say the entire purpose of your existence is the propagation of your genes. I'd say that's something a government should be promoting way ahead of, say, a new trade agreement with wherever.

Whilst Britain (and the rest of the planet) isn't exactly short of human beings, we do need younger people to replace the older people when they die (and look after the older people for the few years preceding their deaths), and those younger people don't just appear from nowhere. Or are people still hoping engineers will come through with all those robots that were promised in the '70s?

But do we want people with no fiscal and personal responsibility populating the country whilst those who work and contribute can't afford to? I see a long term flaw in your plan if that's the case.

And I think you've somewhat stretched the declaration of rights. What that really means is that the state can't stop you getting married and having a family, not that the state is obliged to provide and pay for children....!

rick_chasey

W1 wrote:

But do we want people with no fiscal and personal responsibility populating the country whilst those who work and contribute can't afford to? I see a long term flaw in your plan if that's the case.

And I think you've somewhat stretched the declaration of rights. What that really means is that the state can't stop you getting married and having a family, not that the state is obliged to provide and pay for children....!

That State is obliged to give them a minimum level of quality of life, which, given that the UK is one of the wealthiest nations on the planet, I'd suggest it is able to afford.

tailwindhome

Have been away from my desk for a bit.

Is this thread worth reading?

rjsterry

lost_in_thought wrote:

<snip>
If I have 3 kids (I'd probably only have 2, but you never know) I will have to pay for their expenses out of my own pocket, as I earn too much to be eligible for child benefit. I wouldn't even consider having kids until I was convinced I had enough cash to support them, and secure accomodation for me and my family.

I don't get any support at all from the state due to having worked hard enough to have a decent job.

Why should the family who are bringing in £20k get to have people like me subsidise their 3 kids?

Mostly a rhetorical question, not expecting an answer, just trying to illustrate my angle.

Sounds to me like, "it's not fair: they get a small state contribution to bringing up their family and I wouldn't because I'm too wealthy." Supposing you save up get everything sorted and have your 2 or 3 children, and then you get run over or contract some chronic illness that means you can't work and can't support them. Are you going to save up/insure for that eventuality as well? Would you not see if you could claim some kind of financial support? Alternatively, what if one of the children is born with some chronic health issue or disability that requires extra care.

The point I'm trying to make is that if one waits until absolutely every conceivable eventuality is provided for having children would be restricted to the very wealthy or the very old (which has it's own biological problems).

wgwarburton

TailWindHome wrote:

Have been away from my desk for a bit.

Is this thread worth reading?

Rick Chasey's post above is a pretty good summary of where we're at with it at the moment...
Unless you're planning to get picky with someone, you could pretty much pick up from here.... :-)

Cheers,
W.
[edit: typo]

dhope

Rick Chasey wrote:

W1 wrote:

But do we want people with no fiscal and personal responsibility populating the country whilst those who work and contribute can't afford to? I see a long term flaw in your plan if that's the case.

And I think you've somewhat stretched the declaration of rights. What that really means is that the state can't stop you getting married and having a family, not that the state is obliged to provide and pay for children....!

That State is obliged to give them a minimum level of quality of life, which, given that the UK is one of the wealthiest nations on the planet, I'd suggest it is able to afford.

This, to an extent.
If, by limiting benefits, you're punishing the child then the benefit is required. I don't agree to the right to just pop out children for as long as you feel you want more but once said children are popped then they should be looked after. That said, while benefits exist that can support an irresponsibly popped kid then nowt to stop them being popped, so altering the benefit system may reduce poppage. Chicken and egg (ovarian) situation. Anywho, I'm getting flippant.

DonDaddyD

rjsterry wrote:

Sounds to me like, "it's not fair: they get a small state contribution to bringing up their family and I wouldn't because I'm too wealthy." Supposing you save up get everything sorted and have your 2 or 3 children, and then you get run over or contract some chronic illness that means you can't work and can't support them. Are you going to save up/insure for that eventuality as well? Would you not see if you could claim some kind of financial support? Alternatively, what if one of the children is born with some chronic health issue or disability that requires extra care.

The point I'm trying to make is that if one waits until absolutely every conceivable eventuality is provided for having children would be restricted to the very wealthy or the very old (which has it's own biological problems).

You're right of course.

And its not my place to talk about LiTs life (the little I know of it) and its extremely unusual for me to come to her defence. But I think that circumstances in LiTs years has led to her valuing, saving up and preparing for the uncertainty that life can bring.

I think there are other things she hasn't considered but not those that you've listed.

I'll leave it there.

DonDaddyD

WGWarburton wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

Have been away from my desk for a bit.

Is this thread worth reading?

Rick Chasey's post above is a pretty good summary of where we're at with it at the moment...
Unless you're planning to get picky with someone, you could pretty much pick up from here.... :-)

Cheers,
W.
[edit: typo]

There have been some humdingers in this thread, none of which I think have been generated by me...

rjsterry

W1 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

What if you're approaching 35 -40 and still aren't in the position where you're convinced you have enough cash or secure accomodation to support a family and you're broody?

I would say tough. Why should the taxpayer pay for someone being broody? And more to the point what sort of upbringing does that indicate for the child?

If I hit mid life crisis and want an orange Lambo I wouldn't expect the state to pay for it either....

I think if you are equating an urge to buy a stupidly expensive toy with a need to start a family, you might not 'get' what that need is like. I doubt you'd put yourself through several years of IVF, an experience that is stressful enough to destroy plenty of marriages/relationships and lead to clinical depression, for a car. Having children isn't equivalent to deciding to build an extension on the back of the house or buy a nice new motorbike. Having said this, I'd concede that some people do think of starting a family ion this way with disastrous results.

snailracer

Has anyone been to an antenatal class recently? The attendees seem to be made up entirely of teenagers and old "last chance" women, almost nobody I would consider of proper, healthy childbearing age at all.

Perhaps this comes about because it is actually very difficult to coordinate finances and childrearing? In which case, I don't blame women for taking the chance to squeeze one out while they have the financial opportunity, be that from state benefits or having earned enough money by deferring childbearing until early middle-age.

Sc00bs

The more I read on this site re: politics and opinion, the more I despair.

W1 you are truly an odious, jumped-up, whiny little boll0cks. You'd start an argument in an empty room. Your neo-con shitty attitudes to just about everything sicken me.

Perhaps you'd like to see the return of the workhouse? How about a good old fashioned dose of eugenics - after all it's only the feckless who pop out these awful unwanted children who exist only to prop up the feckless underclasses?

Any potential parent who is 'serious and responsible' about having kids can always reason they could be better prepared to take on this responsibility; bigger house, closer to good schools, mater & pater's inheritance received etc - life isn't like this for most people and it has a funny way of throwing surprises at you. Get a grip.

Mods plz ban (me or him - not fussed which)

lost_in_thought

DonDaddyD wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

What about, for example an unemployed woman who is raped, falls pregnant chooses not to have the abortion (and no one can force her or tell her to do so, though we may think it selfish) but cannot afford to keep the child or wants the child?

Woah, woah....

A woman wants to keep her rapist's baby? How often d'you see that happening? :shock:

Not that I know anyone personally, but you would be surprised. Sometimes incestuous too...

I personally know people who've had kids just to get the bigger cheque and bigger house. They're leeches, living off the state, and frankly shouldn't be allowed to.

I want to ask who? Anywho, didn't someone on here say that if there are a small minority who choose to abuse the jobseekers allowance system it doesn't make the system itself a bad thing or justify removing it.

I think the same of child benefit and housing support for families. I think there are more people with genuine claims that not.

If I say what I think should happen DDD's head would probably explode, so I'm not going to.

No say it, probably they should be sterilised or something....

OK, let me put it another way, it's the way I see it so you may not like it.

If I have 3 kids (I'd probably only have 2, but you never know) I will have to pay for their expenses out of my own pocket, as I earn too much to be eligible for child benefit. I wouldn't even consider having kids until I was convinced I had enough cash to support them, and secure accomodation for me and my family.

What if you're approaching 35 -40 and still aren't in the position where you're convinced you have enough cash or secure accomodation to support a family and you're broody?

I don't get any support at all from the state due to having worked hard enough to have a decent job.

Why should the family who are bringing in £20k get to have people like me subsidise their 3 kids?

I don't know. I think you should (like Greg66, that one made me laugh for a while) be entitled to child/state benefit. You hold a British passport right?

Point is I get you're angle more than you think.

In response to the 'getting to 35-40' thing, I personally still wouldn't unless I could afford it, any more than I'd buy, I dunno, a horse that I couldn't afford to keep.

And I do hold a british passport, yes.

The people I know are locals who I know from when I used to work in the pub. I know the girl of the couple, she seems to have fallen in with the ideas of he bloke's family and they're now on child #4, which she freely admits is so they'll get a bigger council house.

She also happily rattles on about how her washing machine broke and the council bought her a brand new one, and how she's planning to break her microwave so she can get a new one of those too. Galling.

I said I wouldn't tell you what I'd do, and I still think it's a bad idea to.

davmaggs

I think DDD you are trying to cover a lot of different strands to the argument.

I have first-hand knowledge that some girls (at school) do see a baby as a means of getting their own flat and independence, and they do carry out that plan. Whilst you can argue the reasons for why they do it and how to change the attitude you cannot claim that we do not have evidence that some people set out to get a free-ride on the state because there are people that do.

In many cases it is a sound business decision. They are better off than their peers busting a gut to earn £12k a year. Once you throw in housing, weekly benefits, travel, free school meals and a whole host of other things it adds up to a few quid. Not enough to buy a Bentley, but more that many souls who I see on public transport going off to menial jobs

Its also a sound economic decision for people to smuggle in children from abroad to act as domestics and as a means of getting benefits. That type of person is ruthless and wouldn't do that unless it was an earner.

What is concerning people at the moment is that the social contract may be breaking down. The people in the middle that pay their way, do the volunteering and abide by the rules are the ones that stumping up the money to support claimants. There must be a point at which the burden on them cannot increase any more.

From my point of view I know that I need to pay a certain amount of 'rent' to keep society decent, but the crums that I get back are being taken off me in ever increasing amounts for corporate and personnal welfare payments and my family is getting less and less of my money.

gtvlusso

gtvlusso wrote:

There is another angle to this......

Wimmin' have a "time limit" on kids.....I would guess that there is also a case for people who are of my generation, 35 to 40, who are not financially independant, but still want to have children before it is too late.

This financial predicamant may be no fault of their own - i.e. they are not so bright and career/job choice is very limited.

Should we deny these people the same rights that we who can afford kids already have?

if you get my drift....

Quoting myself again for @W1....